losing, and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him, but he changes the rules." today, leader reid continued his demonstration of civility, referring to me as the -- quote -- "very junior senator from texas." as i noted yesterday, the senate is not a schoolyard. setting aside the irony of calling someone a bully and then shouting them down when they attempt to respond, today i wish simply to commend my friend from nevada for his candor. yesterday, i expressed my concern that sending the budget to conference could be used to pass tax increases or a debt ceiling increase through reconciliation, a back-door path that would circumvent the long-standing protections of the minority in the senate, and i observed that i would readily consent to the leader's request if he would simply agree that no

such procedural tricks would be employed. it is perhaps rare for a so-called bully to offer to waive all objections if the other side will simply agree to abide by the rules, but i commend the majority leader for his response. he did not disagree that he hoped to use reconciliation to try to force through tax increases or a debt ceiling increase on a straight party-line vote. he did not pretend that his intentions were otherwise. when the economy is struggling so mightily, as it is now for the past four years our economy has grown at just 0.9% a year, it would be profoundly damaging to millions of americans to raise taxes yet again on top of the $1.7 trillion in new taxes that have already been enacted in the last four years, and with our national debt approaching

$17 trillion, larger than the size of our entire economy, it would be deeply irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling yet again without taking real steps to address our fiscal and economic crisis. if done through reconciliation, the majority could increase taxes or the debt ceiling with a 50-vote threshold rather than needing 60 votes. the american people already saw obamacare pass through back room deals and procedural tricks. it should not happen again. the majority leader could have claimed that he had no intention of trying to undermine the protections of the minority and forcing through tax increases or yet another increase in the debt ceiling, but in a refreshing display of candor, he did not do so, and i commend him for his honesty so that our substantive policy disagreement can be made

clear to the american people. let me be explicit. we have no objection to proceeding to conference. if the leader is willing to agree not to use it as a back-door tool to raise the debt ceiling. if not, he is certainly being candid, but the american people are rightly tired of back-room secret deals to raise the debt ceiling even further. and we should not be complicit in digging this nation even further into debt on merely a 50-vote threshold. finally, i would note that the leader made a plea to regular order, and yet he was seeking unanimous consent to set aside regular order. granting that consent could open the door to even more tax increases and crushing national debt, and in my judgment the senate should not employ a procedural back door to do so.

for reasons unknown, the majority leader deemed my saying so out loud as somehow -- quote -- "bullying." speaking the truth, shining light on substantive disagreements of our elected representatives is not bullying, it is the responsibility of each of us. it is what we were elected to do. all of us should speak the truth and do so in candor. all of us should work together to solve the crushing economic and fiscal challenges in this country. all of us should exercise candor, and i commend the majority leader and thank him for his willingness to do so. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, just for the interest of all senators, we are looking at some

amendments which hopefully we can vote on tonight or early in the morning. it's one of those surprise to the american people that we're on a water infrastructure bill that deals with building absolutely necessary flood control projects and making sure our commerce can move through our ports and we have money to deepen the channels and make sure that our ports are working. they take those imports, they get those exports, it all works, critical infrastructure, madam president, and the first two republican amendments are about guns. let me say it again. we're working on a critical infrastructure bill, and the first two republican amendments are not about jobs, not about business, not about commerce. about guns. and so we will deal with that.

we will deal with those amendments. but i think the american people have to listen. when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle get up and talk about the economy straight from the heart, this economy isn't creating enough jobs, oh, my goodness, the first two amendments they offer on a critical infrastructure bill that is so critical to business that the chamber of commerce has endorsed it, that every business that is involved in construction has endorsed it, every worker organization has endorsed it, the national governors' association has endorsed it, the first two amendments are not about jobs, they are not about commerce, they are about guns. so let us understand here what we're dealing with. now, i want to say to my friend from texas -- and i welcome him

to the senate. for three years, his party has been following democrats all over the country, yelling at us, where's your budget? get your budget done. for shame on you, no budget. and what has he done, starting from yesterday? objected to this country having a budget, because he thinks maybe -- he doesn't know this, he's guessing that in a conference where we try to negotiate the differences between the sides, something might happen that he doesn't like. maybe we'll wind up saying yes, there ought to be a penalty on companies who ship jobs overseas. maybe we'll tighten some tax loopholes that allow the most successful companies to pay nothing in taxes while the middle class pays through the

nose. maybe he doesn't like the fact that warren buffett, one of the most successful entrepreneurs in our nation, got up and said you know what? i'm embarrassed. i pay a lower effective tax rate than my secretary. maybe he thinks that's good. fine. but don't stop us from getting a budget. now, anyone who knows how a bill becomes a law, whether they are here 15 minutes or more than 20 years, as i have been, everyone knows that the way we operate here is the house does a budget, the senate does a budget. now, we did a budget. republicans demanded it, and we did it for sure, and we took care of 100 amendments. we remember being in until 5:00 in the morning. i certainly remember that. and now the next step is you go to conference. so i am saying here that i will

be on my feet every time the good senator from texas comes, i will come, and i will say senator, let the process work. don't be fearful of the process, because you know what? when you have power, as the senator does, and as i do, don't be afraid of the process. if you want to make the point that the buffet rule doesn't -- buffett rule doesn't make sense, make your point, but don't stop us from getting a budget. now, i don't understand how any conservative could stop us from getting a budget, but yet that's what we have. so i would urge my friend to work with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's get to the conference, let's make sure that the chairman of the house budget committee, mr. ryan, who i'm sure is very competent here,

and our chairman, senator murray, who i know is very competent, get them in the room with their conferees and let's let democracy work. this is the way a bill becomes a law. they have stopped us from appointing conferees for a budget conference, and i could tell you that having been here for a while, it is essential that we get to conference, whether it's this wrda bill that we're so anxious to do because it's so important for jobs or whether it's the budget or whether it's an appropriations bill. don't be afraid of the process. this is a democracy. we take our differences into a conference room, and we work together. now, if you don't like the outcome of that, that's fair enough. i could truly say i haven't liked the outcome of a number of

conferences, but i don't stop people from going to the conference. because that's stopping democracy. that is a dictatorship. i decide something's going to happen in the conference that i don't like. now, what if i say what could well happen in the conference is they make the sequester permanent. that could happen in the conference. i think that's devastating to make the sequester permanent. i want to stop the sequester. i don't like the fact that 70,000 kids can't get head start. i don't like the fact that people can't get their chemotherapy. i don't like the fact that meals on wheels is being cut back and senior citizens who can't afford meals aren't getting them. i don't like the fact that people aren't getting h.i.v. screening or breast cancer screening. that's what's happening so i do fear, frankly, that if there is a conference, the republicans will prevail and they may come out of this thing with a

permanent sequester. so i could stand here and say i object to the process because i'm fearful that they will get in there and they will make the sequester permanent, and that health insurance my people in california. but you know what? i have more faith in us. i have more faith in the american people. i have more faith in the process and so i would urge my friend to stand down on this and his allies. i know he is sincere, but i am saying it is against progress. we don't know if there will be a tax increase or a tax decrease. frankly, i have some really great ideas for tax decreases that i would like to see, decreases for the middle class, decreases for the working poor. i would like to see that in a conference, but i don't know what our colleagues will come back with. but, madam president, i use this

time as the manager of the water infrastructure bill to tell colleagues that we should come together not only on this bill, instead of offering controversial amendments on guns to a water infrastructure bill, why can't we just focus on what's before us, finishing this wrda bill, getting it done for the 500,000 jobs that rely on this, getting it done for the thousands of businesses who rely on it, getting it done for organized labor and the chamber of commerce coming together here, get it done. and on the budget front, get it done. and with that, i ask unanimous consent that there be a period of debate only until 6:30 and at that time the majority leader or his designee be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lee: madam president, what the majority leader requested yesterday was not regular order. what would be consistent with regular order would be to send the senate-passed budget over to the house of representatives. and, madam president, what the majority leader requested unanimous consent to do yesterday did not involve sending the american people to conference. it involved sending a small number of people to conference.

and what the majority leader requested unanimous consent to do yesterday did not involve simply getting to a budget that both houses could agree upon. i don't think there is anyone here who would object to that, not one of us that i'm aware of. what we do object to, what i strongly object to is any procedural trick that can be used to negotiate behind closed doors in a back-room deal an agreement to raise the debt limit or to raise taxes. the american people don't want that. they won't accept it and frankly, they deserve better. now, i have to admit, i stood in a state of disbelief for a moment yesterday as i heard the majority leader say something it my friend, my colleague, the junior senator from texas. i at first assumed that i must have misunderstood him, because i thought i heard him utter words consistent with the

suggestion that my friend, the junior senator from texas, was a schoolyard bully. i was certain that the majority leader could not have meant that. he probably didn't say that. unfortunately, as i reviewed the news accounts later on yesterday, i discovered that that is exactly what he had said. now, only the majority leader can tell us exactly what the majority leader meant by that. it's not my place to malign his motives. and if i were to do so, it would run me up against senate rule 19. part 2 of senate rule 19 says that "no senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator." certainly that would have been in violation of rule 19, part 2, had the majority leader actually said that and intended to do that.

because when you accuse a colleague of being a schoolyard bully, it certainly isn't a compliment. it is in fact accusing them of doing something or being something unbecoming. i, therefore, will leave it to the majority leader to tell us what exactly he meant. things happen on this floor, things happen in the legislative process, things happen when we get into heated discussions about matters of important public policy that probably shouldn't happen. sometimes we say words that we didn't intend to say. sometimes we say things that in the moment of weakness perhaps we intended to say but should not have said. if in fact the majority leader slipped and said something he didn't mean to say or recognizes now that he should not have said, then i invite him to come forward. i am confident that my friend, the junior senator from texas, will promp promptly accept his apology.

if, on the other hand, this is something else, then i think we need to examine this more closely. it is important to reiterate that there certainly could not have been any legitimate basis for making this accusation of the junior senator from texas. all the junior senator texas was asking is if in fact we are being asked to give our consent, our unanimous consent -- that means the consent of every senator present -- to send this budget resolution to conference committee, that it carry one important but simple qualification: that is, that this conference committee not be used as a ruse whereby we create an environment in which you could develop a secret, backroom deal for raising the debt limit or raising taxes without going through the regular order. now, that is the furthest thing that i can think of from being a schoolyard bully, sumly making a

very -- simply making a very reasonable request that we go by the normal regular order rules of the is that the in order do that. -- i-- of the senate in order to that. and if there is any reason my friend, the junior senator from texas, could ever be accused of being a bully, i am not aware of it. we're owed an explanation to the extent that anyone was making the suggestion and in fact meant that. at the end of the day, i don't think any of us can dispute the fact that we face very, very difficult challenges here in our country and that many of these challenges weigh heavily on us as senators. that's why sometimes people say things that they later regret. but that's what apologies are for. at the same time, we can speak with absolute certainty and unmistakable clarity in saying that, well, different americans might approach this issue differently. well, different americans might

take a different approach to raising taxes or raising the debt ceiling. one issue on which almost all americans are united is the fact that these things ought to be debated and discussed in open and not through a secret backroom deal. the dignity of this process, the dignity of this body, our commitment to honor the constitutional oath that we have all taken as senators demands nothing less. thank you, madam president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i think two weeks ago the american public understood one of the consequences of these sequestration cuts, these across-the-board mindless cuts, when they saw what was going to happen with furloughs, with the air traffic controllers an the air traffic -- and the air trafficness of this country. madam president, i never supported sequestration. these are mindless across-the-board cuts, and i certainly didn't want to see what happened to the f.a.a. would have happened. that was, mindless across-the-board cuts. what we need to do is replace sequestration for all agencies that are affected because similar occurrences are happening in other agencies.

the reason is that these are across-the-board mindless cuts, they are deep cuts. the agents that are affected, it is equivalent to about a 10% cut. this is on top of three years' f reduced appropriations. so it is affecting the core mission of the agency. they have no flexibility and therefore they have to cut back on their mission. that's what happened at the f.a.a., and of course we provided some flexibility so they could do some other things. but we haven't done that as far as providing relief from these across-the-board cuts in other agencies. so we're going to see many federal agencies have to fundamentally change what they do. let me just give you a couple of examples. i was recently at the national institutes of health and saw firsthand the great work that they're doing. i can tell you that many of the missions they are doing are critical to our health. i was briefed on the work they are doing phon an influenza

vaccine. that will look at a vaccine that will work for multiple years. well, that's the type of work that's done at the national institutes of health, the type of work they're doing in finding the answers to cancer. i remember when i was young, if you got cancer, it was a death sentence. now we've reduced the fatalities of cancer. survival rates are much higher. that's the work that's done at the national institutes of health, n.i.h. that work is being compromised by these across-the-board cuts that affect the grants that n.i.h. can give to the institutes around the country, including in massachusetts and in maryland. what's happening with head start -- 70,000 children could benefit from head start but will not be able to this fall. why? because of these across-the-board cuts. head start is a program that works. we know that.

the children who have participated in head start do much better. we have waiting lists now. do we really want to tell 70,000 families that they're not going to be able to send their children to head start this fall? senior eating-together programs are being cut. now, do we really want to reduce our commitment for seniors in this country so that they can get a nutritional meal? the border security protections we're going to be debating on the floor in a short period of time how we can deal with comprehensive immigration reform. do we want to do what's right but we want to prosecuting our borders. do we really want to cut back on border security in this country? food safety -- the list goes on and on and on of basic missions that will be affected by these across-the-board cuts. why? because -- i hear people say, this isn't such a big deal. it is about 2% of the budget much the difficultbut thediffico

all only a small portion of the budget, our discretio discretioy spending accounts. they have already gone through several years of freezes an cuts. they have been really stretched. so the cut really is condensed into a short period of time and there's no flexibility that is given in order to deal with it. it's going to have a negative impact on our economy. i use the example at a forum i had two weeks ago to a group of business leaders. that is, if you ran into trouble in your business and you knew you had to cut back, you look at your budget, the money you had planned for your mortgage or rent, you have money planninged for the food budget, maybe you have some money put aside for a weekend vacation or a trip. you don't cut every category the same. you're going to save your house and make sure there's food on the table. well, we've got to do the same

thing at the federal level. we've got to make the tough decisions as to where the priorities of this country need to be. i saw the impact on our federalworkforce. i'm honored to represent a large number of federal workers, very dedicated people working to provide services to the people of this country. well, many are going to go through what is known as furloughs. furloughs is nothing more than telling you you are going to get a paycut. you've already had three years of a freeze. you've soon a the love vacant positions go unfilled. you're going to be asked to do more with less. now you're going to be told that you have to go through furloughs. that's not right, madam president. we can do better than that. this country can do better than that. what we need to do is replace sequestration and we need to do it now. and the majority leader made a unanimous consent request -- i'm sorry it was not agreed to. but it said very basically, we can find other ways to get the budget savings, but let's not do

this meat ax across-the-board approach that compromises the missions of this country. unfortunately, that was objected to. i've spoken on the floor before about areas that we can reduce spendinspending. i hear my friend friends on ther side talk about mandatory spending. i agree. we can save money in health care. i'm seeing work dong in maryland. i see -- i am i'm seeing work done in maryland. i see how we can treat patients' conditions in a more comprehensive way saving on less tests that need to be done and saving on hospitalizations. we know how we can reduce hospital infection rates. there are ways that we can cut back on health care costs that will reduce medicare and medicaid and health care costs in this country. that's what we need to do. that will save money. let's implement some of those cost savings. i'm honored to serve on the

senate finance committee. our committee has jurisdiction over the tax code. we spend $1.2 trillion a year in tax expenditures. that's not touched at all by sequestration. we need to take a look at the tax code, and there are parts of the tax code that are just not efficient. let's get rid of those provisions and we can save money and use that to help balance the budget. -- without these across-the-board cuts. and then we are bringing our troops home from afghanistan. i hope we can do that at a more rapid rate, for many reasons. but those savings can also be used to close the gap on the budget problems and to allow us to replace sequestration. bottom line is, what i -- what my constituents want is for democrats and republicans to work together and to come up with a responsible budget plan for this country. they want that for many reasons. first, that's the way business should be done. secondly, it gives predictability. we know what the budgets are going to be, people can plan if

they know what the tax code looks like, they know what the federal budget looks like and our economy will take off. predictability is very upon. bottom line, madam president, what i urge us all to do, let's get rid of these across-the-board cuts as soon as possible. we never should have been in this position. we've seen it in a couple agencies where the public was outraged. they flooded our phones. we're going 20 see that more and more -- we're going to see that more and more happen because these are irrational cuts. we have the responsibility to act. the sooner we do the better it will be for the american people and our economy and it is the responsible thing for the senate to do. were that madam president, i would yield the floor. -- with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. nor senator i'd ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. let me first associate myself with the comments of the senator from maryland. we're engaging in a bit of the theater of the absurd on the floor of the senate, as we've been chided for years now that the senate would not and could not adopt a budget, now having finally done that, republicans are refusing to allow us to move forward with the process that would finally get us out of this crisis-by-crisis mentality and what the american public has wanted us to do for a long time, which is sit across the table with republicans, two parties in one room with the tv cameras on trying find some settlement car where 70% of the american public can find agreement with us.

adopt a measure that would have applied background checks to the vast majority of gun purchases in this state. that bill also would have for the first time made gun trafficking -- illegal gun trafficking a federal citemen c. during those days came down to this moore four, five times to tell the stories of victims, victims of sandy hook but also the victims of countless other mass shootings and routine gun violence mainly this our urban corridors. i said that no matter what happens on that vote, i wouldn't stop. i would continue to come down and tell the real store storiesd matter. we didn't get that bill passed

even though we had the support of 55 members of senate. our fight isn't over because the plight of gun victims and the surviving relatives of gun victims is not over either. mr. murphy: this is an old chart, it's one i had up here for a number of hours during that week and it displays the number of people who have been killed by guns since december 14, 2012, when my state was visited by one of the worst mass shooting tragedies this country has ever seen. we'd have to now have two charts up here to simply display the same thing. because this number, which was somewhere in the 3,000's is now easily cleared 4,000. maybe is even up close to 5,000. the number of people who since sandy hook have been killed across this country by gun violence. and so i want to come back downdown to the senate floor this week as i will this week and the week after to continue to tell the stories of who these people are because they deserve

an answer. the status quo is not acceptable. to the mounting legions of families who have lost loved ones due to gun violence that could have been prevented if we had had the courage to stand up and do something in this chamber, if we had had the courage to take on the gun lobby and make some commonsense changes the vast majority of americans support. so let me tell you just a few of these stories today. i know we have other things on the floor today to talk about. let me tell you about shamyra jenkins. she was 21 years old, lived in hartford. about a week ago, on april 29, she was gunned down while driving in a car through the city of hartford with her boyfriend. she was driving through the city

when someone shot a couple bullets through the back of the vehicle, it hit her and killed her. and threw her -- through herrorso and her shoulder. she was four months pregnant when she was shot and killed and she was just a couple days away from that magical day that many parents have experienced when they find out whether they're having a boy or a girl. that appointment was just a couple days away when she was killed. close friends and family describe her as sweet and upbeat with loot of energy. shamyra was killed in hartford at age 21 on april 29 but every single day in this country on average 30 people are killed by guns. many of them stories just like this. the ages of all the people i've been talking about on this floor, a couple in their 40's or fichts, a few as -- 50's,

a few as i'll talk about even younger but the majority of these kids are 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 years old. it's a cruel moment to take somebody from this world because when you're 21, you have a vision who this person is going to be and you can sort of see the greatness and her friends described her as just someone who always had a smile on her face and yet, you steal so much of their life. 21 years old, killed just a week ago. but there are younger victims. like caroline starks who just one day after shamrar jenkins was killed in cumberland county, kentucky, by her 5-year-old brother. she was 2 years old and she was killed in an accidental shooting by her 5-year-old brother. she was killed by a .22 caliber cricket rifle.

they were just messing around in the little bit of time that their mother had stepped outside onto the porch. her brother picked up this little cricket rifle, one that he used to go hunting with his family. he was 5 years old. and he shot his 2-year-old sister and she died. a cricket rifle. it's a cute name, right? ates cute name because it's marketed to kids. sold as my first rifle. it's made by a company that also makes another line of guns called chipmunk rifles. i certainly understand that a lot of families there's a long history of hunting together as a family. but the reality is that some of these shootings are malicious with the number of guns that are out there and a gun lobby organization that used to spend a lot of time on gun safety, that now spends most of its time

simply arguing for laws that perpetuate the number of guns in society. these accidental shootings are happening more and more. another one happened three days before caroline starks was killed. michelle wanko of parkside, pennsylvania lost her husband william on the 27th of this year when she accidentally shot and killed him in the basement of their home. he was giving her lessons on how to use a semiautomatic pistol. as he demonstrated how to use it she picked up another gun and accidentally fired it into his upper chest. her screams awoke their 5-year-old son who was sleeping alongside their 2-year-old son. upstairs. not just mass shootings. it's not just urban violence. it's also this rash of accidental shootings taking the lives of mothers and children that we've seen as well.

but, madam president, we still should talk about these mass shootings because our inaction almost guarantees that it's going to happen again. and a lot of people said that the law that we have on the floor of the senate a couple of weeks ago had nothing to do with newtown so why are we talking about a piece of legislation that ultimately wouldn't have prevented adam lanza from walking into that school and shooting 26 people? well, that's true, but we know from experience that a better background check system could have prevented at least one mass tragedy in this country and that's the columbine tragedy. the guns that were used to perpetuate that crime on april 20, 1999 they were bought at a gun show, the tanner gun show by friends of the assail antsz who bought the guns at a gun show because she knew if she bought them at a federally

licensed dealer she wouldn't have been able to, would not have been able to walk out of that store with a gun so she went into a gun show where she wouldn't have to go through a background check. so perhaps if we had had a stronger background check system on the books on april $29.20, 1999 maybe rachel joy scott would still be with us today. she was an aspiring actress, her father said she was just made for the camera and she wasn't just acting, she was writing plays, she had written one already and was getting ready to write another one. she was a devout christian and kept diaries where she wrote about her hope for living a life that would change the world with small acts of compassion. maybe if we had had a better background check system in 1999 daniel lee r he rohrabacher would still be alive today. he worked in his family's car and home stereo business, he had a real talents for it.

he'd make a little bit of money working at the store but he never spent it on himself. he pent almost the money he earned on christmas prenlts. his father remembers danny's generosity by saying he didn't spend any of the money on himself and he was upset because he came up $4 short on the la last -- the last present for christmas. maybe we'd have daniel connor mauser with us. he was shy but he knew he was shy so he joined the debate team so we'd be more confident about public speaking. he was just as compassionate as daniel was. when a neighbor became ill he went down and raked leaves and asked how he could help to help out his neighbor. he loved swimming and skiing and hiking, on the school's cross cross-country team. straight a student, the top bottling student in his last, we'll never know what daniel

connor mauser would have been. and maybe matthew kechter. he was a starting lineman on the football team. a great older brother. his younger brother looked up to matthew and he would wait at the mailbox for matthew to come home from school school every day. matt hoped to attend the university of colorado where he wanted to study engineering. a straight a student, a student athlete, wanted to be an engineer. doesn't that sound like the type of kid that we need in this country today? these are just another half dozen of the thousands of victims that we have read about in the newspaper and watched news about on tv since december 14, 2012. and the last thing i'll say is this, madam president,: one of

the arguments i've heard repeated over and over and over again both during the debate on the floor and since then is that you know what? even if we pass these laws it wouldn't matter. sure, you say that the guns were purchased outside of the background check system for the columbine shootings but even if the background checks were required, these cietdz kids would have found another way to get the guns. another way of putting the argument is, criminals are going to violate the law so why pass the law in the first place? that's an as asurd an argument as you can muster in this place. frankly, that's an argument not to have any laws at all. people drive drunk. they kill people. the republicans aren't coming down to the floor of the united states senate and say we should get rid of drink driving laws because there are people that still go out and drink and

drive. there are, unfortunately, men who beat their wives but nobody is coming to the floor of the senate or the house and arguing we should get rid of our domestic violence laws because some people don't strol fol them. the fact is we make a decision as a country what standards we're going to apply to conduct. and we frus trust that is going -- trust that is going to funnel some up conduct away -- from the kinds we don't want into ones we want and punish those who act outside of the boundaries that we've set. that's why we still have drunk driving laws and domestic violence laws even if some people ignore them and why we should have an expectation that criminals in this country shouldn't have guns. even if some criminals are still going to ignore the law and get the guns anyway. because that way we can punish those people who do wrong and we can have some comfort in knowing that some people will choose to do right because of the consequence of the law being in

place. there was no consequence for that young lady, the friend of the columbine shooters when she went outside the background check system to get guns for her friends. we'll never know if she would have made a different decision but have not have the law to test out the theory? the thousands of people who have died since september 14, they'll take that chance that the law will work. thank you, madam president. at this point i'd yield the floor. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i want to first of all thank my friend the senator from connecticut for his comments today and for his leadership on this issue which is of such enormous importance. you know, i have been a

longtime supporter of the second amendment but i like i think so many americans after newtown the status quo just didn't cut it anymore. and the senator and so many others have continued to come down and raise the issue that at least we ought to make sure we have a system in place to prevent criminals and those with serious mental impairment from purchasing firearms. i think it is the most reasonable of all proposals and i thank the senator for not letting us on the senate floor forget that tragedy and forget that issue. but i have a sense and i don't know, i'm sure it's the same in connecticut and probably is the same in the commonwealth of massachusetts, but the american people haven't forgotten. there's not a day that goes by i don't have somebody coming up and saying you got to bring that back up. so i again thank the senator for his good work and i think he and we and those of us who want to put appropriate, reasonable

restrictions, restrictions that the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners support in place, we will have another day in this hall. madam president, i know a lot of my colleagues have also been down today talking about the budget and an issue that i've some would say been a little obsessed about in the four years that i've been here and i want to come and talk about that tomorrow. but i -- at least tangentially i want to raise that same issue in my comments today, because this week we celebrate public service recognition week to honor public servants at all levels of government for their admirable patriotism and contributions to our country. you know, we talk about budgets sometimes, we forget that a lot of the resources we pay in taxes that go to budgets actually hire

americans who go to work every day trying to make our country a safer place to live and a better place to live. and quite honestly, the vast majority of folks who work in public service go about doing it with very little recognition for the work they do. now, since 2010 when i had the opportunity as a freshman senator to preside more than i'd like to, i used to see then-senator ted kaufman would come down to the floor and almost every week talk about a federal employee. and when ted, who had served as -- as a staff director to joe biden for close to 30 years when he left the senate, i got to inherit that responsibility from him. and while i have not been quite as consequence enhusband is as senator kaufman -- conscientious as senator kaufman, i've tried to make sure i come down on a regular basis and call out federal employees who deserve recognition. including even certain federal

employees who work in the senate. today i want to take a moment to recognize three federal employees who particularly are relevant to the debate we're having about budgets because one of the issues we all have to recognize is we've got to find ways to make our federal dollars go farther. so i want to recognize three federal employees who happen to be virginians who are working to make our government use data better, to improve accountability and transparency. and these are individuals that as chair of the budget committee's government performance task force i've followed some of their actions. first i'd like to recognize timothy gribbon. tim is the director of performance management at the small business administration. and in this role, he developed s.b.a.'s quarterly performance review process that is now considered amongst the best practices amongst other agencies. because of tim's commitment to transparent and accessible performance metrics -- i know that doesn't get everybody's

eyes shining -- but performance metrics is something i'm pretty interested in, the american public can now more clearly track the support provided to small businesses from s.b.a. to see where our tax dollars are headed. tim has been recognized by the white house's performance improvement council and the american association of government accountants for his leadership. next i'd like to recognize christine hefflin. christine is the director of performance excellence at the department of commerce and has established performance excellence council to bring together performance leaders from across the department to exchange best practices. because of christine's expertise, she is sought out by other agencies for advice and she leads performance management 101 trainings across the department to educate staff on the benefits of data-driven decision making, the use of analytics and performance improvement techniques. and finally, i'd like to recognize michelle silver. michelle served as the program

manager for the bank act -- for the bank act i.t. modernization program. under her leadership, the program was able to successfully modernize the financial crimes enforcement network's i.t. infrastructure. this significantly improved the ability of law enforcement, regulatory, and intelligence agencies to access and analyze financial data to detect and prevent financial crimes. and it's important to note that michelle's management insured that the modernization program was delivered on time and within budget. because of people like my exphel many other hard -- michelle and many other hard working employees at the department of treasury, our country's financial system is at least safer now than it was before from emerging threats. now, i know that performance metrics, data analysis, i.t. improvements aren't necessarily the subject of debates every day on the floor of the senate, but

regardless of how we get our country's balance sheet back in order, i believe that it will require both additional revenues and entitlement reform so we don't keep come back to the small portion of our budget which is the discretionary programs. but even with all of that, you're still going to need to make sure that you use those dollars we raise in the most effective and efficient process possible. i hope my colleagues will join me in honoring mr. bgribbon, miss hefflin and miss silver as well as government employees at all levels around the country for their excellent work and their commitment to public service. again, i remind all of my colleagues that as we debate budgets and we debate the future of our country that there are literally millions of folks at all levels of public service who go to work every day to make our country safer, to make our country more efficient, to provide services for those who are in need. a few minutes earlier today i was over with seven d.e.a.

agents who had just received the congressional badge of bravery who had been recently deployed to afghanistan. these are all the people that represent the commitments that we fight for here on the floor of the senate. so with that, madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

>> madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. ms. boxer: i ask unanimous consent on 1:30 a.m. -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. boxer: i ask that it be vitiated. on 11:30 a.m., may 8, the senate resume consideration of s. 601 and the following amendments be the first amendments in order to the pending boxer-vitter substitute. suburban, number 804 on ammunition. coburn 805 on arm corps plants and guns. and whitehouse number 803 on oceans. that there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of these amendments prior to votes in relation to the amendments, that the coburn and whitehouse amendments be subject to a 60-vote affirmative vote threshold and that time until

2:00 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for gate on the amendments. that senator coburn control 40 minutes of the republican time, that at 2:00 p.m. the senate proceed to votes in relation to the coburn and whitehouse amendments in the order listed, that there be two minutes equally divided in between those votes and all after the first vote be ten-minute votes. further, that upon disposition of the coburn and whitehouse amendments, the substitute amendment as amended if amended be agreed to, and be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. so ordered. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i would just take about two minutes and i know senator brown is here to speak to explain what what just

happened because a normal person would never follow this. in my opinion. that's just me speaking. let me tell you what we did. happily, we're moving forward with the first votes on amendments to the water resources bill tomorrow. and i have to thank so much majority leader reid because he worked very hard on making sure we could figure out a way to get these votes, move these votes forward. senator virtd and i -- vitter and i both wanted to see this happen and we're very pleased. what happened is that we will first have a vote on an amendment by senator coburn dealing with a study about ammunition, and upon disposition of that, we would move to another coburn amendment that deals with people being able to carry guns on corps of

engineers land that has levees and dams on it and so on. we'll have a vote and a debate on that. and finally we'll have a vote on the whitehouse amendment which deals with an oceans trust fund. so those three votes will be in order and following that, we believe that the boxer-vitter amendment will be pending. i wanted to just thank everybody for their cooperation in moving this forward. myself, i don't understand why and how we would have a gun amendment on a water infrastructure bill, but that's just me. this is about water infrastructure, it's about flood control, it's about -- it's about making sure that our ports are deepened so commerce can flow in and out. it's about water conservation, it's about wetlands conservation

and restoration. so i don't quite get why we're voting on guns but that's the republicans' desire that the first two votes be on guns so that's what we're going to do. we'll dispose of that, and i could only say to my colleagues, my friends on both sides of the aisle, can we just keep the amendments to the subject at hand. can i ask for order. the presiding officer: order, please. mrs. boxer: if we can just keep the amendments to the subject at hand. i know there's a desire to have votes on lots of issues, but, madam president, i think we all agree that for the economic well-being of our country we need an infrastructure that is topnotch and i hate to say it, our infrastructure has been rated as a d plus. that means our ports are not functioning as they should, our flood control projects are not handling the extreme weather

that we're facing. we need to get back to work here in regular order, and i know there are people here who think that, you know, more gun votes are the way to go. that's a very controversial subject, it tears at the heart of the american people, and many -- the in many, many ways but so be it. let the country see what we're dealing with here. the first two votes by the republicans on a water infrastructure bill are about guns. and let the people decide if they think it is appropriate on a water infrastructure bill that deals with flood control and the adequacy of our ports and our wetlands restoration, if that bill should be burdened with amendments about guns. i don't think so. that's how i'm talking about it. we'll see what happens tomorrow. but at least we have a path forward and, again, i really want to thank senator vitter for

working today on this. i want to thank senator reid and all of my colleagues for their indulgence because, you know, frankly, i would have hoped we would have had a few relevant amendments disposed of but at least we have a path forward tomorrow and look forward to seeing everybody then and by yield the floor. -- i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. this past week we observed in this country workers' memorial day which we pause and remember those americans who have lost their lives on the job. for generations hard-working people have left their homes every morning or for second shift or for third shift to earn an honest living, provide for loved ones and put food on the table. for generations, too many would leave for their jobs but return home from work injured or in far

too many cases not return home at all. they died operating heavy machinery on late-night shifts, they died working in coal mines, they died building roads and bridges. they died in far too many cases from lack of basic fire safety, ventilation systems, and lighting. my lapels i've shared with my colleagues over the years, a number of times i wear a -- a depiction of a canary in in a birdcage, which reminds me why honoring these lives matter. 100 years ago they took the canary in the cage. if the canary died from lack of -- toxic gas, the mine worker left the mine understanding he had no union strong enough to protect him, nor a government that cared to protect him. in those days a hundred years ago when they took the canary in the mine the life expectancy for a child more born in this counts

about 45 or 46 years. today we live three decades longer because we understand everything from medicare to civil rights to social security to workers' compensation to minimum wage to child -- to prohibition of child labor, to auto safety, to safe drinking water and clean air laws. this pin symbolizes people who work hard and play by the rules. we've taken significant steps in this country to people american workers safe and provide fair wages and benefits but we know more work needs to be done. since the national labor relations act and the fair labor standard act were enacted into law in the 1930's workers in this country were guaranteed the right to form a union and bargain collectively. they've been benefited from a minimum wage, benefited from overtime pay. but today we see vicious attacks on unions and collective bargaining from state legislatures at the behest of their corporate and far-right

benefactors. we've seen obstructionists in this body that block even the most reasonable and clearly nominations to the national labor relations board. yes, there's more work to be done even as osha, the occupational safety and health administration, works to ensure safe working conditions, job fatality rates have not fallen, not changed in the past few years. more than 4,600 workers -- think about that -- 4,600 workers were killed on the job in 2011. that's more than ten a day. 4,600 americans workers went to work and didn't come home that night. about 50,000 more died from occupational disease. that's almost a thousand a week died because of exposure to chemicals or something that happened in the workplace. given the progress we've made, over the last several decades, nonetheless americans live longer, enjoy better quality of life but there's more work to be done because too many are still

denied fair wages and benefits and equally importantly, too many are still at serious risk of injury or death on the job. days ago on may 14 -- may 4, two workers in ohio were killed when part of a crane fell on them at a steel mill construction site in stark county, ohio in perry township. brian black and mark tavisi and their families and all the workers at the faircrest plarnt deserve better and deserve swerps. so in mcclen on county, texas where that fertilize or plant explode evidence. that facility had not had a health and safety inspection since 1985. this disaster shows the trend's tragic consequences of not conducting regular workplace inspections. fewer american miners died or injured in 2012 than ever before but in the first three months of

2013, 11 miners were killed in accidents that the mine safety and health administration called preventible. steven cough, a reporter at the plain dealer in ohio documented some of the problems that the government has faced, the agency in charge with protecting mine -- miners' safety, the problems they have in levying fines against coal mine owners who have violated public safety rules. in an interconnected society we can't turn away from workplace disasters not just in our country but overseas. the struggle tony sure workers are treated with the dignity they deserve is an international universal, fundamental right. we've recoiled in horror from the stories of hundreds of garment workers in bangladesh who died in a factory collapse a few weeks ago, and others who died at a factory fire last year. several brand name retailers

contract work in bangladesh. they have a responsibility once the label of their retail establishment is sewn in these clothes whether they own the factory, whether american retailer or american textile maker owns the factory or whether they subcontract to others and try to wash their hands of responsibility, they have a responsibility to work with the bangladeshi government to work with nongovernment institutions and work with the workers themselves to improve their working environment. anything less is unacceptable. the u.s. has a moral duty to lead by example. we should examine contracts with companies that sell products manufactured by workers who are denied in these countries similar to the way that used to be in the united states and occasionally still are who are denied even worker protections. let's not forget the american rescue workers who put their own lives in jeopardy to save hundreds of people over the past

few weeks in texas and in the presiding officer's home state of of the commonwealth of massachusetts. first responders across our country deserve to know that we're doing everything we can to keep them and the people they protect as safe as possible. these are generally public employees, they generally carry a union card, and while bystanders and others tend to run from disasters, they run towards those disasters. let us always remember those whom we have lost over the years, whether they are public sector or private sector workers. we have lost them due to their labor. on workers, memorial day particularly remember them but every day. let's honor those workers who have died by renewing our commitment to protect hard-working american workers who get up, who go to work, who try to provide for themselves and for their families. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 1071 which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1071, an act to specify the size of the special metal blanks that will be used in the production of the national baseball hall of fame commemorative coins. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of the senate -- and the senate now proceed to s. res. 127. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 127, commemorating the ten-year anniversary of the loss of the state symbol of new hampshire, the old man of the mountain. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? if not, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 130 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 130, designating the week of may 1 through may 7, 2013, as national physical education and sport week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous

consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i understand there is a bill at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 888, a bill to provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the commodity exchange act and the security exchange act of 1934. mr. brown: madam president, i ask for a second reading in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard. the bill will receive a second reading on the next legislative day. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the senate to appoint a like committee on the part of the representatives to escort her excellency, park gwin-hyi

into the house chamber for the joint meeting on wednesday, may 8, 2013. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, may 8. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 10:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, the time equally divide and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. further, that at 10:00 a.m., the senate recess for the joint meeting of congress with the president of the republic of korea until 11:30 a.m., and that when the senate reconvenes, the senate resume consideration of s. 601, the water resources development act under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and last, madam president, senators should gather in the senate chamber at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow to proceed as a body to the house for the joint meeting of congress. there will be three roll call

votes at 2:00 in relation to amendments to wrda. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order, madam president. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

would have allowed the senate to basically constrain appropriations on the project in particular to keep them above at the level of user fees collected. senator barbara mccull sky from maryland said it didn't fly with her. it encroached on the appropriations committee jurisdiction. she was making a change. we see a phase of increased funding from the user, the user fees over the next six years. >> the bill's two chief sponsors, the republican david

and republican barbara boxer are they yiewb fied. >> they are. they -- from the public works committee when they marked up the bill in march. as we know, in a divided congress is a high bar to set. they have the full support of their committee, all the mens there, and they are stronging strong bipartisan passage. >> the nation under sequestration budget cut and the government looking for ways to tighten the fiscal belt, critics may ask why are all of these projects necessary? >> well, one of the big things we're looking at externally, there's a massive expansion of the panama canal under way right now. it's not set to open in 2015. it's going to bring a larger number of feigner ship to the american shore. there's concern that the american port and cargo industry will fall behind the international competitors by not

being able to handle the larger ship. >> you talk about the effort. what other key amendments should we look for? >> some of the key amendments we'll be looking for are environmental additions. one, that senator white house from already is talking about. shopping ground it help with funding ocean and beach erosion projects. some other ones likely to see are restructuring of the water ways trust fund the barring users pay in to. there are also probably will be some other environmental stream lining proposals broth to democrats and republicans. democratsing looking to preserve the epa current power and republicans look to restrict them in the future. >> the course ahead what does it look like for the bill? has the obama administration weighed in? what about the prospect in the house? >> the obama administration did provide a bit of a -- rebuke for

the birl. they issued a statement of administration policy. it stopped short of things he would veto the bill. there a number of things particularly with funding, environmental provision, and roll back environmental protections that the white house expressed extreme concern over. senator boxer and senator visitor have addressed some of those concerns and the amendment we have seen today. but there is still some resistance. >> nathan herself with "cq" roll call. read more at rollcall.com. a look at the white house where earlier president obama met with the president of south korea. who is in washington this week. after the meeting, the two leaders held a joint news conference. they addressed a number of issues including recent actions by north korea involving nuclear weapons. here is some of what they had to say. he thought he would draw a wedge

or garner the international respect. today is further evidence that north korea has failed again. president and south koreans have stood with firm, and confidence and resolve. they are as united as ever. in short the days when north carolina could create prices, the days are over. our two nations are prepared to engage with north korea diplomatically and build trust. it's not always as president made clear. the burden on jong. we discussed that he should take notice. that's in countries like burma, as it performances is seeing more trade and investment and

diplomatic ties with the world including the united states and south korea. for our part we'll continue to coordinate closely with south korea and japan. i want to make clear the united states is fully prepared and capable of defending ourselves and allies with a full range of capabilities available. as i said in seoul last year, the commitment to will never waiver. you can see all of the news conference at c c-span.org. tomorrow the south korea president will go on capitol hill. you can see her remarks live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on the companion networking, c-span. leading the way the two great -- [inaudible] again weapons of war in previous centuries now symbol of

sovereign authority. in charge of scorings and so much in the house of lords. you'll see more of him in a short while. [inaudible] the chancellor, bearing the purse with the speech. the duke of nor folk as the lord great chamber. and the queen. >> member of the highest commons, my government issued a program to focus on economic growth, justice, and institutional reform. >> queen elizabeth delivers her government's priority during the state opening of british parliament. a live sigh mull cast from the bbc. on c-span go, c-span radio, and c-span.org. [cheering and applause] national rifle association executive vice president wayne will lapierre spoke over the

weekend. it's thirty minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you. you're kind. chawlz we do it all together. one by one. and people just like you all over this country. [applause] thank you. [cheering and applause] thank you very much. [cheering and applause] thank you houston. good morning. corner north, i appreciate your kind words. you are a genuine american hero. for your service to god, to our country, and your nra, we all salute you, colonel, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. [applause]

at this gathering, one year ago i predicted that our freedom might soon face the greatest threat ever. i spent the past year warning gun owners all over this country that if re-elected, president obama would lawrvelg an all-out historic attack against our second amendment, and the personal freedom of hundreds of millions of law-abiding americans. when i said that, the news media called me pair -- paranoid. obama veemently denied his antigun agenda. mocked us. they even went to the extent of passing out fliers saying he would protect our rights, and a lot of americans were deceived in to believing it. deceived.

..

there is nothing the president will not tear to get something, it had anything to congress to advance his agenda to destroy our second amendment. nothing. so far, thanks to you, and millions of americans all of this country just like you, that is exactly what president obama has done, absolutely nothing. [applause] a lot of courageous men and women in the u.s. housing senate has stood up to the president and defended our freedom. they've taken a lot of heat from the president, michael bloomberg and the media. so it's really a port may hear from every unerring or, every gun owner, every american who values their freedom a great

country, to those senators and congressmen who have stood with the second amendment, we see thank you and ask you to keep defending our rights. [applause] you have stood with us underboss of representative people in your home states. let there be no doubt we stand firmly with you. that's important because while the senate vote less than two weeks ago with significant, it is the one skirmish in what can only be defined as a long war against our constitutional right. as we sit here this morning, when the midst of a once in a generation fate for everything we care about. we have a chance to secure our freedom through generations or lose that forever. we must remain vigilant.

we must remain ever resolute vastly growing and preparing for the more critical battles that went before us. i am proud to report as a stand in front of you this morning the state of our nra is stronger and larger than it has ever been. [applause] you and americans like you make that happen oliver the country. [applause] our commitment to freedom is unwavering in our growth is unprecedented. today the nra is a record 5 million strong. [applause] even as thousands of americans join our cause everyday and are

still signing up, the media and political elite denigrate as eyes and cringe elevate this country. they mock americans to buy firearms and ammunition a record pace in the school then in the nra. they don't get it because they don't get america. president obama, the president of the united states of america holiday press conference 17 days ago and angrily called the nra liars. liars, really? this from a man who spent his entire reelection campaign saying he supported our second

amendment rights and would never try to take anyone's gun away. and he calls us liars? this from a president who repeatedly claimed that 40% of firearm sales don't involve a background check. that was never true. the "washington post" gave the president three pinocchio's for that one. and he calls us liars? the biggest whopper of all, one of the president's favorite lies is 90% of americans support his background check bill. yet the media can't ranted and raved about anything else. 90% of americans don't want criminals of the mentally ill to get their hands on guns. well, i don't know what kind of

polling they do at the white house, but i do know this. when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals are the mentally deranged, nra members agree 100%. [applause] for mr. president, the bill you backed wouldn't accomplish that goal. he rebuilt as they check their criminals avoid. the bill you order the law-abiding to participate and was simply amazing regulation that could criminalize lawful firearms transactions and potentially create a massive government list of every law-abiding gun owner in the united states of america. the schumer bill you for supported and you still support

would create a database of every gun owner in america. been mentioned to me bill but it's not created your job represented tucson or art or a wall prevent the next tragedy. none of it. any of it has anything to do with keeping our children safe at any school anywhere. that's why the president couldn't get the 90% of the senate to go along with it because americans saw through the political posturing all over this country. they treasure their freedom. do not want government to take that freedom away. as they say in texas, the president's 90% is all hat and no cattle. [applause]

i ran into member of congress a couple weeks ago. we spoke for a moment and then he said wayne, i guess i have to go back and listen to 90% of the phone calls that are not coming in. that's a true story. it tells you everything you need to know about pressing up on this empty 90%. so mr. president, you give other speeches you want. you can conjure up all the posts you can and can't nra members of the nasty names names to configure, but you're gun control legislation won't stop one criminal, would make anyone safer anywhere and not flawed failure last on its merits and got the defeat it deserved.

[applause] you know, the only the president won't talk about her chicago. his own hometown now run by his former chief of staff. the president won't talk about chicago, but he should because in the entire united states, chicago ranks 90th out of 90 shore stations and federal firearms prosecutions. dead last. when i brought that up on "meet the press," the media ignored it. the president doesn't talk about a dead 90 and the national news media cameras are like vultures right down the back of this

whole. they haven't mustered the courage to walk into the white house briefing room and ask about chicago's 90th ranking that is getting people killed every day and every night. reshooting every 6.3 hours. [cheers and applause] the deadliest city in america, the presidents on the hometown ranks dead last in federal firearms prosecutions. the media doesn't have the guts to ask him about it. if the president had one clue about how to clean up violent crime, don't you think he would be within his own hometown? if his policies brought her chicago, why did we want to

listen to him on anything else? [applause] no, he'll never hear the media ask him that. maybe it is because all the reporters still have obama over stickers on their cars. [applause] the national media and political elite are all part of the same class that thinks they are smarter than we are. they note better than we do. they can tell us what to do or not, what to owner not, what to eat or drink or not and how to live or not. take michael bloomberg. he's come for mayor of new york at the time a national nanny,

from sugar to salt to trans fats or fruit drinks, to tell you which you can and can't do when you go into a restaurant, they can't find enough ways to boss people around. now he wants to tell us who to elect or not. come on, folks. if michael bloomberg worked a billionaire, would anybody even bother to listen to him? now he's joined the president, created his own super pac, ready to spend hundreds of millions to attack the nra commode bmis gunowners sinister elected officials who won't bow down to his will and literate the second amendment. although the anti-gun media was

supposedly hate money in politics is all too happy to take it all too breathless to brag about bloomberg's money in politics. already they are conspiring right now, regrouping, planning, preparing, organizing, even waiting for the next new town, the next horrific crime, the next senseless horrific crime to exploit. just the other day and a take on spokesman told the national journal, the next new town is inevitable. those things can help, galvanize people to act. politics doesn't get any more disgusting than that. they wait to use the opportunity of violent tragedy rather than prevent tragedy itself.

let me say that again. rather than implement solutions that could prevent senseless violence, and they choose broken policy enable tragedy. tragedy they wait to exploit. my choice for political gain. we know that even now there are dangerous, deranged, evil people throughout society prepared to unleash unspeakable violence in our neighborhood, schools and churches. they use tragedy to blame us, to shame us into compromising our freedom for their political agenda. they want to change america. change our values. but you know what?

this is america. the first country in the world founded not on the race, not a religion, not on a royalty, but a set of god-given principles we call an inalienable right. [cheers and applause] we as americans come from not long when the patriots who broke from king george to live their own lives as free people. and nowhere more than our second amendment right to defend ourselves, our families and our nation. [applause] without that freedom, they really aren't free at all. there is nothing more good and

right and normal in america than an honest american citizen owning a firearm to defend himself or to protect her family. [applause] they can try to blame us, shame on us with all their money. or when it comes to defending the second amendment, we will never sacrifice our freedom on the ultra religious acceptance. we will never surrender or grounds, not very. [applause] [cheers and applause]

you represent the voice of america. they are hearing from you right now. more americans today than ever before understand the principle of the second amendment. the freedom it gives us as individuals to be responsible for own safety, protection and survival. a match in just a minute right now living in a large metropolitan area for lawful firearms ownership is heavily regulated and discouraged. imagine waking up to a phone call from the police at 3:00 a.m. in the morning,

warning the event site in ordering you to stay inside your home. i'm talking of course about us than, where residents were imprisoned he had the locked doors of their homes. a terrorist with bombs and guns just outside. frightened citizens sheltered in place with no means to defend themselves or their families from whatever might come crashing through their door. how many bostonians wish they had a gun two weeks ago? [applause] how many other americans ponder that life or death question? a recent national poll answered that question decidedly with danger lurking outside their doors. 69% of americans said yes, i

want my freedom. i want my gun. [applause] lying in wait right now is a terrorist, entering a school shooter, a kidnapper, a murderer, waiting and planning and plotting in every community across our country, lying in wait right now. no amount of political schemes, congressional legislation, presidential commissions are media roundtables will ever change that inevitable reality. i said it before and i'll say it again. no bill in congress, no rose garden speech will ever change

that nx capable fact that the only way to stop a bad guy with the gun is a good guy with a gun. [applause] [cheers and applause] boston proves that when braves law-enforcement officers did their jobs and that could be so courageously. good guys with guns stop terrorists with guns.

[applause] all over our country, people are more and more frustrated with washington d.c. and the political and media elite are dismayed over a political debate that has nothing to do with addressing our problems and everything to do with it fancying an old, tired, failed political agenda. ever reiko, i think the nra is truly at the heart of america's heartland, that we at the middle of the river if america's mainstream to what we want is exactly what most americans want. we know our mental health system is in shambles and we all want it fixed. we want criminals with guns prosecuted in a perforated.

we want the federal gun laws and folks right now in force against drug dealers with guns, gangs with guns and violent felons with guns. [applause] everyone of you feels that way, i know it. [applause] if they would just do that, does not criminals wouldn't be on their way to the next crime scene. they'd be sitting in prison. we all want our children to be safe. we want them to be protected. that's why we propose trained police and security officers in every single school in our country. [applause] is not a mile or died in america that wants to leave their children unprotect. if the washington elite really wanted the same thing, they would stop demonizing law

abiding american governor spitzer is so trying to the american people that all gun owners are and address programs and a real and meaningful way. trainmen security in every school. i'm force the federal gun laws on the books right now. and it incarcerate criminals before it gets to the next crime scene. they get them off our streets and get them into treatment. and for god sake, leave the rest of us alone in this country. [applause]

[cheers and applause] >> i hope washington hears that message you are sending him right now because the political media class just don't get it. in a lot of ways, they've lost track of what this great nation is really all about. it is about as thin people like us all over our great country. it's always been with the people, not the political class. although he backed the founding of this country. here's that i'm talking about. >> in a recent closed-door speech at donors, politician and media, bill clinton spoke about gunowners. a lot of these people, all they've got is their hunting and

fishing for they've been listening this us so long they believe it all. there are member barack obama's 2008 to san francisco elites. it's not surprising they get bitter, cling to guns or religion. the arrogance of superiority requires this. they don't give us rights. we grant them power. they don't make us safe. we pay to protect them. they don't make us free. we are free already. it's honestly the second amendment, we always will be. our politicians only as powerful as these people allow it to be. [applause] >> we are the people. this is our country.

this is a fight for our freedom and the freedom that separates us from every other nation on earth. that freedom make stronger than other countries do not freedom makes us better than other countries. that freedom is on the line and never more on the line in right now. and through the 2014th congressional election, 17 days ago, president obama said this is only around one. round two is on the way. they're coming after us with a vengeance to destroy us. to destroy us and every ounce of our freedom. is up to us, every single nra member, every gun owner, all americans all over this country, to get to work right now and meet them head-on with an nra is

enough on march 9th to defeat any and all threats to our freedom. [applause] today we are a record 5 million strong. we must not and we will not slow down. not one single day. anytime we finished, the nra must and will be 10 million strong. 10 million dedicated. patriotic, american, who cherish freedom and all that is good and right about america. so we don't care if it is round one, round two or round 15, the nra will go the distance. no matter what it takes, we'll never give up or compromise their constitutional freedom. not one single inch.

[cheers and applause] i repeat are planted firmly in the foundation of freedom, i'm swayed by political media insanity into the political media elite to scorn us, we say let them be. [cheers and applause] so fill your heart with pride. clear your rights. this is our time to stand and fight. now i'm in the next election and the one after that, now and for

the rest of our lives to save our second amendment for future generations, we will never back down. they will never surrender. we will always stand. we will always fight. we will always stand and fight for our american freedoms. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] thank you. [applause]

>> the head of the pension benefit guaranty programs that congress will eventually pass a bill that will provide more flexibility and security with private retirement benefit plans. posted by bloomberg government is 35 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. good morning. anton baptiste, head of bloomberg government. teammate for joining us in thank you for sponsors for supporting a conversation on pension reform.

only launched over two years ago with the aspiration of creating a one-stop shop for data, tools, news, proprietary analysis to help government affairs and government sales professionals make better, faster decisions. part of the aspiration is conversation on important issues that face imation today, particularly the intersection of business and government. today with the quality construction alliance who will discuss the implications multiemployer pension plans. many challenges face pension reform and i'm sure we'll touch on for than a few over the next hour and half. before we kick off our program moderated by bob layton, bob hoover will say a few words. it is the vice president of north american construction. over the last several decades, has held leadership post to some of the largest contracting firms in the country. users as a cochair of the national maintenance agreement

committing and today is representing quality construction alliance. please join me in welcoming, rob hoover. [applause] >> thank you, don. good morning. as traitors and i hoover, vice president of north american construction. on behalf of the five associations that have the construction alliance had like to welcome all of you here today for the important media event. i want to become expressing our sincere gratitude for serving as their host. this is an impressive facility in a very energy-efficient one as well as a perfect example of how 20th century green construction methods can be utilized in a modern cost effect

manner. we are here today to discuss multiemployer pension reform, a subject critical to every employer in the room. a little mark in the construction sector. to give you a frame of reference, construction industry players account for 54% of all multiemployer plans and 37% of participants, overall 3.9 billion participants. cover and are headquartered in pennsylvania and we are one of the premier and estoril construction and maintenance firms in the united states. kvaerner employs thousands of highly skilled tradesmen and women every year and contributes to a wide variety of multiemployer pension plan annually. in 2012 allowed, our company contributed to over 50 funds

that in past years this contributed as many as 80. the construction industry is extremely diverse. although my company is considered very large, we represent one piece of the puzzle that the vast majority of construction industry firms are in the country employs fewer than 50 workers. like every employer in this room who crucifies couple multiemployer pants are a critical part of our efforts to recruit and retain highly trained workforce. they allow construction employers to adapt to a fluctuating workforce from project to project and for many years worked on an off our payrolls who are still able to

provide them with tension benefit that guarantee a reliable and stable income after they retired. we want to continue to provide benefits for current generation of workers in the younger generation that's just getting started. we must face the hard truth to the economic realities have changed in the defined benefit structure change with them if we expect our companies and the plans are workers depend on to survive. multiemployer plans are critical to my company and small medium and large company the industry. the five associations that make up the qc support the proposal your thoughts here today. it takes a sound and balanced approach. it is pro-business and pro-small

business. most importantly, it would preserve benefit. it would also benefit taxpayers are removing the specter of financial risk currently faced by the pension benefit guarantee corporation and it would benefit local communities because financially secure older americans contribute to the economic well-being of towns and cities. in a contractor that contributes so multiemployer planned will tell you we are at a tipping point. in the past a lot prevented us from overfunding plans in case we face tough economic times down the road. that regulation created a symptom in which employers are forced to essentially ensure

that the stock market performance, a dubious process say the least especially in an era when returns are volatile and will. we are not looking for a bailout by any government taxpayer dollars. we are just looking for additional flexibility and tools that will allow trustees and the burger king parties to handle this issue on their own. we believe by working together, labor and management can fix these problems and provide construction workers with an attractive benefit package. by doing so, we ensure the united states construction industry has the highest quality of cephas workforce in the world. thank you. i'd like to turn it over to our moderator, bob.

[applause] >> thank you very much. welcome to this conversation with our distinguished guest today. the director of the pbgc. which you may not know as josh has had a distinguished career in both government and business. he served in three administrations, not just this one. he had three presidentially appointed positions in the clinton administration and was at the defense department. he was at omb and also in the treasury department. he and i have been good friends for 35 years when we put together worked in the carter administration appeared with your permission i'm going to drop the formalities. i'm not going to call him director josh and i feel so awkward to say anything other

than josh. that doesn't mean i'm not quite interesting hard questions and i will. after the session is over, we have a panel of distinguished experts. if you would ask questions of the panel and reporters in the room appeal to ask panelists questions after we have the session. the final thing i want to say about josh that many of you may not know. two things p1 is one of our lunches we held yet i asked, what's he going to do in his next job? he says i don't know commotions probably been his answer all 35 years. in the terror and he's been trusted for airline out of bankruptcy. >> one hundred cents on the dollar. there was a 9/11 commission and so forth and he basically says his criteria for taking jobs as he wants to run something and

fix something. that characterizes certainly his current position. he said an outstanding job as director of pbgc. the other thing is josh is a great singer and belongs to a group and he told me he's going to go perform in the next day or two days and his group is called the augmented eight. so for a lot of questions, o-oscar missing for. >> .run out of questions. >> that's right. exactly. we start with the obvious question, which i would assume most of us that the defined-benefit plants have been the crime in importance for the united states whether multiemployer or single employer for at least the last four years. how significant has since declined them and how is it affected your lead agency? >> i think this is one of the most fundamental that faces not

just retirement, but our nation. over the last couple of generations, the good news is people are living longer, healthier lives. the quality of retirement programs has declined in one form of that decline is the portion of the working population that has a pension that doesn't require them to become an actuary and get someone they're going to live. in essence an investment manager and figure out the right way to invest money were to pick investment managers. the portion of the private sector population that has such a pension is down to 20%. one way to look at it is that

20% and the folks in the public sector and retirees cover 75 million americans. so if you ask me it's a worthwhile trying to work to preserve a form of retirement security? that is better for people to provide lifetime income. mansour is of course it is. it's worth trying to expand it. in order to do it you have to you have to look and asked the question why. that turns out to be pretty simple. the primary reason is providing lifetime income for employees is expensive and unfortunately in the public sector when an employer wants to keep the pension, the employer can turn to employees since they want to keep the pension, but a needy to

share the cost and that is what's happened in many, many public jurisdictions. in the private sector, it turns out because of a glitch in the law, you can't do that because the employee contributions are not tax deferred. one issue we have is if an employer wants to cut costs by providing pension program and share costs, the only way we arrange for them to do it is to switch out of land into 401(k) defined contribution plans. that makes no sense. it's also the case would have imposed higher standards of disclosure of legal liability, et cetera of those pensions. some of this employer's and my

view of bases we need to think about what we can do. what is the effect on agencies like mine? obviously it reduces the customer base and obviously focuses us on making sure we can do everything possible, which is why efforts to hear about this afternoon are something we pay a lot of attention to. >> independently of the recommendations we talk about, i want to ask you what if anything government should do. is that one of the things he would do is fix that? if you fix that, it's going to cost the treasury money. so what you do? >> first of all, i'm not sure that's true, but that's only one thing to be rethinking, to be rethought. right now, it's not as if

employers aren't under competitive pressures. they are. when employers are under competitive pressures, they do respond in the do act. my point is if we are not helpful in the way we regulate, if we are not tough on the way we design code, we can force employers systems that serve employees to serve us well and that's one example. so the challenge for as and this is a real challenge because pensions are complicated. pensions have to be very partisan, serving as the congress united states needs to have both the time and the ability to work through complexity and that's not something easy for them to do. but what we see is sometimes the congress says i want to do this

and they come forward to work with everybody. they think who could handle the complexity and on a bipartisan basis make reforms. i think that's what we need to continue to do. if we are more thoughtful and more evenhanded about how we regulate retirement security, if we are more thoughtful and evenhanded about tax treatment and incentives, the employers and employees can work out perfectly naturally better, more cost-effective ways to pay for retirement. >> have you been up advocating those changes? >> the short answer is yes. one of the facts of life is pension legislation because it is complicated and has to be bipartisan, happens only from time to time. last major piece of pension legislation, nature was enacted

in 2006. the fact is, and i'm very encouraged by this, congress has served notice over the course of the next couple years, they do want to take up and we think these issues. they want to consider what can be done to enhance retirement security in a responsible way. that process is beginning. they're beginning to be discussions, et cetera. unequipped process, not an easy process, but i'm encouraged it is happening and the result will be more flexibility and more options for the range of situations employers and employees have. >> speaking to one of those options are variations, your agency got a lot of attention last year when he said it to american airlines when they try to terminate their pension plan

as part of their bankruptcy. what did you do when they threaten to end their pension plan? >> the first thing pbgc edcouch is the first thing pbgc always tries to do is preserve the pension plan, to see whether the pension plan is affordable and try to work with the company and the other constituencies to see if something can be worked out to preserve the plan since it's always better if a company can afford to keep its pension obligations to retirees and if they get passed on to somebody else. so in the case of american, when they filed bankruptcy in the first is that we can't afford pension plans. fortunately the people of the pbgc are the best business analyst i've seen anywhere, among the best in government. they cited the company and came forward and said to pensions are

expensive, but it looks like the business can afford them. it looks like american airlines can afford to restructure without terminating its pension plans and so we were to the company, which is accreditors, the union and said it looks to us like you could successfully restructure without terminating their pension plan. by the way, if you terminate the pension plan, they pbgc becomes the largest creditor. to become a $10 billion creditor, so we would end of the largest shareholder. so if you don't want the u.s. government b.j. raji shareholder , maybe if i tried to not terminate the pension plan. and that's what happened. we work with the other government agencies, the unions, creditors and they were able to successfully without the pension plans. they take a less famous case to give you the difference.

there is an aircraft manufacturer, which used to be called hawker beechcraft, which is no hawker. a group two miles from aircraft. and they, like american airlines, they got into trouble, filed for bankruptcy and not have to terminate all pre-pension plans. we went to them in the do you really have to do squat only sharpen their pencils and show them ways to restructure and said we do not think we can afford to keep pension plans. so we worked with the union there and said you a choice to negotiate changes in order to preserve the company. you have a choice as to whether you terminate their pension plan

or save the company in other ways. they said we would like to keep the pension plan. they negotiated an agreement with the company in which they preserve the hourly plan which covered about 40% of the employees. we then went to the company said there is a problem. even if we take on the remaining plants, there's some pension benefit because we legally have a limit to the amount of tensions between cover. so what we did this work for the company as part of the bankruptcy, part of the reorganization to set aside a pool of money so those salaried employees for home the pbgc pension would be compensated by the top of ip so i think that's part of our mission. it's our job. obviously we need to be a safety

net, but it's her job to preserve plants and retirement security. one of the nice things about being director is i get to steal credit from an amazingly talented group of public servants who understand enough about business to figure out when to stop asking for the impossible and start dealing with what's real. >> the panel will have after this is going to focus on multiemployer plans. can you tell us how is the pbgc involved in multiemployer plans? >> pbgc is very involved. not only is it a safety net, but pbgc also has the ability to buy sonata alternate forms to try to preserve plants.

the pension benefit corporation has been involved with multiemployer plans for a very, very long time. again, my colleagues, the remarkably talented public servants they are very knowledgeable about the actual economics in the range of economics. it turned out along with the labor department, treasury department, a couple reports on the multiemployer system. in order to set a base, some of the most important points from that is this is a complicated situation. these are very, very useful forms of security. they enable small businesses is pension without having to have an h.r. department and hired dozens of lawyers.

there's a real public benefit of multiemployer benefit plans. piranesi like other plans, like other pension plans did well in the 90s and separate the last two years. and that's not just her of multiemployer plans. that single employer plans. the 90s are better than the last decade. the complication is because the structure of multiemployer plans is more complicated. the response that they have to make when times are bad are themselves more complicated and that's why we need to think through how do we allow the flexibility plants need to continue to serve and protect

employees and continue to enable employers to stay in business. there's been a lot of publicity about some of these plants. so how bad is the situation or how good this? half-full, half-empty, where we quiets >> one of the things one moorings when one comes into the world of pension is that they are complicated and unfortunately this is a case where a couple of bad apples actually convince people hold perilous that. so we ensure all multiemployer plans. the pbgc ensure nationwide about 1500 plans an active and operating plans that we ensure all of them.

the majority of plans for people in multiemployer plans are in plans that are green zone, rok. even the rattus aren't plans that we think can recover overtime and will take extraordinary measures and can recover overtime. our concern is we don't want the fact that a minority of plans are genuinely in trouble. they generally have to restructure or end up on the trainee. we don't want that to taint all the plans to go to the saudis as a. from my youth, we need to have this discussion. we need to think this through, but we need to understand the have to put in place a regime

that not only deals with minority than hp restructure, but allows preservation of the maturity to provide a terrific form of retirement security that is affordable, that enables employers to find a pension without having to higher dozens of lawyers. and as we act in the congress served notice. to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. >> do you think there has to be a congressional fix for the majority ague talk about? or is it something they can do under their own cliques >> we are -- we don't have detailed information on every one of the 1350 plants covering

the 10 million people. but we are convinced as he said in a report that there is a minority plants, round numbers, and maybe 100 plans that of the 1350. something in that range covering less than 10% of the participants. unless they get additional authorities are going to run not of money and the safety net. when they be clear, i want to pbgc to go to the right to safety net. that is why we are here in a separate saudi reform finances so that the safety net is fair when we need it.

but it is clear there is a minority plan. but we need to do is find ways that enable them to restructure, they don't comments all of the employers in this audience, i can't do this anymore. way to always be mindful there is a real issue that needs to be dealt with, but there are ways to solve the problem that might make retirement security worse. >> will have to defer to the discussion for another time. why he's so fabulous fetish. i watch each while chewing me in thanking josh. [applause]

.. >> u.s. ambassador to libya nominee, deborah kayon