the second area in diabetes testing strip. we call beneficiary and said what is going on? why aren't you getting them. those are particular things. and in fact most of them had several months stored and so it was more of an inventory thing. they didn't need it. which was some of the issues we were hoping to address in the competitive bidding. we were getting folks what they needed and not more than they need. i think we have been comfortable. we will always continue to try to improve the program obviously we're getting ready to roll out the second portion soon. >> thank you very much. >> welcome. i join my colleagues in urning the chairman for expeditious. i enjoy the meetings, plural with you. i'm sure we'll have more in the future. let me just in full disclosure say that i'm not as confident

about affordable care act and the implementation being seamless and the cost being predictable. i don't believe it's the panacea that many people present from that table and some of the public comments. the truth is that the cost of affordable act is questionable. and the most alarming thing to me today is i can't find anybody in the administration that has a plan b. what if more people enroll in the state exchange meaning there's a employer dump. what if 30% of the employees that are dumped qualify for a subsidize? what happens when we run out of money in a health care plan that's been designed based upon fees and taxes that are not unlimited? what happens there's not enough money to make the payment. these are questions that have yet to be answered. we you quickly pointed to part d. and part d. success.

it's different than what we created with the affordable care act. it was designed to generate fierce competition between suppliers. part d. wasn't designed with subsidizes. it wasn't designed with fees and certainly didn't have the degree of mandate you find in the affordable care act. one thing i learned in health care is for everything that you require, health care is going to have a reaction to that. usually it's an increasing cost. let me ask you, you said you're using crob -- cbo. is it *7dz million ored million since it changed? >> $7 million. what do they estimate it will run to run the federally facilitated exchange? >> so i can get you that information, but i don't have it today. >> would you supply it for us? would you also supply with the total budget for the exchange

is? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. now you said earlier there are no premium increases and you cited a number of reasons. let me ask you the 3 and a half percent -- in the exchange and outside the exchange correct? >> yes, sir. >> if we're going require outside the exchange to pay a three and a half percent you don't agree it's going to have an effect on premium increase on people outside the exchange. >> i think some of the trends we are seeing will send some of --off set some of those. >> some but there are a premium increase. most of the average from the city industry looking at this there will be a $600 per year increase on a family plan. do you dispute that? >> i haven't seen that. i need take a look at that. >> okay. let me suggest to you that to make this statement that subsidizes don't allow premium

to go up is somewhat disingenuous. subsidies mask the cost. when you put a subsidize so somebody doesn't feel the personal effect we are masking the cost. i think that's one of the problem we have the affordable care act. nobody really understanding what the cost -- most just of implementation but the cost of running affordable care ak will be. now earlier senator enzi talked about actuary and you expressed your concern over actuary. will you commit to providing the committee with timely dealed impact analysis for all title i reform included in the health care lot? >> yes, sir. ly me -- going back to senator grassily's comments earlier about medicare advantage and what happened last monday, there is a point where we can go

public with what the premiums are. it will be later in the game, if you will, for the reasons we outlined. it's not until a premium is actually locked down we would be able to share that. so i suspect that will be probably late august or september. >> that's fine. but i hope you understand it's important for us all to be looking at the same numbers. you may interpret the impact drchtly. if it were entitled do that. it makes it impossible to analyze where we are and importantly where we're heading. >> as i understand we'll share. thank you for your time today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator o.k.. >>. >> she has to go to a hearing. [laughter] okay. i'll go fast since i'm in a

pickle here. >> actually rockefeller is ahead. you can defer to -- [inaudible] one, two, three. refer the leadership. >> just regular order. very quickly and thank you for your good work. i know, we worked together on many issues. i appreciate your expertise and concern and your caring. two quick questions. one relates to a specific hospital post merit and hospital mm center in new york. 250 beds, less than, it's a rural hospital. serves 120,000 new yorkers and a growing area of our state. the medical resident sei program was supposed to exempt from law from cuts but they were inappropriately misclassified in the spring of 2011. they were novembered the

medicare program was reducing graduate medical education by three slots. it's they are important it's a rural area. they use an hs to get. it's a busy hospital. here is the catch cms staff agreed it was wrongly classified. there was no dispute they should have been included. there's no method of appeal far wrong decision nap sounds more like russia communist russia. could you take look at that for me, please? >> certainly. >> great. second issue also specific and i'll be out. observation days, senator browne has introduced a bill i cosponsored, i don't know if he addressed it under current medical law patients must be categorized us inpatient for three dais before entering a nursing or rehab facility if

they want medicare to cover the cost. if no operation or major procedure is informed and in there three days are called under observation and the hospital says we don't need an operation. you need physical therapy. medicare doesn't cover them. you have hundreds of seniors, i'm sure it's thousands across america, because of the catch-22 of observation days, they end having to pay $,000 they needed because if the hospital would have done a procedure. fine. they are called observation. we introduced legislation for this. a number of observation days is going way up. can you take a welcome and see if there's a way without legislation it can be rectified. >> yes, sir, we happy to work with you team on it . >> senator schumer, i'm working on in west virginia which is prelicely what you diabetessed.

then they -- precised what you described first of all, i wanted to say that both you and the secretary have been before us on a number of indications and have been quite critical sometimes meetings in our officer or my office in open or closed meeting with the finance committee. as have others. but what is occurred to me is that -- sat there all by yourselves and taken the questions. and i'm of the -- belief that it's the most complex legislation ever passed by the united states congress tax reform, obviously is going to be huge. if it means up to this point it's beyond comprehension and all kinds of request and individuals for this, that, and the other thing. i have to say aadmire the way you handle it, the go about and

i look forward supporting your nomination. a couple of questions. you approve the arkansas, we began the talk about this before, and that is assistance instead of expanding medicaid as usual. which is inspite of the fact that even our arkansas admits it's going to be 13 or 14% more expensive to do that. i don't understand why that allowance was made. why the waiver was give. the whole business of the giving of waivers by cms to states is still something of the mystery to me. i'm sure there are explanations for some and not for the others. i don't know what was involved. this is a very clear case going to something which is clearly more expensive. arkansas want to pay more money?

>> arkansas -- let me start senator rockefeller. i think there's a lot of confusion and a lot of that generated by the press about what is going on with arkansas as it relates to premium assistance. they have approached an -- the idea of taking what historically has been done in premium assistance and trying to apply to medicaid expansion. we don't yet have a formal proposal from arkansas. we have not approved anything. let me start there. >> oh. >> so second thing that is important to know, though, we did put out some q & a or -- i'm not using q & a in a bad way but clarification around what premium assistance is and is not. and one of the things that we have stressed to -- we have a handful of states that are interested in the program, arkansas is one of them. so we tried to spend our time educating them about these are still medicaid beneficiary with

the same rights and protections of medicaid and the issue of cost effectivenesses, which before has always been a requirement and waiver. we will look, is there a band we're willing to take a look at if it would reduce the movement back and forth. but there have been no decisions made and approval granted to arc arkansas. >> i'm glad. i would worry about the level of health care the quality of health care for children. >> >> yes. >> under such app program. secondly, the -- on the matter of medicaid cost sharing, you put out a proposed rule, which means maybe you haven't done it, which actually goes up against what is authorized by the care

act, and i'm curious about that. you don't have much money to spend. and any kind of study is shown you tweak a little bit in this direction and you cause a lot of damage. and so are you still studying? >> we have done a proposed resume and accepting . >> will you come to making a decision? will they be able to opt out of that? >> so what -- and i'm happy to sit down and discuss it with you and your staff, but what bakely if you remember, you remember well, because you were involved in it. below 100% very small cost sharing. in fact it's in statute and the 100 to 133% there's a little more openness of cost sharing. a little higher percentage.

that's what we discuss in the proposed rule. but there is no opting out if the state decide they want to go that route. there are very small caps. there are like $4 or $5 of business. that was something in the proposed rule. we are happy to go over that with the team. >> so individuals could not opted out. >> it depends on what the state applies for. we have to look by a state by state basis. right now we are getting comments back is it something that states interested in in what would they like so see. >> mr. chairman, indulge me for a second. i get a answer like that. something has been done. >> i know. >> and then you say let me get back to you on that. let me come talk with your staff on that. we had good staff meetings as a result. you have been faithful and good on that.

but it worries me because it is so complicated. if it isn't done right the first time it will get worst. and the bill has been voted. it's not a question of trying to get constituent sei exempting the hospital until 2019, maybe that was necessary to get the the american hospital association support. i don't know i didn't like it. we are past that point now. rulemaking should be made in term of the best interest of the accountable care act taking the needs of the state in to mind. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mrs. tavenner great to see you. thank you for i've been concerned about the failure to implement the basic health plan of 2014. i recently received a letter from secretary inteel you would

issue a time line the program would be implemented as the law states. i mean, as fully operational with states being able to receive 95% of the tax credit value in 2015. so first i want to ask you -- well in general i wanted to ask you about your belief about the basic health plan. what do you think is valuable about, and your commitment to that 2013, april 15th deadline. >> we are committed to the april 15th deadline. i real that's monday. we will have information to you then. we started to work informally with the state on the issue. and we certainly unthat the basic health plan is an important piece of the affordable care act and so you are our commitment to implement budget. >> what do you any is important? >> i think it gives states

option for the states who want to try something innovative and obviously a cost effective strategy as well. >> you think it saves money? >> it certainly can. that's not the main reason for doing it. it's an important reason. it can provide an approach important. >> managed care. is that what you're saying. coordinated you mean managed care. >> no, i mean, coordinated care. >> well, we'll look forward to seeing those guidelines then on by next monday. and just to be clear, the basic health plan per individual. let's take somebody making just over $17 ,000 a year. who applies for this? they would save about let's say $1,161 in health care cost for an individual. so that versus the exchange huge

savings for the individual. the urban institute said if all states implemented this. this is a report they did in 2011. if all states implemented this we would save, the federal government would save $1.3 billion a year. so there's obviously a lot at stake for the federal government in the savings and individual states, for example, our state would save something like $17 3 million per year. this is the urban institute who did the analysis. what we accomplished here is be able to bundle up that population as just above the medicare rate. bundle them and make them interesting were insurers were interested before. and the discussion of that has been able to get a better rate for individuals and better obviously cost effective rate for providers and that's why they participated. and to get a cost effective rate for the taxpayers. i'll look forward to seeing that

on monday and would love to support your nomination throughout the process, but i want to see this information. so thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. a couple of questions, mr. tavenner. did you read the piece in "time" magazine. >> yes. >> tell us what you think is the most valid criticism. why spend more on the health care system in our country than we should. what were the best points there? >> chairman back us bacchus, i'll start with three observations from the piece which is obviously a lengthy piece and well done. the first one is that obviously the issue of hospital charges is a tremendous problem. it's a tremendous problem from the standpoint of consumers trying to figure it out and a

tremendous problem of hospitals trying to . >> indication in prices which -- what the cost were and a lot of people didn't know what it was. >> right. >> i agree. >> the second piece is that from the insurance perspective going back to what i said earlier, i think a lot of people found out adequate insurance coverage and they got to a costly illness they did not. that was the second take away. the third take away is really that -- i thought and maybe i can't be objective on this issue. that medicare the work that congress and cms have done around medicare cost look pretty stronged in the -- strong in the

arm. my take away from that there's no relationship between charges and cost and how do we educate the american public about that? and it's difficult to be educate when quite honestly, you know, you have broken your arm and on the way to the emergency department. we are looking at ways to get more transparency out to the public around the issue of hospital charges and costs. >> i also took away from the article that implied more to people of -- don't have insurance. or individual market. >> right. >> compared with the employees have insurance the company. even there difference there between the actual costs and charges is still quite significant. even with larger hospital insurance companies -- larger employees providing health insurance for the employees. >> and more we educate employers

and beneficiary the more they'll pay attention as well. >> how much is education? is it a complex subject, you know, somebody gets the bill from the hospital nobody can understand it. >> that's what we're looking at now. we would like to work with you. >> what might some of the things be? >> i think understanding for what is in the authority. we certainly have the ability to publish the information and do some comparison. we also have the ability to encourage states. some states have more robust programs about the relationship between charges and costs. so those are a couple of areas question start working with states. working nationally to get the information out. >> be aggressive in the area because of the care is such a large payer can influence others in the private sector. and the commercial market. second, many of us met with some

experts -- i we thought they were expert in health care economics and -- they are experts. and one suggested quite strongly one mentioned his name and you will certainly know anymore i were to mention his name. that cms can do a better job and much more quickly in moving it from the fee-for-service reimbursement more to reimbursement. i asked the question of the person what can be done? the person said cms should set a deadline. ten years from now 90% will no longer be fee-for-service. it will be based on -- aco and payment or whatnot. but felt strongly that somebody needs to light a fire under cms. they are not moving fast enough. >> chairman bacchus, that's

interesting. i hear of the opposite concern, needless to say from consumers in the take measured approach. we made more changes and the affordable act gave us a lot of authority to do so to get away from fee-for-service and move more to whether payment for quality or avoiding the readmission. i think a lot of work has gone on in the last three years. and i'm proud of that work. there's no question there's a more to do. and we could probably move faster in some areas, particularly if you look at our current growth and spent, it's kind of move the some from the work that we have done around hospitals to more the outpatient sector. there's probably targeted things we do in the -- to move a little faster.

maybe the target was a wrong target. if you don't set target, you don't set date and deadline and benchmark it submit you're not going to do as well as you we -- i'm happy to share with you. we're asked to share those. so we can work together to get these done. okay. senator wyden. >> thank you, chairman. i appreciate your curtesy. mrs. tavenner, welcome. i appreciate the substitutions with you. as you know, i feel strongly it's time for the government to finally mobilize and take care

of the millions and millions of seniors who can be taken care of at home and we haven't been able to reach them with good quality care largely because over the years studying and studying and studying. it goes back to the days, i was telling my friend senator rockefeller. i was director of the great panther, we were circulating petition to get more care for seniors at home. now we finally got what chairman -- home model to the affordable care act and giving us a chance to really move like the va has in order to give people better care. where they want and save substantial sum of money. my understanding is that you all are beginning something called rapid cycle evaluation group. kind of a mouthful. i gather it's a fast way to really determine how to look at these care models like

independents at home and when they do, show that you can get better quality at lost cost. they can be accelerated and serve to address the needs of more seniors. would you support including the independent at home program in this rapid cycle evaluation group? i hope i'm using the right term. >> you are using the right term. yes, of course. it's ban great project. i too support more care in the proper setting. and so yes, we will use the same type of evaluation and we should know something. >> very good. >> the other question i have deals with chronic care. as you know, independents at home is for the very sickest individuals. people who so often, you know, are home bound. there are million of other seniors who essentially need chronic care. they may not face the same kind

of challenges being home bound, but they're walking around, for example, with high blood pressure, diabetes, a host of problems. it seems to me that not enough has been done to address the needs of the chronic care population. of course it's about 70% of the medicare dollar. so when we find better ways to take care of the chronic care population, the better quality and lower cost, to a great extent we fix medicare. we have a lot of debate about raising age and all kinds of things. here is a way to help people get better quality care at lower cost. have you looked at trying to come up with a kind of health-home option for states and medicaid programs for the chronically ill beneficiary? because it seems to me that this would be another way using really existing authority.

we can step up our attack in terms of improving care for the population as senator rockefeller started years and years ago. >> yes, sir, we have. we actually have some medicaid health-home model that started small in number. they are starting to catch on. we work with states to make it happen. obviously in medicare, some of the work we're doing in innovation center is around the medical health home. >> the time for the vote is about to expire. would you look at extending this model we are talking about for medicare to medicare. yes or no? >> yes, i would look tat. >> very good. thank you. i'm looking forward to supporting you. senator rockefeller, thank you for the extra time. >> thank you, mrs. traf for your presence. i look forward to voting for you. thank you. former british prime minister margaret thatcher tie-dyed on monday. this morning the --

first female prime minister. we'll have live coverage from london at 9:30 eastern on c-span 3. the senate meeting today to consider consideration work on gun legislation senates will vote tomorrow on moving forward on the bill. right now the measure includes background checks for every firearm. two senators who have been working on gun control legislation are expected to announce today they reached a comprise west virginia democrat joe mansion and republican pat trick -- live coverage of the senate on c-span2. covetousness, anger or anything that is unlike you. replace our negative with positives, making us lowly,

peaceable, patient, and kind. lord, fill our lawmakers with faith, a firm hope, and a charity that they love nothing that displeases you. raise them up to be seated with you in heavenly realms, as they strive to be instruments of your purposes. thank you for being rich in mercy and for your grace that never gives up on us. we pray in your merciful 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., april 10, 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: following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the gun safety legislation. the first hour equally divided with the republicans, and they will control the first half, and we will control the final half. last evening i filed cloture on the motion to proceed to that

legislation. hopefully today we can reach an agreement to begin debate on this bill even today. i also hope to formalize an agreement for confirmation of sarah jewell to be interior secretary. mr. president, i'm told -- i believe this is right -- there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the senator is equity cr. -- the senator is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bills for the second time. the clerk: a bill to rescind amendments appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for the department of defense for the medium-extended air defense system and for other purposes. s. 61, a bill to regulate large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to these two bills. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the

bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, for many months now, our republican friends have promised the impacts of sequesters would be minimal, don't worry about them. have thewhen they voiced any con over the potential impact of the sequester you it was o, it was e military. now it's april and contrary to the republican promises, americans and communities from massachusetts to nevada, coast to coast, red states and blue states, are beginning to feel the pinch of those board board cuts. here in the district of columbia, tourists traveling home from different places -- i'm sorry, traveling from home to here for the national cherry blossom festival experience long

lines at airport security because of these furloughs. coming home from nevada on sunday, there were mobs of people, but they -- if you sat down and talked to any of them, they would tell you how miserable it was trying to get lou the security checks at airports all over the country. in utah, a food pantry that feeds more than 1,000 people every month has closed because of these cuts. and in durham, north carolina, scores of employees at a medical research facility will get pink slips. in central maine, fewer senior citizens will be able to participate with meals on wheels. in bethlehem, pennsylvania, more than 1 radi 100 children are goo be kicked off head start. now maybe my republican friends don't feel this, but i guarantee you, the parents of these little

children in bethlehem, pennsylvania, feel it. people waiting in the airport lines, they feel it. why at this medical research facility should these people get pink slips in are they unnecessary? of course not. the food pantry in utah closes. are the people still hungry? of course they are. in still nebraska, emergency response times have increased significantly since a local airport control tower closed. in south ohio, a man by the name of steve nolder fired himself. did he that, mr. president, rather than lay off other members of his staff. he figured i'm one; i can save three people's jobs, and that's what he did. that's quite unbelievable, but it's true. he's worked there for 18 years in the public defender's

oftentimes he gave up his job so three could keep theirs. but perhaps most concerning of all, many cancer centers across the country are facing difficult choices. mr. president, for people who have experienced cancer or cancer in their family, this is something that is noted. community cancer centers around the country are facing a very difficult choice: send medicare patients away or just close the doors. "the washington post" reports that because of the sequester cuts to medicare reimbursements, cancer centers around the country can no longer afford to administer many common drugs. mr. president, for people who have watched loved ones have chemotherapy -- it was just a few months ago that people worried about whether they were going to be able to get the chemo drugs because there was a

shortage. well now it's widespread. the "post" reports, "because of the sequester cuts to medicare, rye imbursements for these cancer centers around the country have to make a choice." close or change their hours. it's tough on the patients. these clinics are two-thirds of the cancer patients receive treatments would lose so much money so quickly they would have to go out of business. so providers are sending cancer patients to overcrowded hospitals instead, not at the cancer centers. and for patients in clinical trials for these new cancer drugs, lifesaving experiments, the situation is really dire. some in these clinical trials, mr. president, are going to have to travel across the country,

washington, d.c., boston, or new york. people can't afford that, especially when they're sick. as i said last month, the affects of so-caught sequester didn't break us like a big wave. they sneaked up on us like a rising tide and that tide is here nowvment th now. the effects are devastating, though we didn't feel it immediately. and there's more pain to come. in the coming months, meat inspectors, border patrol agents will be furloughed. there will be 750,000 job losses because of the sequester across the country. the overwhelming majority of americans wanted us to compromise before their friends and family members got pink slips or furlough notices or were told there's no more treatment for you, even though you have cancer. for some it's already too late. we can't repair that damage

perhaps, but we can repair the damage done and we should do it immediately and put americans back to work. no more furloughs. to give our economy a foundation of growth, we must replace the sequester with a balanced approach to deficit reduction. a balanced approach, one that asks the richest among us to contribute a little bit more, a fair share, to deficit reduction. and, mr. president, the rich are willing to do this. if we did this, we would avert cuts that hurt american families, harm military readiness and hinder our economic recovery. mr. president, i want everyone within the sound of my voice to double-check my statistics here, but i heard on the radio on the way to work that the pentagon has decided that one-third of all of our aircraft simile won't be used because they don't have -- simply because they don't have enough to fuel them. that training won't go forward. that's what i heard on the

radio. i'm quite confident that's right. mr. president, in the house and senate, both republicans and democrats voted to impose these cuts quite a long time ago. so it's going to take republicans and democrats working together to avert them. that's what we need to do. this is senseless to go on as we are with these cuts that are with a meat cleaver, not a scaa- not a scalpel. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to senate 649, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 32, s. 649, a bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every

firearm sale and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: in about an hour the president of the united states will release his budget. 65 days after the statutory

deadline of february 4, the first monday in february. since taking office, president obama has raised taxes roughly $1.7 trillion. a number that i know none of us can actually comprehend. but now he wants to raise taxes once again. i heard the majority leader on the floor this morning advocating for another tax increase. the president's proposed budget will ask for another $800 billion and that's on top of $600 billion that was the subject of the fiscal cliff negotiations just at the end of last year. the president's budget, which will be released in an hour, but which we've heard a lot about already, will never, ever actually balance. every household in america, 49

states, every municipality, county government, everyone else in america has to live within their means, but not the federal government. and the president's budget, as i said, does not purport to live within our fiscal means and it does not balance. but the president says this is a compromise. i heard his spokesman on television say this is not the president's ideal budget, this is what he views as a compromise. but here's the simple reality: america cannot afford this budget, and the president and -- and america cannot afford the president's so-called compromise. let's review some recent history. in november and december of last year, republicans were asking the president to embrace serious entitlement reform. everyone who has looked at medicare and social security realizes that both of these programs are on a path to

insolvency and they will not be there for future generations. and we asked for some mart reductions -- smart reductions in federal spending. what we've come to know as wasteful washington spending. in exchange for more revenue. the president refused, citing the need a balanced approach. but i don't want anyone to confuse that with a balanced budget. the president calls for a balanced approach but never a balanced budget. meanwhile, as treasury secretary made clear the white house was absolutely prepared to go over the fiscal cliff, this was in december, unless republicans agreed to raise taxes. we didn't have much choice because we were going to be after the expiration of the so-called bush tax cuts they were going to go up by operation of law. but now after getting more than a trillion dollars in new tax revenues as part of obamacare, and after getting a separate

$620 billion tax increase on january 2 that i just talked about as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations, the president's back for more. it seems like that's his knee-jerk solution to every fiscal issue, more taxes, more spending, and more debt. not only would his proposed budget raise taxes by more than $800 billion more, it would increase annual spending by $2 trillion by 2023 and increase our national debt even more by $8 trillion. for those keeping score, our gross debt is already increased by more than $6 trillion since the president was sworn into office. it's already larger than our entire gross domestic product. in other words, our entire economy. and we're already spending more than $200 billion a year just on

interest payments. and here's the risk, one of the risks of this huge overhang of debt. if interest rates were just to go up by one percentage point that we had to pay our creditors like china to buy our debt, that's $1.7 trillion in additional interest we'd have to pay on the debt for each percentage point over a ten-year period of time. so you can begin to see very quickly how payment of interest and payment of mandatory programs would quickly crowd out everything else, including national defense expenditures. a serious long-term fiscal plan must include three elements. pro-growth tax reform which we stand ready to do, structural medicaid-medicare reform which we stand ready to do because we believe we need to reserve and protect medicare for future generations. and number three, a realistic strategy for reducing our long-term debt burden before we

experience a european-style debt crisis. unfortunately, president obama's budget does none of that. last year speaking about america's national debt his treasury secretary told the republican chairman of the house budget committee -- quote -- "we're not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term debt problem. what we do know is we don't like yours." close quote. since that time, our national debt has grown by 1.7 -- excuse me, $1.4 trillion. now more than ever america needs a definitive solution to our debt problem. now more than ever we need a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution, like one that has been cosponsored by every member on this side of the aisle. now more than ever amid the longest stretch of high unemployment -- highest unemployment since the great depression, we need nerve --,

innovative, pro-growth tax reforms that encourage investment and private-sector job creation. yet the president is still offering more of the same. more taxes, more spending, and more debt. to paraphrase a famous diplomat, it seems the president never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday i was proud to congratulate coach pitino and the louisville men's basketball team for an impressive national championship win, and today i'd like to

recognize coach walsh and the lady cardinals for playing their hearts out last night. they were the lowest seeded team to make it all the way to the title game in decades, and that's really quite an achievement. so my sincere congratulations to you, lady cards, keep up the hustle for next year's tournament, and to the connecticut huskies, congratulations on your hard-fought victory last night. you earned it. now, on an entirely different matter, later today everyone everyone -- excuse me. later today, we'll seef he receive the president's budget. like nearly every one of his budgets so far, it's late. really late. the extra two months he's kept the country on hold, both the house and the senate, have actually already passed their own budgets. so it's hard to see what the white house plans to accomplish

here. i want to believe the intention is not to purposefully blow up the budget process so the president can campaign against the very budget process he blew up, but from the reports we're seeing, it's getting harder and harder not to draw that conclusion. after all, the document headed our way does not appear designed to bridge the differences between the house and senate-passed budgets. that's the role americans would expect the president to play at this stage. but his budget simply does not represent some grand pivot from left to center. it's really just a pivot from left to left. i mean, if these reports we're seeing are correct, it's mostly the same old thing that we've seen year after year after year. and that's really too bad, because it's not like we don't know the kinds of things that need to be done to get our

budget back to balance and americans back to work. we need to provide families and businesses a fairer and flatter tax code so they can save for the future and create jobs. we don't need a budget that piles on tax increase after tax increase. we need to get government out of the way so the private sector can actually grow again. we don't need a budget that spends more money don't want have. we need a balanced budget that encourages growth and job creation, we don't need an extreme, unbalanced budget that won't balance in your lifetime or mine. now, white house initially made some fantastic claims about the amount of deficit reduction supposedly contained in its budget. but when you cut through the spin and get to the facts, it looks like there's less than $600 billion worth of reduction in there and that's over a decade, all of it coming not

surprisingly, from tax increases. in other words, it's not a serious plan. for the most part just another left-wing wish list. let me clarify a wish list actually with an asterisk. the president seems prepared to finally concede this time at least something needs to be done to save entitlements from their inevitable slide toward bankruptcy. i'm glad to see him begin to come to grips with the math here. it's well past time for reform and it's something the president ought to want to do because he presumably cares about saving entitlement programs, not just because he wants yet another excuse to raise taxes. now, as we start to think about reforming entitlement programs, we should think about reform this way -- will the changes we make help modernize entitlements over the long term in order to eventually meet the needs of a rapidly aging population in a realistic way?

or will they just kick the can down the road without actually solving the problem? remember, kicking the can down the road is how we goat goth to this point in the first place. so we need to have the courage to finally make the tough decisions americans sent us here to make. if the president and his allies care about social security and medicare, and i take them at their word that they do, then they need to prove that commitment by proposing reforms to save them. this budget is their chance to do that, and i hope they will. but if they choose to continue using these programs as campaign weapons instead, then the math points to a clear outcome. the 234eu789 programs so many americans rely upon will go bankrupt, and today's washington democrats will have to live with that legacy. we can't get to that point, but republicans only control a tiny sliver of the federal

government, so there really isn't much we can do until the president and his allies get serious about reform. it's way past time they did. we don't need another reheated budget. we've had enough of those in the past few years. we need a serious, reform-oriented budget. sadly, i don't believe we'll see that one today. mr. president, i yield the floor.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i'd like to be recognized to speak on the budget. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. portman: so today finally we're going to see the president's budget, so we're told. when you look over the history of the last few decades, never has there been a budget submitted so late. the budget is due in february, as we know.

with the exception of the first term of a president's term, this would be the latest submission in decades. i hope the wait will have been worth it. i hope what the president submits today is something serious that helps us address really the central challenge of our times. i see there are some young pages on the floor today and there are lots of young people who i met with this morning from ohio state university and i told them the same thing that i will say today, which is that their future is at stake. it is about our economy today, but it is really about the future. are we going to get control of these record debts and deficits and continue to turn our country toward the america that has been something that we so much have taken for granted over the past century, which is an america that's growing, that's prospering, where wages are going up, where we have the ability to chart our own course, or are we going it continue the slide that we're on now where wages have actually gone down,

where america's deficit and debt continues to grow at unacceptable levels, where we risk a financial crisis as we've seen in southern europe, countries like greece, places where they didn't watch what was happening in terms of their fiscal house, they allowed the debts and department ofs t depae they became the largest part of their economies. as of this year, we're told that our gross debt is now the size of our entire economy. there are studies out there that indicate that when we goat that kind of a level, there's a big impact on economic growth. we're syria certainly seeing t e living through the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. whether it is measured in terms of jobs, we just had a disappointing report on the jobs front last month showing we only gained about 88,000 jobs, disappointing all of the projectioprojections.

almost 500,000 people left the workforce. we now have the lowest participation rate that we've had since the days of jimmy carter. that's over three decades. and in some ways the policies of jimmy carter have been replicated over the last few years in the sense of larger government, more regulations. and we're seeing an economy that's starting to resemble what happened back in the carter days. e. wwe need to provide opportuny for americans to get to the second and third and fourth wrung. these job numbers relate back to the deficit and debt. there is a study by economist es reinhardt and rogoff that said we would have a million more jobs if not for these numbers.

this is the fourth year in a row, never in the history of our country, have we had debts and deficits of $1 trillion. and yet the president's budget, it appears, will not fundamentally change the course we're on. i think from what i've heard from the media reports, we'd add about $7 trillion to our debt over the next ten years. put you arputting our debt at al where it's the entire size of our economy, where we have unfortunately continued economic doldrums because we can't get out of this huge overhang of debts and deficits. it is time to make a change of it is a moment for truth. it is an opportunity to address the challenge. my fear is that the president's budget will not be adequate to meet the challenge. there are some things in the budget that will be positive. i understand that the president is likely to propose a more

accurate level of inflation when we're talking about how to adjust for cost of lisping and the programs, including the vital but unsustainable program of social security. social security this year is actually in deficit, meaning that $77 billion is projected to be spent for benefits in social security greater than the amount of payroll taxes coming in. so people who say social security is okay, it is in fine shape, well, $77 billion shortfall not okay. also we are told that the disability trust fund will be insolvent, bankrupt, belly-up by 2016. that's just a few years from now. more people have gong on -- more people have gone on disability than have been added to the work payrolls.

even if you include the fundamental trust fund for social security, that will be insolvent by 2033. that's not that long from now. folks are retiring today, many of whom are like lie to live to that point. for retirees today they're looking at the possibility of this trust fund going bankrupt. what happens then? there's a 25% cut in benefits. that's the law. so with this hemorrhaging every year, this year again about $77 billion, with these trust funds heading towards insolvency, social security has to be addressed. i commend the president for saying let's use the right measure for inflation. it actually increases taxes as well because there won't the same adjustment for the rates for indexing on the income tax side. so there is both revenue gain through in proposal and also there are some savings on the programmatic side because the

more accurate measure of inflation is used. this is a controversial issue among some folks. i understand that. i commend for putting it in the budget, as i'm told he will. vog saihaving said that that's e step in the right direction. innineven with that proposal, social security will have its enormous shortfalls. on the high-income side, i am told the president may make a proposal to reduce spending in health care. i think that's a good thing but not adequate to the task before us. i'm told it will be $4 00 billion. we can argue where that comes from, but it looks like most of it will come out of providers, in other words, the people that are providing health care to lower their reimbursement at a time when more and more are saying we're not interested in providing care under medicare and medicaid because the reimbursement is already too low. so we need to be careful how it is done. but let's assume we could agree on the $400 billion. that would mean instead of the

doubling over next ten years would go up 100%. would double. so point is that we have a challenge in front of us that requires a much more aggressive approach. it requires us to be honest with the american people, requires us to tell the american people things are not going well. we're not turning the corner because these incredible deficits and debts don't enable us to do that. it is like a shadow over the economy. and it is a wet blanket on the economy today, and unfortunately for the young people listening today, it's going to affect their futures in very significant ways if we don't address the problems. so we'll see what happens with this budget proposal today. i'm hopeful that it will have more in terms of savings than has been suggested in the media. and those savings that are in there i think we ought to support, as republicans and democrats alike, and then encourage the president to work with us on taking it to the next level. to truly address this challenge. on the tax side we're told the

president is likely to recommend additional increases in tax. now, you remember that taxes were increased about $620 billion already this year, juniojusta few months ago. so the ink is barely dry on that huge tax increase -- some would argue the largest in the history of our country -- and yet the apparent is apparently likely to recommend taxes at that level again. $00 billion or more. some say it is more like $1.5 trillion, which was in the democrat offer here on the are senate floor. but whatever it is, we have to acknowledge that increasing taxes again is going to hurt the economy. there's no question about it. the question is whether it's appropriate to have a higher level of taxation in our economy. well, let's think about this for a minute. we're told by the congressional budget of course, which is the nonpartisan group that analyzes all of these budget proposals, that currently we have taxes as a percent of our economy, which is probably how you ought to look at it, in levels in 2015

which would be our historic average. so in a few short years we're looking at taxes that they say 19.1% of the economy. typically it's about 18.3%. so it is higher than average. so we're already under current law looking at higher taxes partly because of the fiscal cliff agreement and the $620 billion in new taxes that were raised over ten years. the spending, on the other hand, which is already at levels higher than the historic average, which is about 20% -- today it is at about 23% -- is projected to go up and up and up. over the next few decades according to the c.b.o., it goes from 20% to on an average over the last 50 years toss about 39%. and then frankly they stop counting because they just can't imagine spending at that level because we have no sense of how to get revenue at that level. no one is talking about taxes that would be increased that high. it would be tripling the taxes at least.

so these are issues we need to talk about, as a country. how much taxation do we want to have on our economy? how much spending do we want to have? i think what we ought to do is come up with a planning. ten years from now, where do we want to be? republicans are calling for a balanced budget. you stop spending more than you take in much the democrats would like to see more taxes. we need to combed come up with thacks essential. we need to bein acknowledge to r issue is not the revenue. instead, it is the spending. that must be addressed. i thank the president for his indulgence and again i ask my colleagues on both sides, let's work together to get america back on track, to solve with this problem that if we don't deal with it will not allow our mi to prosper and will not allow america to be the beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world.

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i find myself echoing the words of the previous speaker, my good friend from ohio. i could have given his speech, and he probably could have given mine because we're both on the same track here. this is an important day. the president will release his budget for 2014. while it is late, it is welcome. we now have three budgets in place. the nationa senate has voted 0ea budget, the house has voted on a budget and the president will be bringing his budget buffs. we now have the outlines of the beginning of a discussion and a debate and action that must take place in the next several months. we have wide differences in terms of how we need to get to where we need to get to. but at least now we have something to work off of, and i

am just urging my colleagues and urging the president that we work together to achieve what is necessary to put this country on a path to fiscal health. it can be over a period of years. 4 it can be measured out in terms of where we now are in the economy and what needs to be applied now versus what needs to be applied later. but i have said over and over from this platd form and others -- platform and others that if we do not incorporate discipline in our spending, clearly out-of-control spending that continues to grow year after year and grow by deficit each year and grow by borrowing each year, putting our country in an ever more difficult position, if we do not include disciplined spending within this budget, we won't acheech -- a achieve what we need to achieve. secondly, if we do not address

our out-of-control mandatory spending, we will never achieve what we want to achieve and will continue to find ourselves in ever deeper holes. the previous speaker, senator portman from ohio, talked about the urgency of our need to make structural reforms in the mandatory spending programs. now, those who say, oh, you can't touch this, this has been promised to the american people and we cannot begin to even address this issue, these should be exempt, those are simply individuals that are immune to the reality of the current situation that stands before us. and that is that these programs are going broke. they are unsustainable under their current rules, under the current financial measures that are putting money into the programs, with the money going out. so those organizations -- i won't name them here but i will at some point in time, i think we all know who they are -- those organizations that are

flooding seniors with mailings saying don't let them touch your social security, don't let them touch one dime of your medicare, you deserve every penny and every penny more, they're lying to those people because they simply are telling them that they're going to be in a situation where their benefits are going to be reduced dramatically in just a few years down the line in order to keep the programs from going insolvent. so if you really want to care for and look out for those depending on social security and depending on medicare in their later years, we need to stand up now, tell them the truth and do what is necessary to save those programs. standing by and doing nothing, standing by and listening to the outside interest groups who are trying to scare them to death means you are denying those people the future income benefits that they are receiving under social security and medicare. so let's have the courage to stand up and do what is right

because we're doing what is right for the very people that are being told what we're trying to do here is take something away from them. someone said on this budget coming forward -- and we don't have all the details -- while there's the good, the bad, and the ugly. i would prefer to say there's the good, the not so good and the why are we doing this in the first place. but however we categorize this, let's first of all give the president some credit for taking that first small step toward raising the issue of mandatory spending. and my understanding is that the president will suggest a modification of the consumer price index which is used to provide for increases each year in these various programs. now, once again,, we get this doomsday you can't touch this, and this is an index that is not correctly applied.

we're simply trying to bring this in line with the reality of what the actual cost of living is for our seniors. and yet even suggesting this gets the printing presses rolling at all the interest groups and gets us send us ten bucks and we'll save your social security going and everything else, even this correction which the president has proposed is being criticized, which is beyond description in terms of how people try to take advantage of our seniors and those on these programs. but let's give the president credit for putting this in play. it's a small step, it's not nearly as far as we need to go, there are other structural reforms that we have to address, but let's at least acknowledge that the president has come forward with something substantial here as a modest first step. secondly, though, the not so

good. the call for new spending, new stimulus. we've been through this. we've had nearly a trillion dollars of stimulus, about 9/10 of which is now documented as not stimulating but turning out to be a poor government-selected so-called investment in the future that has defied -- that the market has basically said it doesn't work. it doesn't work this way. so -- solar manufacturing plants closing all over the world, wind farms raised through subsidies yet they cannot connect to the grid and, you know, ignores the new discoveries in natural gas and fossil fuel reserves here in america, the cost benefit is way out of balance. when i hear the word -- now it's called investment, not stimulus anymore. investment, it's another code word for stimulus, and what

that means is it is a code word for we will decide where this money goes. the problem is, the political animal gets its hands around it and the money goes to beneficiaries of -- or supporters, for political reasons, anyway, the government shouldn't be in this business. that's the not so good. because it includes $1.5 trillion of additional net federal spending. and at today time when our spending is out of control, how can you come forward with a budget that adds more than $1.5 trillion of new spending, calls it investment, when it's really just stimulus? we've been there, we've done that. it doesn't work. so why are we going there? and lastly, why are some of these proposals in the knowledge at all -- budget at all public works such as the new taxes that

were suggested by my colleague from ohio? over a trillion dollars, well over a trillion dollars of new taxes on the american people, when we just went through that three months ago with one of the largest tax increases in history. has anyone ever seen an increase in the economy through an increase in taxes? have people -- taking less money out of people's paychecks, does this result in more consumer spending which helps our economy? adding new taxes -- a new tax burden to the american economy, when has that ever created a job? we have staggering numbers of people who are dropping out and giving up finding jobs, and so our unemployment rate, so-called official rate is phony. it's absolutely phony. because the people withdrawing from the workplace because they've given up ever finding a

job are simply changing the numbers so it makes it look like we're making progress and as a result we're not making progress. mr. president, i see my time is nearing expiring and see the majority leader has come to the floor. so i want to just conclude that we are at a historic time. we are at a crossroads if terms of the future of this country. and this is the time when we need to put aside partisan interests, political interests, special interest groups and stand up and do what is right for the future. and what is the future? well, as someone famously said, the future is now. the future is now for all those people out of work. the future is now for all those college kids graduating without a job to go to. the future is now for our senior citizens who have seen some of their savings eroded through this recession that we've had. the future is now for doing what is necessary to put this country in the -- on the right track to

prosperity. so let us work together. i'm willing, i've told the president, i've told my colleagues, i'm willing to work with you. i know we'll have to make some compromises. the presiding officer: time has expired. mr. coats: the time is now, mr. president. let's seize this opportunity. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it goes without saying that we all do our jobs here that we seek a seat in the united states senate for a reason. we decided to run for this high office because of issues that we deeply care about, whether it be more affordable health care or better housing or lower taxes. in a job like this you're driven to find the issues that move you. and then sometimes there are issues that find you.

when i was elected to the united states senate last november, i never imagined that my maiden speech would be about guns or about gun violence. just like i could never have imagined that i'd be standing here in the wake of 20 little kids having died in sandy hook or six adults who protected them. but sometimes issues find you. and so here i am. i'm so pleased to have the majority leader and the majority whip and so many of my colleagues on the floor with me here today. i want to start, though, with the unpleasant part. i think it's important for all of my colleagues to understand why we're having this debate this week and next week about guns violence, why the first time we were able to break the logjam to do something about the waves of violence that have plagued this nation.

it's easy to avert your eyes from the horror of what happened in newtown. it's easy to box your ears and prevent it didn't happen. but we can't ignore the reality because it's here. and on a disturbingly regular basis it's here. in colonel brooks' tavern up bien and sandy hook and arain showera and the next town's name is just waiting to be added to the list if we do nothing. so here's what happened. sometimes in the early morning hours of december 14, a very disturbed, reclusive young man named adam lanza went into his mother's room and shot her dead in her sleep. a few minutes later, maybe hours later, he got into her car and drove to sandy hook elementary school. about 9:35 he shot his way through locked doors with an

ar-15 semiautomatic rifle owned by his mother and he began a 10-minute rampage that left 20 children, all 6 and 7-year-olds and six adults who cared for them, dead. in ten minutes, adam lanza got off 154 rounds from a gun that could shoot up to six bullets a second. that high-powered gun assured that every single child that adam lanza shot died. lanza shot most kids multiple times. noah pozner was shot 11 times lien. the state's veteran medical examiner who had been on the job for decades said he had never, ever seen anything like this. but several children did escape. six kids were courageously hid in a classroom closet by their teacher, victoria soto who shielded her kids from the bullet bullets and died that day. five other kids ran out of the room when lanza had trouble reloading. five kids alive today because

the shooter had to stop and switch ammunition magazines. whether it's because he had trouble reloading again or because the police were coming into the whrg at -- building at 9:45 land lansa turned one of the weapons on himself and the massacre ended but not before 26 people were dead. that's the reality. and the worse reality is this: if we don't do something, right now, it's going to happen again. but really, mr. president, it's happening every day. in this country has gotten so callously used to gun violence it's just raindrops. it's just background noise. and that reality, the one in which we are losing 30 americans a day to gun violence in which a chart that shows you how many have died since december 14 is almost unreadable because it's a cast of thousands, that reality is just as unacceptable as what

happened in sandy hook that day. so the question is are we going to do anything about it or are we going to sit on our hands like we have for 20 years and accept the status quo with respect to goon violence and mass shooting? if we're serious, we can't. outside the beltway, this isn't a debate, this isn't a discussion. 87% of americans think we should have universal background checks. two-thirds of americans think we should restrict these high-capacity ammunition clips. 76% of americans believe we should crack down on people who buy guns legally and go out and sell them in the community illegally. the american public knows that we got to do something here and so why have we been stuck for so long? well, first, is because members of congress have been listening to the wrong people. we should be listening to gun owners. they complies priez a lower

percentage of americans than they did about 30 years ago, about 30%, but they're a really important constituency. the problem is the n.r.a. doesn't speak for gun owners like it used to. and yet we listen to that organization more than we should. ten years ago the organization came here and argued for universal background checks in the wake of columbine. today they oppose that's background checks even though 74% of n.r.a. members support universal background checks. i don't know the exact reason for that but maybe it is because increasingly the n.r.a. is financed not by its members, by everyday, commonsense gun orientation but by the gun industry, tens of millions of dollars coming into the n.r.a. from the gun industry, a program that actually allows the n.r.a. to make a couple bucks off of every gun that sold in many gun stores across the country. we're not listening to gun owners. if we were, this wouldn't be a debate in this chamber. but secondly, and maybe most

importantly, we've really botched a conversation in this place about rights. and rights really are at the core of this debate. i hear when i'm back home in connecticut a lot of people talking about the right to bear arms as an unalienable right or a god-given right. and of course the constitution makes no such claim. the idea of an unalienable right, that's found in the declaration of independence. it is a phrase we know very well. "we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal and they're endowed by their creators with certain unalienable rights." but liberty isn't just about having any gun you want, any time you want it. liberty has got to also be about the right to be free from indiscriminate violence. what kind of liberty did these kids have in that classroom in newtown, being trapped by an

assault weapon-wieldinwielding ? and what kind of liberty does a kid just up the street here in washington, d.c., have when he fears for his life when he wants to walk to the corner store or walk home from school in that's not the life, liberty, and happiness that our founding fathers talked about. but even if we do accept that part of liberty is owning and using a gun, then we have to ask these questions: to what degree are our libertiey enfringed upon? to what extent are our freedoms trampled upon by just saying that you're going to immediate to reload your semi automatic weapon after every ten bullets rather than every 30? how gravely do we really risk tyranny when we just moderately restrain the size of illegally purchase -- of a legally purchasable clip? if liberty is our cleave concerning, that enpreserving

and protecting the lives of children. if we can't agree on that what can we agree on? if we accept this balance, then the policy prescription is simple. first guns should be available but they should be available to people of sound mine, with into criminal records. now, we've believed that for a long time. since the brady bill has passed, we've about 2 million people stopped from buying guns because they were legally prohibited from doing so many of 40% of weapons sold in this country don't go through background checks. i hope we'll have sot good news at the end of the day on this front but that's an easy acceptable premise. criminals shouldn't own guns. second, some gyps are just too -- some guns are just too dangerous for retail sale. some weapons are reserve reservr

military use. we know that assault weapons kim we know what happens when we banned them the last time. gun homicides dropped by 37%. nonlethal gun crimes dropped by an equal percentage. third, some ammunition too easy enables mass-slaughter. what legitimate reason is there for somebody to be able to walk into a movie theater or to a religious institution or school with 100-round drum of amu snigs why go we need that? that doesn't sound too radical, does it? what does the gun lobby tell bus is this? what's wrong with this approach that's grounded by data and supported by people across the country? we hear two things over and over again. first, that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have

a good guy with a gun. second, that guns don't kill people; people kill people. newtown is part of the answer. nancy lanz lanza owned a gun bee she lived alone, she wanted guns to protect herself. she was alone a lot of the tievment the guns that nancy lanza used weren't used to fire upon intruders in her home. they killed her and 26 other boys and girls and parents. that's a reflection of a statistical trend. if you have a gun in your life, it is four times more likely to be used in an accident than against ann truder. -- thank against an intruder. as to the second argument, as author hennigan once put it, guns don't kill people. they just enable people to kill people. guns are used in 20% of all

felonies involving bodily injury. guns enable violence that is vastly more violent. we know it by what happened that very same day on the entire other side of the world. on that same day, the 20 kids died in newtown, in hanan, china, a madman talked into a school and attacked 23 schoolchildren with a deadly weapon -- same day. 20 kids in newto you, 23 kids in china. in newtown, all 20 kids who were attacked died. in china, all 23 kids who were attacked lived. why? because in henan, the assailant had a knife. not a gun that could spray six bullets a second. so forgive me if i dismiss those

like the president of the in regard who choose to ignore the effect of the laws that we're debating this week and next week. when he said that all we're talking about here is feel-good legislation, well, he's right about one thing: particulars -- he's right about one thing: it would feel really good if daniel got on the bus this morning to go to school. daniel was an immensely passionate little kid. he was always sitting next to the kids in school that sat alone. he n l a roomithout turning the lights off. when his family would go to the grocery store, they'd leave the store, get halfway across the parking lot and daniel wasn't there because he was still holding the door open for people who needed a way out. he loved smores.

it would feel really good if anna marquez green could sing all those songs thee loved. she came from a really musical family. her preferred mode of transportation was dance ago. she loved most to sing and dance in church. she loved it when her parents read to her from the bible. it would feel really good if ben wheeler got to ensure this beautiful spring day outside today. he was a piano vitter woe so. he had already done a recital. he was six years old and what he really loved was playing outside with his older library nate. they loved to play soccer together. the morning that he was killed, he told his mother that he wanted to to be a paleontologist when he grew up.

he said, "that's what:30 is going to be. i want to do everything that nate does." so that's our test. i believe we can change the way things r i believe that we're good if you find to drown out the voices of the status quo and lobbyists and political consultants. i think in the next couple weeks we're good enough to change the way things are. and finally i want to tell you one last story to explain why i know that we're good enough. i think the that when we see pee stripped of their dignity, we're just too compassionate a people to close our eyes. sometimes we conder what we really -- we wonder what we really are inside. are we truly good or is goodness a learned behavior? it may sound strange but after december 14, i know the former to be true.

because after and during the shooting as if to swallow up those ten minutes of evil, millions of acts of infinite kindness just rained down on knewtown, from the teachers who protected the kids to the firefighters who didn't leave that firehouse for days afterwards to just millions of acts of humanity and gifts and phone calls that came in from the rest of the world. and because of ann mar ann mari, a day care worker charged with the care of this little boy, ann marie loved dylan and dylan loved her back. there was a picture on his refrigerator of ann marie. almost every day he would point

to her with pride. any coal, his mornings is here this week. she said at his funeral that when she realized that dylan wasn't going to show up at the firehouse that day with all the other kids who were returning from the school, she hoped she had see mrs. murphy, but she knew she wouldn't. she knew that ann marie wouldn't leave dylan's side if he was in danger, and she didn't. when the bullets started flying, she brought dylan into her arms, she held him tight in that classroom, and that's just how the two of them were found. on monday, nicole flew down here to washington to meet with myself and president obama to make the case that things need to change for dylan, for an marie, and for thos thousands o.

as they walked up the steps of air force one, one mom raised a piece of paper above her head with a note she had scribbled on it. the note said, "love wins." i believe today more than i ever have before that if we are truly doing our job here in this chamber, then love has to win every single time. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, thank you, and i want to congratulate and thank my colleague from connecticut, senator murphy, on his profoundly eloquent and powerful

statement to our colleagues and join him in calling attention to the horrific tragedy that has brought us to this point in the debate on gun violence. his very eloquent and powerful summary of our losses, i think, is a way to begin a potential turning point after newtown has given us a call to action. newtown is a tipping point in this debate, and my colleague from connecticut and i have spent literally days and weeks with that community and have seen the courage and strength that they have brought to this town and to our colleagues, because they have been meeting with our colleagues and they are indeed here today.

benjamin andrew wheeler you who was age six, his father david is here today. ann grace marquez green, age six, her mother melda and her foarnlg jimmy are here today. dylan hockly, age 6, his mother nicole is here. daniel barton, age 7, his mother and father are here. jesse louis, ages 6, his father kneel is here. mary sherlock, one of the six educators, one of the six heroic carterseducators, her husband ie today. we can draw inspiration not only from the memories of those children and great educators who were killed here but from their strength and resilience and resolve in coming to the halls of this building, meeting with

our colleagues indeed at this very moment they are with one of our colleagues, looking him in the eyes and saying to him, how can you not approve a bill that stops illegal trafficking, strengthens school safety, imposes a requirement for criminal background checks? how can you not stop assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that were integral to that killing in newtown? how can you not do something about gun violence that has caused more than 3,000th deaths since then? how can you not allow a vote? how can you deprive the american people of a vote on a measure that is so essential to their safety, their well-being, the

futures of their children, and their communities? as the president of the united states has said so eloquently and his leadership has been so important to this cause, the victims of newtown, of tucson, aurora, virginia tech, they deserve a vote. and the likelihood of a vote has been increased by the leadership of my colleagues, senators schumer, senator manchin, senator toomey, who have worked hard to bring us together to a very promising and profoundly constructive turning point in this process. and i want to thank also our leader, senator harry reid for his determination and resolve. on the morning of december 14, parents throughout connecticut and newtown and sandy hook brought their children to school. thinking of the rest of their

day and the rest of their days. when they would have play dates and snack breaks, holiday parties, christmas and hanukkah tree present wrapping, paper angels, gingerbread, songs and poems. those were the memories. and the futures that they brought with them. just hours later, i was at sandy hook as 20 families of those children emerged from a firehouse, and i will never forget the cries of pain and grief that i saw on that day. i went there as a public official because i felt a responsibility to be there. but what i saw was through the eyes of a parent, as all

america did on that day. and i saw the families also of six heroic educators who perished trying to save their children. those sights and sounds changed america. we are different today than we were before sandy hook. this problem is with us, the problem of gun violence is the same problem that has existed for decades, but we are different. because we know we can and must do something about it. there was evil in that day in sandy hook but there was also great goodness. the goodness of the first responders who stopped the shooting through their bravery when they appeared at the school, the shooter turned the gun on himself. they saved lives. the to your knowledge and courage and bravery of the clergy. father bob, monsignor bob robert weiss, who that evening conducted a vigil that we

attended when many resolved to light candles instead of curse the darkness. the greatness of leadership demonstrated by many of our public officials beginning with pat lodra the first secretarywoman of newtown, the legislators who passed in connecticut a measure that will provide a model for the country in attacking the problem of gun violence and the leadership of our governor, dana molloy. and, of course, the great goodness of the educators who through -- threw themselves at bullets, cradled young people seeking to save them, heroically gave their lives. their models of courage and leadership should inspire us at this critical moment. they should inspire us to think better and do better and resolve

that we will not let this moment pass, we will seize this opportunity and we will demonstrate the kind of leadership that the majority of americans expect and deserve and need at this point. the majority of americans want commonsense measures to stop gun violence. the majority of americans want a vote, and they want action from this body. and we need to keep faith with with them but also with the victims. the victims who should not be forgotten, the connecticut effect is not going away. this resolve is not dissipating. we will keep faith with them. out of that tragedy, the unspeakable loss, the unimaginable horror of that day and the days since then and the days to come, we resolve that this country will be better and

safer. and so as we begin this debate as colleagues of ours at this moment announce a very promising compromise that may lead us forward, provide us with a path toward bipartisan action, and it should be bipartisan, there is nothing republican or democrat about law enforcement or about law enforcement saving people's lives. we should resolve to go forward as one country. i've been working on this issue for many years. i helped to author and support connecticut's first assault weapon ban in the early 1990's. i went to court to defend it when it was challenged constitutionally, argued in the trial and then in the state supreme court to uphold our law. i have worked with law enforcement colleagues for three

decades. and i know that they support these measures. our state and local police, our prosecutors around the country support a ban on illegal trafficking. they support a national background check. they support school safety and they support bans on military-style weapons that are simply designed to kill and maim innocent people and they support a ban on high-capacity magazines because they know, those are the weapons of war. they enable criminals to outgun them. they put their lives at risk. and so i listened to my colleagues in law enforcement who tell me we need to do something about gun violence. i listen to the people of newtown who say can't we do something about the guns?

and i respect the rights of gun owners, the second amendment is the law of the land, and none of these proposals would take guns out of the hands of responsible and lawful gun owners. but there are some people who should not have them. there are some guns that should not be in use, and there are some weapons of war, high-capacity magazines, that should not be sold in this country. in more than half of the mass killings, high-capacity magazines enabled the shooting that occurred so rapidly and so eitherrally. in -- lethally. in newtown, the changing of a magazine by the shooter enabled children to escape. in tucson the killing of a

9-year-old girl, christina taylor, by the 13th bullet, would not have happened if that magazine had been limited to ten rounds, because the shooter was tackled as he tried to change magazines. the high-capacity magazines enabled adam lanza to fire 154 bullets in five minutes. so these kinds of commonsense measures may not prevent all of these tragedies. they may not enable us to stop all of the 3,000 killings that have occurred since newtown. we can't look back and say for a certainty that newtown wouldn't have occurred if these measures had been in place, but the likelihood would have been reduced, some or all of those children might be alive today, some of those heroic educators

could be in their classrooms now. and the challenge here is to save lives, to do something to stop the carnage and killing on our streets, in our neighborhoods, in communities like newtown, a quintessential new england town. if it could happen in newtown, it can happen anywhere in america. as we go forward in this debate, i hope that we will listen to those brave and resilient and resolved families that are here today. listen to them when they say to us that we must keep faith. listen to nicole hockley and what she said when the president of the united states visited connecticut just a couple of

days ago. she said "but now there is no going back for me. there is no way. if you want to protect your children, if you want to avoid this loss, you will not turn away, either." i ask my colleagues, let us face this reality, let us not turn away. let us resolve to go forward and keep faith with the children and the educators who by their example provide us with an enormous and historic opportunity to make america safer and better. the nation that we love, the nation that we all believe is the great nest the history of the world and will be greater still after we move forward to make it safer and better. thank you, mr. president. madam president. and i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: madam president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate.

they have the approval of the majority and republican minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. nor senator i ask that the quorum call call be suspended. officer if without objection. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak in relation to the keystone x.l.

pipeline project. these are being used as examples or reasons to not approve the keystone x.l. no one ever wants a spill of any kind but let's deal with the facts. let's deal with the facts. rather than misperception or emoasmtion it is an important project and it is important that we deal with the facts. the exxon spill in arkansas involves a pipeline known as the pegasus pipeline. this pipeline was built in the 1940's -- 14 1947 & 1948. approximately 5,000 barrels of oil were spilled. e.p.a. considers that a major spill because anything above 250 barrels is considered a major

spill. emergency response personnel were on the ground within 30 minutes of the leak being detected. approximately 640 cleanup people responded to the incident in addition to federal, state, and local responders. there has been no impact to drinking water. i'll repeat that. there's been no impact to drinking water, and oil did not enter any lake or waterway. 14 vacuum trucks and 60 storage tanks are on site. a claims hotline has been established for residents affected by the spill. to date about 140 claims have been maivmentd exxonmobil is both paying for the cleanup and they've committed to honor any valid claims. that's the arkansas spill that much is being made about by opponents of approving the keystone x.l. pipeline pipeline.

the other one they talked about is in west columbia, texas, a pipeline owned by shell oil. let's talk about that for a minute. there are, approximately 950 barrels of oil spilled. now 50 barrels of oil entered the waterway. but all 50 barrels have already been cleaned up. all 50 barrels have already been cleaned up. and the company is now working to clean the remaining 900 barrels that is located on land. this is -- this pipeline is an oil-gathering pipeline that gathers oil from the gulf. it is not an oil sands pipeline. the keystone x.l. project wab an oil sands pipeline. furthermore, shell believes that the break happened because a contractor was working in the area and perve rated the -- and- --and per for rated the pipe. it was a contractor working in

the area that caused an injury to the pipeline in doing the work. so let's consider some basic pipeline safety facts a. pipelines are the safest and most effect way to transport oil and gas. let's compare accidents at pipelines compared to accidents for truck, for barge, for our rail. accidents are 1,000 times more likely to occur with a truck, hauling oil by truck versus pipeline. 1,000 times more likely to occur moving oil by truck than by pipeline. an oil spill is 1 times more --3 times more likely when moving oil by barge. and five times more likely when you're moving oil by rail than by pipeline.

so by pipeline, 1,000 fewer than by moving by truck. 13 fewer than by moving by barge. five times fewer spills than moving by rail. those are the statistics, safety statistics on pipelines versus alternative methods of moving oil. the arkansas pipeline was built in the 1940's. so actually the incident highlighthighlights the need tow infrastructure using the latest tech knox the keystone x.l. pipeline is one of the most advanced and studied pipeline projects in our country's history. for example, the keystone pipeline will be monitored 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. satellite data will send data from 25,000 data points to the monitoring center. if a drop in pressure is detected, any section of the pipeline can be isolated

remotely closing any of the hundreds of valves on the system within minutes. and after a four environmental impact statements and five years of review, the state department has determined that the keystone x.l. pipe lynn will create no significant impacts to the environment. again, they have determined it will create new significant impacts to the environment. and that's why several weeks ago 62 senators supported an amendment sponsored by myself, senator baucus and other senators -- 62 senators wen on record approving the key stong x.l. pipeline project. furthermore, 66 senators -- two-thirds of the senators voted against an amendment that was put forward by senator boxer that would have further delayed the project and add more restriction to the project. two-thirds of this body we wentn

record opposing nuclear restrictions 62 senators voted to approve the projects. that's why 70% of americans in a recent poll said that they want the keystone x.l. pipeline project approved. this project is about more energy for this country. this project is about more jobs for this country. this pipeline promise is about growing our economy and producing revenues, tax revenues, to help with our debt and deficit -- not by raising taxes but by growing the economy and stimulating more economic activity. and this project is about eliminating our dependence on oil from places like the middle east and venezuela. that is a national security issue. it is vital -- it is vital that when we're working on important issues, we deal with the facts. and, madam president, those are the facts.

thank you, and i note the absence of a earl quo. -- of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? mr. lee: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspend. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: madam president, for civil weeks now, washington and the rest of the country have been debating several new gun control proposals. along with a number of my colleagues, including the minority leader, i've declared my intention to resist an immediate vote on any new restrictions that would serve primarily to limit the freedoms

of law-abiding citizens rather than reduce violent crime in america. unfortunately, the current gun control proposals would do just that. more than two weeks ago, we informed the majority leader that we will exercise our procedural right to require a 60-vote threshold in order to bring this legislation to the floor. we've taken this step under our senate rules and procedure for three principal reasons. first, the senate serves an important function in our republic by encouraging deliberation and making it more difficult for a temporary majority to impose its will unilaterally. unlike the house of representatives, the senate's rules and procedures allow for meaningful debate and help ensure that a bare majority of senators cannot impose controversial legislation on the american people without robust debate, discussion, and

broad-based and bipartisan consensus. contrary to the statements made by the president and by spf my friends a-- and by some of my friends across the aisle and even a few from within my own caucus, we have no intention of preventing debate or votes. quite the opposite. by objecting to the motion to proceed, we guarantee that the senate and the american people would have at least three additional days to assess and evaluate exactly how this particular bill might affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether or not it might have any significant impact on violent crime. already we've seen consensus against passing any new gun legislation, at least not without broad bipartisan suppo support. during the recent budget debate, i offered an amendment to establish a two-thirds vote requirement for the passage of any new gun legislation. six democratic senators voted with a nearly united republican

caucus to support my amendment by a vote of 50-49. that vote demonstrated that a bare majority of senators, including at least six democrats, believe that new gun legislation should have broad bipartisan support in the senate before it's passed and before it has the opportunity to become law. a 60-vote threshold will help ensure that new gun laws aren't forced through the senate with the narrow support of just one party. second, this debate is about a lot more than just magazine clips and pistol grips. it's about the purpose of the second amendment and why our constitutionally protected right to self-defense is an essential part of self-government. at its core, the second amendment helps ensure that individuals and local communities can serve as the first line of defense against threats to our persons and our property. any limitation on this

fundamental right of self-defense makes us more dependent on our government for our own protection. government can't be everywhere at all times, so the practical effect of limiting our individual rights is to make us less safe. this is deeply troubling to many americans. any legislation that would restrict our basic right to self-defense deserves serious and open debate. further, as we've seen just today, washington sometimes prefers to negotiate backroom deals made in secret far from the eyes of the american people rather than engaging in thorough, open and transparent debate right here on the senate floor. the day before the majority leader has set the vote to proceed, the bill's critical components are still not there. right before we have set the

vote for the motion to proceed to the bill, we still don't know what these critical components look like. we have no legislative text to evaluate the so-called compromise language on background checks, and we have no sense of what amendments, if any amendments at all, might be allowed to be offered. so requiring a 60-vote threshold helps us solve some of these problems and it helps us ensure that we have a meaningful debate rather than a series of backroom deals to push such controversial legislation through congress with solely a bare majority to back it up. finally, many of the provisions that we expect to see in the bill are both constitutionally problematic and would serve primarily to limit the freedoms of law-abiding american citizens. some of the proposals like, for example, universal background checks, would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who

exercise their constitutional rights. one of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the judiciary committee on which i sit would allow the attorney general of the united states to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns, something my constituents in utah are very concerned about, and understandably so. you see, the federal government has no business monitoring where or how often you go to church, what books and newspapers you read, who you vote for, your health conditions, what you eat for breakfast and the details of your private life, including your lawful exercise of rights protected by the second amendment and other provisions of the bill of rights. such limitations may, of course, at times make it harder for the government to do what it feels like it needs to do, but we have to remember that the

constitution was not written to maximize or protect the convenience of our government. the constitution was written to protect individual liberty, and thankfully so. we must not narrow the application of constitutional protections in haste, nor should we allow a bare majority to jeopardize basic rights of the american people, rights protected in the first ten amendments to the constitution. the senate and the american people are engaged in an important debate today. i look forward to this debate, and i hope that others will join me and my colleagues in demanding that our discussions take place in full view of the american people. thank you, madam president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: