as long as it's for recreation purposes, expanding it in a way that could threaten critical infrastructure. this is in a situation where there's no armed guards. no armed guards. one catastrophic failure could affect 100,000 people and could have economic consequences surpassing $10 billion. this is a report from the bush administration, folks. a 2011 dvd inspector general report indicated there were numerous security gaps already at critical dam assets across the nation. so i don't know why we would allow anyone to bring firearms to those critical infrastructure facilities. they can use them for hunting and fishing, but we should have some rules that protect this infrastructure. just notifying the public of the change in law that my friend wants to see happen will cost an

enormous amount of money, millions of dollars. and the coburn amendment doesn't address the costs and normally he would company do that in an amendment. the costs that -- the corps would incur in order to train their workers to carry weapons or hire outside security at that. so i appreciate and respect the views of my friend, but i also think that this is something we shouldn't do today on this bill now. especially when we're seeing a lot of talk about more home-grown terrorism. we want to protect our infrastructure. now, it may be that -- that the corps ought to look at more protection of these facilities. i'm willing to look at that. but i do think we're making a problem where there isn't a problem. people can go on corps land and

use their guns for hunting and fishing, recreation, target shooting, and i think that's working out fine. this seems to be an amendment that's solving a problem that, frankly, doesn't exist. at least i looked -- i have 38 million people in my state, it's a lot of people. i asked do we have a local of letters on this. i at this point don't know of any but i may have some now that the senator has brought this up and we probably have it on both sides now. but i hate to see us do this. because i think it is going to put critical water infrastructure at risk. this is not national parks, these are not facilities where we have armed guards or -- and if something were to happen in a reservoir voir, to a reservoir, to a dam, bush administration tells us it could be quite devastating to

communities. i hope we'll oppose this. again, it is with respect that i say these things. i say them because i truly do think this is misguided, and i hope we can get on with the underlying bill and i thank my colleague and yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: first of all, our amendment excepts the areas that the chairman talked about, locks and dams. all those areas are exempt from this amendment. as ranking member on homeland security i know more about these issues than probably anybody other than our chairman and the past chairman and ranking member in terms of the safety. the people that the chairman talks about, they don't care what the law is now. they don't care what the law is. so the people that we're going to be worried about, you know,

boston has pretty tight laws. they didn't care what the laws were. they broke multiple sets of laws as we saw what happened in boston. we have to prepare for that regardless whether this amendment goes through or not. i'd also note in several of our national parks we have corps land, where we have hydroelectric facilities. we haven't had any problem with that. what we have had is a marked decline in the number of rapes and a marked decline in the number of murders in national parks since we instituted the state laws in national parks for guns. we do have problems with campgrounds, with rapes, with accosting, with assaults, with robberies, and we do have murders on corps land in campgrounds. and so the point is standardizing where you can go

and i'd also make the point, is we only allow state law to apply if oklahoma law is different than california, it's not oklahoma law, it's whatever california's law is. and recognizing that individual right so that we don't put people in jeopardy when they accidentally get on corps land. so i understand her inhibition toward it, towards any expression of the second amendment generally, but the fact is we ought to have a common stol spol in all the areas. we already do it on bureau of land management, in the forest service, we already do it in national parks so we should not exempt the corps. the fact is the people who are going to violate our laws are not the law-abiding citizens. they're not the law-abiding citizens. and it doesn't matter what we do, they're not going to pay attention to what we do. but one thing we've proven on the national parks is that when

we allowed people the ability to carry and follow their own state's law in terms of their second amendment, we saw rapes go down, we saw murders go down, we saw assaults go down and we saw robberies go down in the national parks. the same thing will happen on corps land. and most of the people, most of the people won't carry. most of the people won't come in. but to deny the ability to do that, that's what this amendment is about. i will be happy to debate this -- the senator further. the fact is there's a big difference in our view of what the second amendment should be about in this country, and our trusting of law-abiding citizens to do the right things, and her issue on critical infrastructure, we're doing everything we can do to protect that now and building towards

the ultimate goals of where we need to be and this isn't going to change our approach to that. it isn't going to change it at all. and so i would dispute the fact it's going to change our approach as we look at critical infrastructure and the protection of it. we're going to do the same whether this amendment passes or not. it's not going to have any impact on it. so my hope would be that since i actually have withdrawn the other amendment that we would yield back the time and move to senator whitehouse's amendment as soon as we can. and with that, i'd reserve the balance of my time. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i'd like to ask my friend from oklahoma to show me where he excludes the areas that

are -- that have the critical infrastructure because we have a report from c.r.s. that says it is not excluded. they are not excluded, the dams are not excluded. no problem. madam president, i think the point is the senator tries to stay seau what i think about the right to bear arms. he doesn't know my views, so it is very clear the supreme court has stated the second amendment, that there is a right to bear arms. but just as any other right, free speech, freedom of the press, rights aren't unrestricted. we all know the story, you have free speech but you can't go into a theater and yell fire, fire, unless there's a fire. because you could be charged for causing a riot. so there's no -- there is no absolute right and the corps has stated on their land you can already bring a gun as long as it's about hunting, it's about fishing, it's about recreation.

but they say if it's near their critical infrastructure, which the bush administration says is a homeland security necessity to protect, you can't carry a loaded weapon. now, my friend says he excluded these areas. i'm telling you, you can read this, there is no seclusion and if you read the c.r.s. -- mr. coburn: if the senator would yield? mrs. boxer: i wanted to read what c.r.s. says. it does not restrict firearms at corps facilities like dams or specifically designated areas. i'll be happy to yield. mr. coburn: i'll get you the actual strawt. federal structures are covered under another statute. the reason we didn't specifically represent that, they are covered and we did not exclude those structures. we said corps lantd. we did not specifically say that and we will get you the code where federal structures are

excluded. mrs. boxer: if i could just say to my friend through the chair, fine, get me the code, but you said your amendment specifically excluded it, and it does not. i am-reaching now that part, but there is no question, there is no explicit prohibition here. you're getting to a circumstance where you have one federal law that says one thing and another federal law that says something else and we know where that leads, folks. that leads to court. so i think that my friend wanted to exclude being able to carry weapons near levees and dams, he ought to like the status quo because that's the status quo. the status quo is if you want to use a gun for hunting, fishing, recreation, fine. the corps already allows it. you just can't use it on critical infrastructure. he says that's his point. what's the problem? what's the problem? so i think as i discuss this

with my friend, i don't see why his amendment is necessary and i hope he'll withdraw it franc, frankly,. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i don't have any intention of withdrawing the amendment. there is a federal statute that prohibits the carrying of firearms on federal building and structures and we will get you the statute. that's very clear. we were advised by leg council we did not have to put that in there because it's already prohibited. i will challenge the statement of the c.r.s. and give you the reference for the code, the section of the code that provides that. again, the point is as critical infrastructure is already being beefed up, we're going to be doing that in homeland security, we are doing that in homeland security, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the second-amendment rights to unify our policies across government-owned land in this country.

i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent to place into the record the c.r.s. report done on this identical bill which clearly states in their analysis that this would allow individuals to carry firearms loaded onto levees, dams, near reservoirs and the rest. it's clearly skate ai stated, doesn't explicitly provide the corps with authority to restrict firearms like dams and it goes on to say that that's their decision. now, they did a big study of it. i appreciate my friend, you know, says that he covers this. it's not in his legislation. it's just not in there. he doesn't refer to that other law, he doesn't say anything about the other law and all my point is this: that the corps

already allows you to bring a loaded gun onto the premises and you can even get a special permit if you want to bring it to other areas. it's already the law. so this is an amendment that in my reading of it would allow you then to go beyond these other -- onto these other areas, the critical infrastructure, the c.r.s. agrees, i've put it in the record. i don't think we should move, we'll see where the votes fall. i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection the materials are placed in the appropriate place in the record. mr. coburn: madam president, i would yield back the balance of my time if the chairman of the committee would do as well.

mrs. boxer: i would yield my time back as well and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that time during quorum calls be charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, just for the interest of all senators, we are moving forward with our bill. we have a first vote on an amendment at 2:00. at this time we are determining whether senator whitehouse will offer his amendment. if he does, there will be a vote on one of the two coburn amendments, he's withdrawn the

other, and then a vote on the whitehouse amendment, if, in fact, he offers it. i just want to say for the benefit of all senators that this is is a water bill, this is about dredging our ports, this is about making sure we have restoration of our wetlands, this is about making sure we have flood control protection, this is about the infrastructure of our country. and the ability to move goods, the ability to have an infrastructure that is way better than the d-plus it is rated at at this time. this is not a gun bill. i beg my colleagues, whatever side you are on, we cannot turn this bill into a gun bill because that's not going to happen. so please i hope that you will look at the coburn amendment and

decide the best course is not to have it on this bill. it doesn't belong on this bill, and it shouldn't be on this bill. it is nongermane, and more importantly to me, it is very controversial. i just wanted to ask the senator from rhode island if he could grab a mike for a second. i know the senator has a wonderful amendment that deals with the protection of our oceans on a water bill -- guess what, an amendment about water on a water bill. this is good. and i would ask my friend if he does noand offer his amendment. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, through the chair i will tell the distinguished chairman i with great enthusiasm intend to offer my amendment and i hope that colleagues on both sides of the

aisle will support it. you should support it if you are from a coastal state because the coastal problems that coastal states face are so often overlooked. if you are not from a coastal state but you visit coastal states to go to the beach, if you like to eat fish or, frankly, if you like imported products that come through through our coastal ports you too have interest in this legislation and i hope you will support it. finally, this is a piece of a piece of legislation that was agreed to before by this body in the form of the restore act. and in the restore act, we literally sent billions of dollars to our colleagues along the gulf states for remediation, repair, economic

reconstruction after both the hurricane katrina and the explosion of the oil well, those two disasters. so for reasons that don't merit further discussion here today, that part of the agreement was left unaccomplished. and so whether you're from a coastal state or whether you enjoy coastal products or visits or not, i would urge my colleagues that for the sake of the senate being a place in which a bargain once struck is honored, that we all vote strongly in support of the authorization -- this is only an tho, no funding whatsoever -- the authorization of a national document for the oceans that will allow coastal and great lakes states to compete for funding to be

obtained later but at least through existing structures, new bureaucracy but so that we can do what we need to do to protect our coastal economies. thank you, madam chair. mrs. boxer: retaining my time, i would like to ask through -- through the -- madam president, through the chair, if senator whitehouse has to actually send his amendment to the desk and ask for the yeas and nays, because if so, i think it would be an appropriate time to do that since we intend to vote at 2:00. the presiding officer: it can be offered at this time. mr. whitehouse: well, then if i may seek recognition. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: at the chairman's suggestion, with her position -- with her permission, i will gladly ask that my amendment be called up so that it can be considered. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse, proposes amendment numbered 803 to amendment numbered 799.

mrs. boxer: does the senator need to ask for the yeas and nays? or are the yeas and nays ordered? does the senator need to ask for the yeas and nays or are the yeas and nays ordered under the -- the presiding officer: the yeas and nays would have to be requested. mr. whitehouse: then i ask for the yeas and nays, madam president. the presiding officer: there is not a sufficient second at this time. mrs. boxer: okay. well, madam president, i'm very confused. yesterday there was an agreement that there would be a vote. what is the -- what is my colleague's understanding of that agreement? okay, we just need to have someone come out. all right. so i would recommend that, senator, if you could just stay on the floor so we can get a colleague out on the floor, that would be great. and after we do that, i'm going

to encourage my friend to -- to take some time and go into why it is so critical that we pay attention to the oceans of our country, what is happening to the state of our oceans, what's happening to the quality of our oceans given so many factors, including the changes that we're experiencing in climate because he is a great expert in that. and at this time, i would not note -- does my friend want some time now because i would like to go see if i can get us to get the yeas and nays? should i just put a quorum call in? i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, while the chairman goes about the parliamentary task of organizing a sufficient second on the national endowment bill,

i do want to describe some of the changes that our coastal and great lake states are seeing and need to deal with. probably the most obvious of all are the storms that we've been seeing, the unprecedented and extreme storms that we've been seeing along our coasts. whether it was hurricane katrina or superstorm sandy, we have seen unprecedented damage done at the merger of land and sea where, driven by these powerful storms, the sea can reach -- wreak such havoc on the land. but it goes well beyond the damage of extreme storms. if you go out into the gulf of

maine, you will see that the cod catch, which is an historic fishery going back centuries, has now collapsed to the point where the draconian measures that must be applied to that fishery risk actually extinguishing the fishing industry for cod in some of our northeastern states. you can move down the coast to the carolinas, where highway departments are raising the bridges out to the outer banks in order to prepare for higher seas and stronger storm surges. you can go further south to the florida coast, where in some parts of that ocean, the caribbean ocean nearby, as little as 10% of the coral remains alive.

well, that's actually a pretty big industry for florida. i think they do 15 million scuba dives a year for recreational purposes. 15 million scuba dives, which is not just economically valuable for the dive boat owners and operators but for the people who travel, who have meals and stay in hotels and buy equipment. and they are not going to come to do scuba diving there as much if the famous caribbean reefs and coral reefs off of florida continue to die at the rate that they are. you can go all the way across the country to the west coast, where you see the oyster fisheries in washington and oregon threatened by the acidification of the oceans, there have been oyster hatcheries that have had massive

dieoffs within the hatchery when acidified water from the sea welled up and came into the intakes of this, in many cases, multigenerational family operations, and were would acid to allow the larva oysters to develop their shells with the resulting massive dieoffs and economic loss. i can tell two stories about my home state of rhode island that are very current. in rhode island, the biggest storm that we have seen, worse even than superstorm sandy, in recent decades was the famous hurricane of 1938 which did immense damage along our shoreline at a time when our shoreline was far less developed than it is now. between the 1930's, when that hurricane took place, and now,

the sea level at the newport tide gauge in newport, rhode island, has actually climbed 10 inches. so when the next hurricane of 1938 comes, or perhaps even a bigger one, as our current experience of storms would seem to suggest is possible, when that bigger storm comes, it's going to be driving a higher ocean against the shore. and probably not just 10 inches higher, because storm surge will stack that 10-inch increase as it crashes against our rhode island shores. and that can be a game changer. and states like rhode island have to do a lot of work to reconfigure where the so-called velocity zones are, where it is safe to build or not safe to build, what is actually now vulnerable as a 100-year flood or a 500-year flood as things

change along our coasts. so that's something that is a little bit hard to debate. it's actually a measurement. it's a measurement of 10 inches on a tide gauge. this is not some theory. this is what has happened. and that water lying out there 10 inches higher is a terrific risk to our state and something that we have to prepare for. and given the way state budgets are, we'd like to be able to compete, once we've found some federal funding, for the ability to figure out so that investors and people living along coastal communities can have a solid and fact-based appreciation of what the risks are to them from this worsening condition of stronger storms and higher measured sea levels. another rhode island specific example is the winter flounder. the winter flounder is a major

catch species in narragansett bay, or at least it was. you can go back to the earliest native american settlements and find winter flounder bones around the settlements. for many years, the winter flounder was "the" biggest catch in narragansett bay. i know a certain amount about it, because when my wife did her ph.d. thesis, she studied the winter flounder in narragansett bay and what was happening to it and how its life cycle interacted with another bay creature called the sand shrimp. crangon septum spinosa is the technical name. well, in the time between when she wrote her thesis and now, the catch of winter flounder in narragansett bay has crashed more than 90%. it is really no longer an acti

active, direct fishery in narragansett bay. i can remember not that many years ago, it doesn't seem, driving over the jamestowne bridge or the newport bridge or the bristol bridge and looking down and seeing trawlers working the upper bay trawling for winter flounder. you don't see that any longer because that fishery has crashed. it's crashed for two reasons. one is that the bay is warmer in the winter. i'm having a dispute with politifact right now but i stand by my assertion that it's 4 degrees warmer in the winter. they think it's more like 3 degrees warmer in the winter. than it was 30 years ago. and 4 degrees water temperature may not seem like much to us humans but we don't live in that environment. if that is your environment, 4 degrees sends a signal to certain species, you don't belong here any longer; move to cooler waters. the other thing that it's done

is that it has allowed this other bay creature, the sand shrimp, to move in earlier to the bay. when the larva winter flounders are still small enough to be eaten by the sand shrimp. now, it used to be that the sand shrimp would come in and they would feed on the larva winter flounders, but enough of them would get big enough soon enough that they got too big to eat for the san shrimp. and, in fact, as they got bigger, they'd turn around and eat the sand shrimp back. that was the cycle of life. now the sand shimp come in shri, there are fewer winter flounder because of the temperature, and because they're getting in earlier, it's a much more dangerous environment for the -- because the larva winter flounder are smaller and remain prey longer. so for all of those reasons,

there goes what once was a very, very key fishery. so these are just individual examples. every coastal state, every great lake state could come and have their senator give a same speech with at least two examples of things that are changing that are making a dramatic difference in the coasts. and the example i use is, the faster you drive, the better your headlights need to be. well, these changes are coming fast. things that used to happen across centuries are happening in decades. things to used to happen in decades are happening in years. we need to have better headlights as we see these changes coming at us, and the headlights are the science, the research, the information, the ability to do this kind of work. so i hope that my colleagues on the merits will support my amendment and i hope that even if they don't particularly care,

even if they're from a inland state and don't have a great interest in this, that simply in the interest of the spirit of the senate that we respect an agreement once it has been reached and will make an effort to make sure that agreements, once struck, aren't broken, that i will get bipartisan support. and with that, i will yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. are barrasso: mr. barrasso: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i rise in support of the 2013 water resources development act or wrda. i agree with my colleagues that moving forward with a bipartisan

bill is important for our communities. as the ranking member of the subcommittee on transportation and infrastructure, i believe we need to address the issues facing the army corps and the country. we today have problems with aging infrastructure and with a lack of transparency and with fiscal accountability. all of which, all of which impact the public health, the safety and the economic welfare of our communities. madam president, my staff and i have worked with our colleagues on the full committee and the subcommittee to create a bipartisan product to address these concerns. we may have our differences on the number of the issues but the bulk of what we have accomplished is about protecting our states, protecting our constituents, not about partisan politics. for example, issues such as flood mitigation are very important to my state. in 1984 the town of bags, wyoming faced a major flood. the entire town had to be evacuated and there was over a million dollars worth of damage

done. in mid may of 2008, bags faced another potential major flood. the wyoming national guard was called in to assist as well as the wyoming department of homeland security. at the request of the department of homeland security the army corps sacramento office sent an official who was able to oversee the reinforcement of existing berms and the construction of new ones. this time bags did not need to be evacuate an the gaj daj was minimal. bags isn't the only town in wyoming to need assistance to protect itself from the threat of flooding. predicting floods and being better prepared is a component in keeping wyoming communities safe. this is why i proposed and successfully included language into this bill with the help of the chair and the ranking member for an authorization to the upper missouri basin flood and drought monitoring. this program will restore the stream gauges and snow pack monitors that the upper missouri basin at all elevations. these are used to monitor snow

depth, soil moisture to inform agencies like the corps as to potential flooding and drought in the future. this type of monitoring will protect communities and save lives. the language is supported by the upper missouri water association. i'm also pleased, madam president, that the language i've authored was included in the bill for technical assistance to help rural communities comply with environmental regulations. rural communities often do not have the expertise or the funding to make important upgrades to their water systems. dedicated professionals such as the folks of the wyoming rural water association use this funding to go into these communities and to provide the critical assistance that they need. i want to thank subcommittee chairman baucus for his help in working with me to get this important language included in the bill. as i've mentioned, transparency and fiscal responsibility are also important components to tackling the issues that need to be addressed with the army

corps. that's why i authored language to create an army corps project deauthorization process. one that mimics the base realignment and closure commission, the bracc commissions. that's the process that the department of defense uses to close or consolidate military bases. under my language an independent commission appointed by the president would identify projects for deauthorization based upon established rye tieria and submit those projects as one package for an up-or-down vote by the congress. there are many of these projects that are on the books. they're authorized for millions of dollars and they're going nowhere. so the backlog of army corps projects is currently about $60 billion according to the national academy of sciences. so it's time for the corps and congress to clean the books, cut the waste, and bring fiscal responsibility to the wrda process. i'm specifically thankful to

chairman boxer, to ranking member vitter and the subcommittee chairman baucus for supporting my language. i'm also grateful to my colleagues for the bipartisan process that this bill was considered under. our staffs worked well together, we put together a good product. i specifically want to thank a member of my staffer, brian clifford who worked diligently to put this process and work in a unified way. we see the results in the senate, the bill unanimously passed the senate environment and public works work. the bill is not perfect, i believe we have achieved a compromise, a solution that is substantive, effective, and in the public interest. this is a product that will save lives, will maintain the flow of commerce and will protect communities for years to come. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president, as the son and grandson of classroom teachers, as a father myself and as someone for whom education played a central role in my life, as a passionate believer in the power of education to change others' lives, i rise today to talk about a bill that is one of the most important to me that i have moved as a senator. mr. coons: the fact is, if we look at the american national condition, lack of access to higher education, lack of an opportunity for quality education. it's one of the greatest problems we face.

iinequality in having some real hope, some real promise of a shot at college defines and distinguishes the driver of social inequality in america in ways that it hasn't in decades. if we want to ensure going forward that american workers can compete in the global economy, if we want to ensure a county that is capable of living up to our promise of liberty and justice for all, if we want to deal with one of the biggest civil rights issues i think in our country, then we have to ensure every child has an equal chance for a high-quality education regardless of the zip code they're born into. madam president, long before i was elected to public office, i spent years working with an education centered nonprofit called the "i have a dream foundation." and in my role there, i visited schools all over the united states. more often than not, schools in very tough communities and neighborhoods, schools that were

in public housing developments or that were in some of the most forlorn and troubled neighborhoods in all of america. and something that struck me over and over again was when i'd go into an elementary school and talk to a whole group of young kids and say, what do you dream of, what do you hope to be when you grow up in and they'd raise their hands and you'd ask -- none of them said i dream of being in a gang, i dream of being in jail, i dream of being a drug dealer, i dream of dying before 20. they'd say, i dream of being a senator or a lawyer, of owning my own business or of being a star in the nba, of being a success. but dreams that you hear from kids in elementary schools are the same regardless of what community you're in in america. yet the outcomes are so desperately different. what i saw in the nearly 20 years i was active with the "i have a dream foundation," was that the young people who come from a community of family or a school where there's the or no experience or expectation of a

college education, there are powerful and persistent and negative messages from a very early age that college is not for them. they're told indirectly that it's not affordable, it's not accessible, it's just not part of the plan for their future. and those messages have a cumulative and powerful and consequential impact. very few of the 50 dreamers from the east side of wilmington that my family and i work very closely with had any expectation of a college education. and in 1988 when our chapter of the "i have a dream program" promised them the opportunity for a higher education through a scholarship, you could see the change. first in their teachers and their parents. then in their mentors and their classmates. and ultimately in them, in their hopes, in their expectations. the most powerful thing that the "i have a dream program" and our chapter and dozens of chapters all over the country did was to

hold up a mirror to young people of their future that was a brighter and more promising future than they had ever dreamed of on their own. and then to challenge them to walk through that open door and to make college not just a distant dream, not just something you'd heard of, something not you watched on tv but something that became a part of their lived life and to change their outcomes. well, that experience has inspired the bill that i introduced in the last congress and that i am most personally connected to in this congress. and last year i found a republican partner who shares my passion for expanding access to college and for making it more affordable. that partner is senator marco rubio of florida. now, some folks have noticed that here in the senate, we don't always get along and we don't always agree, and sometimes partisanship divides us. so i've been very, very pleased to have this strong and able partner in moving forward a bipartisan bill which we named "the american dream accounts

act." a bill that bridges the opportunity gap by connecting students and teachers, parents and mentors to create a new generation of higher education achievers. too many american kids today are cut off from the enormous potential of a higher education. the numbers are grim. if you come from a low-income family, the chance you'll complete a college degree by the time you're 25 is about one in ten, at best. and these days in order to have a prospect of employment and opportunity, of accumulating wealth of and providing education and security for your family and your kids, a college education is essential. we in the federal government spend billions of dollars on making higher education affordable through pell grants yet do almost nothing to make it clear to children at the earliest age that this funding will be available to them. in my home state of delaware, where our governor, jack marquel, and our first lady,

carla marquel, have done a wonderful job of incorporating the power of this insight, this lesson of ensuring that there is a state-funded scholarship and a network of engaged mentors and real reform in our public schools. we don't tell kids even in our state in elementary school of the possibilities that lie ahead of them in a way that changes their expectations. that's what this bill will hopefully do. it encourages partnerships between schools and colleges, nonprofits and businesses. it allows them to develop individualized student accounts, like a facebook account married to a college savings account. individual accounts that are secure, that are web-based, that are personal and that are portable; accounts that contain information about each student's academic preparedness and financial literacy, something that combines a portfolio of their entire education experience with the very real savings for the future of higher

education that we want to pull them towards during their earliest years. instead of forcing motivated parents, concerned teachers or interested mentors or empowered students, instead of forcing these folks to track down these different resources separately, this legislation, this idea would connect them across existing silos and across existing education programs at the state and federal level. tomorrow senator rubio and i will reintroduce this legislation as the bipartisan american dream accounts act of 2013. we are working hard to earn the support of our colleagues here in the senate and in the house, and i will keep at this as long as that takes. madam president, the american dream accounts act addresses long-standing challenges and barriers to college access, connectivity, financial resources, early intervention, and portability. let me briefly speak to each of those. first connectivity. the journey from elementary school through high school through higher education is a

long one. and for a student to be successful, it takes lots of engaged and attentive adults, motivated parents, concerned teachers, supportive family. so many students in our schools all over this country disengage or drop out along that way because they're not connected. they're not supported by those concerned and engaged adults. the american dream accounts act takes advantage of modern technology to create facebook-inspired individualized accounts, an opportunity to deliver personalized hubs of information that would connect these kids and sustain and support them throughout the entire journey of education by continuing to remind them of the promise of higher education and its affordability. second, these dream accounts would connect kids with college savings opportunities. studies show that students who know there is a dedicated college savings account in their name are seven times more likely

to go to college than peers without one. think about that for a moment. states like delaware and our nation invest billions of dollars in programs to make higher education affordable. yet, so few of the kids i worked with all over this country in the i have a dream program have any idea, they never heard of senator pell. they don't know pell grants exist. they don't live in states that have the hope scholars, the aspire scholars or the dream scholarships a number of states have and they don't know they'll be there for them when they're of age to go to college. why don't we tell them earlier? why don't we change their expectations? that's one of the things this program would do. and it's not a new idea. it is a demonstrated one we know works. the third piece of this american dream accounts act is early intervention. as i said, state and federal programs that provide billions in support to make college affordable don't connect with kids know early enough. by letting them know early we

can change their outcomes. the last piece is portability. one of the things i saw in my experience with my dreamers, the students in the i have a dream program that i help run in delaware, was just how often they moved. children growing up in poverty, in families facing unexpected challenges relocate over and over and bounce from school to school, district to district. often facing overstretched teachers with full classrooms who when they move midyear into a new school don't get any background information or insight on the student who has moved into their classroom. so instead of being welcomed and engaged in a positive way, sometimes they feel and are disconnected and develop into discipline problems or students who are difficult to teach. the mobility that comes with poverty sometimes also leads to disconnection from education. this robust online secure individualized account would empower teachers to connect with parents, to connect with mentors and to know the entire education

history of the student newly before them. so no matter what disruptions or challenges a student might face as they travel through the long journey of education, their own individual american dream account, their own portfolio of their dreams and their activities and their progress would be there with them. madam president, our nation's long-term economic competitiveness requires a highly trained and highly educated workforce. and our nation's commitment to a democracy, to a country of equal opportunity demands that we do everything we can to make real the hope of higher education for kids no matter the zip code into which they're born. while we spend billions on making higher education affordable, we aren't delivering it effectively enough to change that future. what i saw in my dreams with the i have a dream program was bright faces, raised arms, hope and opportunity that sadly was

not as often as it could be realized. this program, this connectivity, this new type of account is a way to make real on that promise. we can meet this challenge by connecting students with a broad array of higher education options, informing them about them early whether it is vocational school, job training or community college or four-year universities. not everyone is made for a four-year higher education degree. this would connect kids for opportunities with skilled training and higher education that are out there. it also would support students as they identify the type of higher education best for them, the career they most want and give them the tools to get there. as i visited schools across my own state of delaware, one thing is clear, all these different resources currently exist in different ways and at different stages of education, but they are not connected in a way that weaves together students,

parents, mentors, and the resources of our highly motivated, highly engaged state. so, this vision, one that has stayed with me from my time at i have a dream to my service here as a senator is that when we ask a room full of elementary schoolkids in the future, "what do you dream of? what is your hope" that when their hands shoot up in the air and they list all the different dreams they've got, that regardless of background or income or community, we can make that possible. we can make our investments real. and we can make the dream of equal opportunity a reality. this year with the support of lots of groups, the corporation for enterprise development, a wonderful group called opportunity nation, the first focus campaign for children, we are hopeful that bipartisan support for this american dream accounts idea will simply continue to grow. let's work together to empower students and parents of all background to achieve their

dreams from the earliest age. thank you. and, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, i rise to speak over the impasse over the progress of federal budget. i've been a senator for two years, presided over the chamber as have you, and i've listened to tk-zs of speeches -- to dozens of speeches from colleagues, in particular republican colleagues, upset that this chamber, the budget committee on which i serve, hasn't passed a budget in several years. but this year we passed a budget, finally. we went through the long and grinding process known here in washington as vote-a-rama, where we considered, debated and disposed of 101 amendments, over hours and hours and hours of

deliberation and debate and voting on this floor. and we passed a budget. it's been 46 days since the senate passed our budget, but we still need to reconcile it with the house of representatives' budget for it to become a forceful resolution, a budget resolution that drives the decisions of the congress. it's important we do that because it's been 66 days since the sequester kicked in. sequester, i know, is washingtonspeak, but all of us as senators are hearing from our home states the very real, very human impact of these across-the-board spending cuts that have begun to really bite. whether it's potential furloughs of men and women who serve at dover air force base, whether it's tens of thousands of children kicked out of needed head start programs, whether it's thousands of women not getting the breast cancer screenings they need or hundreds of thousands of children not

getting the vaccines they're supposed to get, the impacts of the sequester are becoming stronger and broader and more negative all across our country. and the sequester exists because of a lack of political will to come together, to resolve a fundamentally different vision between the senate and the house enacted in our respective budgets. this sequester exists because we haven't come together across the house and the senate in a way that for 200 years and more this congress has done when we pass a bill and when the house passes a bill, it's supposed to go to congress for reconciliation, resolution and ultimately passage. here's our chance. why would republicans actively keep us from going to conference to finalize a budget, especially after years of coming to this floor and giving speeches to, khraeplg over and over -- claiming over and over how terrible it was that we would

not pass a budget in the senate? americans, delawareans are tired of this dysfunction. in my view, today republicans are manufacturing a crisis by preventing the senate and house from coming together to reconcile our budgets in conference. as i said, madam president, i'm a member of the budget committee, and i can say with some detailed knowledge, as can you, there are real differences between the budget adopted here in the senate and that adopted in the house. i believe the democratic budget promotes growth and the republican budget focuses on cuts. i believe our prioritizes the middle class, whereas the other prioritizes more tax cuts for wealthiest. our prioritizes, in my view, balance. the others, politics. i think our budget puts us on the path towards job creation while the other takes a path to austerity. but we will never reconcile these two budgets, achieve a shared path forward and set

aside this terrible sequester if we don't go to conference. reconciling these two budgets are the definition of what i've heard member after member come to the floor and call for, what we here in the senate call regular order: the process set out by the founders of this nation and to which we should return. these political games, in my view, are destroying this institution. i think it is no wonder that the opinion of the average american all across this country of this institution simply sinks lower and lower. the only thing standing in the way of our progress on this budget at this point is repeated republican objections. it is my hope they will step aside and allow us to walk the corridor to the house, get to the conference table and resolve our budget differences. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. i would ask unanimous consent to have up to five minutes to speak before the vote. am i correct in assuming the vote is at 2:00? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mrs. boxer: okay. well, thank you very much, madam president. i -- i wanted to just again let senators know where we are. at 2:00, we will be voting on a gun amendment. i would hope that this gun amendment would not get the 60 votes required, because i believe it is dangerous even though senator coburn says it would not allow guns to be carried on critical infrastructure such as dams and lox and reservoirs.

we now have two studies that say in fact it would allow that, and according to the bush administration, this critical water infrastructure is a target for terrorists. and, you know, we are now entering into a stage when our leaders are talking about home-grown terror, we don't have to look too much further than boston to understand this is a problem. why would we want to have on a water infrastructure bill an amendment that allows people to come in with guns and go right to the heart of those critical water infrastructure projects, those dams, those reservoirs, those lox, et cetera? particularly since the corps already allows for recreational use, the use of guns for hunting, target practice or fishing. that is already allowed. there are rules. this isn't comparable to national park service. we could get into another debate

on that. that one, i know some people here voted for that to allow extensive guns being carried on park land. that change was made. the corps is a different situation. the park service act like police. they can come in, they can quell a disturbens, they are armed, they are trained. the corps is not a law enforcement entity. that means what they would have to do if there was a violent outburst is called the -- call the local governments, the state governments, and we don't know how long it would take to have those law enforcement people arrive at such a situation. so i am pleading with my colleagues this is a water infrastructure bill. this is not a gun bill. this is not the place to add these type of amendments. we have a very bipartisan bill here. it is supported by the chamber of commerce.

it is supported by the unions. it is supported by local government, by the governors association. i could go on and on. there is a list of literally 150 organizations. it came out of the committee with a bipartisan vote. and i would hope that when the clock strikes two, that we can have a vote that keeps us on track, that doesn't turn the wrda bill into a gun bill. it isn't necessary. it isn't appropriate, and because the fact is that there is nothing in the amendment that would stop people from carrying guns onto critical water infrastructure, it sets up a national security threat. it endangers people. and i just want to be clear. i'm not going to allow a bill to move forward that endangers the lives of the people i represent. i owe them a lot more than that, let alone the entire country. we all serve this nation.

so i hope we will not pass this. i would yield the floor at this time and ask for a no vote on the coburn amendment. with that, i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the coburn amendment number 805. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 56, the nays are 43. the 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the amendment is not agreed to. the majority leader. the majority leader. mr. reid: one of the three scheduled votes has been withdrawn, the amendment, so we only have one more vote. senators boxer and vitter have a number of other people wanting to offer amendments today, so if you have amendments, talk to the two managers of the bill. mrs. boxer: i ask for the yeas and nays on the whitehouse amendment. i did move to reconsider. mr. cardin: lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i would ask for the yeas and nays on the whitehouse amendment and urge its passage.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment numbered 803 offered by the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president and colleagues, if i could have -- if i could have my colleagues' attention for a moment. i would appreciate it. this is a measure that this body has voted on before in a strong bipartisan vote. this was part of the restore act which was part of the highway bill, and for reasons that don't merit further discussion now, this piece of it fell out of the bargain that had been reached at the last minute in conference. so i hope this will be a bipartisan vote with support on both sides. if you have supported the

restore act, you have already supported this bill. if you believe that deals should be deals in the senate, then you should support this bill. and for all of us in coastal states who are facing really unique pressures, it is very important, i think, that we as a body support this bill. it does not create a single extra bureaucracy or person. it works within the existing government, and it adds no funding. i'm going to have to work with all of you to find funding for it later and within our existing budget constraints. this is just the authorization. please give me a strong bipartisan vote. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. who yields time in opposition? mrs. boxer: parliamentary

inquiry? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i understand there are some who are asking for a voice vote. would that be okay with senator whitehouse? the presiding officer: it would require unanimous consent. mrs. boxer: would you prefer a vote? all right. i think we should go on with the vote then. i call for the vote. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on amendment numbered 803. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: do any senators wish to vote or change their vote? seeing none, on the this vote the yeas every 68, the nays are

31, the 60-vote having been acheeched, the amendment is agreed to. mrs. boxer: move to lay it on the table. i have a unanimous consent request and i'm going to make it in a minute. we're making good progress. we have three amendments in order, blunt 800, inhofe 835 and i ask that they be the following amendments in order to -- in that order to be considered. and further that no second-degree amendments be in order to these amendments prior to votes in relation to the amendments. that's my u.c. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. so we're well on our way to getting this bill done, i hope. and i hope that the rest of the amendments -- the whitehouse amendment was one that was overwhelmingly supported, i hope that will set the tone for this particular bill, that we will come together, won't have

contentious issues that divide us and divide the american people on a bill that is so motherhood and apple pie as this one is which is to make sure our ports are dredged, our flood control projects are done, environmental restoration of wetlands are done. it's a very simple, straightforward bill. so i would further ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks here that senator whitehouse be recognized for up to five minutes to thank the senate for this vote. i know he's worked exceedingly hard on this and that there be a period of morning business up to 30 minutes with each senator allowed to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, amendment number 799 as amended is froot and considered text for the purposes of further amendment. the senator from rhode island.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i appreciate the chairman's leadership and her offer of five minutes of time. i won't need anywhere near that. i just wanted to take this moment to extend to all of my colleagues a very heartfelt thank you for that last vote and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise to make a few remarks and to make a motion. everyone in this body knows that one of the issues -- the issue that i believe is most holding back our economic recovery and most holding back our ability to sort through so many issues our country faces is the issue of our -- of our debt and deficit. 17 -- nearly $17 trillion in debt, a debt that goes up over $4 billion every night when we go to sleep. this problem is structural in

nature. it -- time alone will not solve this issue. for the last four years in my time in the senate, there's been no issue on which i've spent more time, spent more effort trying to reach out. i understand that many of my colleagues actually try to avoid me in the hallways now because they fear they're going to get a mark warner harangue on the debt and deficit. i also know that the only way we're going to get this issue resolved is if both sides are willing to meet each other in the middle. this is a problem that cannot be solved by continuing to cut back on discretionary spending. it will require, yes, more revenues and it will require entitlement reform. those are issues where unfortunately in many ways our parties have not found agreement. we all have agreed as well at least that while we don't have to solve this whole problem overnight, we do need at least

$4 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years. the good thing is, while we have lurched from budget crisis to budget crisis, we have gotten over half the way there on our goal. the good news as well is that this year, both the senate and the house adopte adopted budget resolutions. as i said on the floor in march, i believe the senate budget was a solid first chapter towards producing a balanced fiscal plan for our country. my vote for the senate budget -- and it was not a budget that i would agree with every component part -- but it was a vote for progress. a vote for the process of regular order. regular order that so many of my distinguished colleagues who've served here much longer than i say was the glue that holds this institution together. well, it's now been 46 days since the senate passed its budget and unfortunately there are certain colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seem to block our ability to go to conference. in a few minutes -- just two

minutes, i will ask my colleagues agree to authorize the chair to name a conference to the budget committee. unfortunately, i expect that request to be objected to. i find that extremely disappointing. i can only speak at this point for folks from virginia but no single other issue is as overriding as i hear -- as i travel across virginia and i would imagine as most of my colleagues who travel across their states, is that at the end of the day, americans, virginians want us to work together and get this issue solved. we've seen over the last 2 1/2 years as we've lurched from manufactured budget crisis to budget crisis the effects this has had on the stock market, on job creation, and our overall economic recovery. well, we have a chance to put this behind us. we need to find the kind of common ground between the house budget proposal and the senate budget proposal that so many have called upon us to work on.

again, i'm going to make this motion in a moment. i just want to add one last point. i appreciate some of the calls that we have had from our colleagues on the republican side over the last couple years for the senate to pass a budget. i believe we needed to pass that budget. well, 46 days ago, after a hundred amendments and a morning that went until 5:00 in the morning, we passed such a document. i think it is time now that we allow the senate to announce its conferees, to meet with the house, to get a budget resolved for the united states of america so we've got a framework to make sure that we get this issue of debt and deficit behind us, that we allow the economy to recover in the way that it needs. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 33, h. con. res. 25, that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of s. con. res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the senate, be inserted in lieu thereof,

that h. con. res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, that the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing views of the two houses and the chair be authorized to appoint cfees on the part of the -- conferees on the part of the senate with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object. i would ask consent that the senator modify his request so that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference report that includes tax increases or reconciliation instructions to increase taxes or raise the debt limit. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, reserving the right to ofbility i woulobject.i would just pointt the senator is requesting is for us to redo the budget debate where those amendments were considered in the senate, defeated in the senate and it's now time for us to go to conference and work out our differences with the house. there's no need to go back through another 50 hours of

debate and a hundred-plus amendments to be considered. this body needs to go to work. we've been told time and time again we need a budget, we need a solution to this. we don't need to manage by crisis. there is no need to relitigate the budget in this side. we need to go to conference and litigate our differences with the hous house republicans. so i would object to the senator's request and urge that we move to conference and allow senator warner from virginia's unanimous consent to go forward. the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator from virginia's request? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: while not unexpected, i am disappointed. the nub of this issue, as commentators from left to right, democrat and republican, have pointed out, if we are going to avoid the path we're on, the path of sequestration, which was set up to be literally the worst

possible option, which right now is -- is seeing cuts made in the most unsophisticated, unplanned, and inefficient way possible, plans that would cut back if we continue on the path that is -- we're on, that would so dramatically cut back this country's investments in education, infrastructure and research and development that i don't believe as a former business person that -- that america will be able to compete with the kind of economic growth that we need to maintain our economy. if we're going to avoid those kind of draconian cuts, if we're going to have a rational business plan for our country, i think most of us, or at least i think an overwhelming majority of the senate would recognize we've got to generate both some additional revenues and while there may be some on my side that disagree, we have to also find ways to reform our entitlement programs to make sure that medicare and social security are going to be there 30 years from now. the only way we can get that done, which is to take the house

product that focuses particularly on entitlement reform, combine the senate product that makes reasonable increases in revenues, starts down the path on changes in some of our -- our entitlement programs but also puts in place a more reasonable and balanced approach on cuts, the only way we're going to get to that finish line, particularly for those who've advocated for regular order, is to have a conference. so, mr. president, it is -- it is with great distress that -- that we've heard opposition raised to regular order. an appeal for regular order, an appeal for passing a budget that was made consistently for the last 2 1/2 years. i don't understand why my colleagues on the other side won't take "yes" for an answer. they asked for us to pass a budget. we passed that budget. i think the a good first step -- i think it is a good first step in the process. and i hope in the coming days that there will be a change of heart, that there will be regular order -- regular order

will be allowed to proceed, that conferees will be named from both the house and the senate and that we can reach this agreement on this issue that i think is important not only to the future of our economy but, quite honestly, now has taken on a metaphor for whether our institutions can actually function in the 21st century. with that, mr. president, i think i see my good friend, the senator from hav virginia, who y want to add some comments to this discussion. mr. kaine: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise in support of senator warner's motion and his argument for budget compromise and a budget conference that would enable us to find that compromise for the nation. during my campaign for the senate, i heard over and over again every time i would turn on the tv, it seemed like there would be someone, often a colleague from this body, arguing that the senate hadn't passed a budget in two years or three years or four years. that was a point that was repeated over and over and over again. and then coming into this body, mr. president, often sitting there in the presider's chair, i've heard that speech delivered

from the floor of this body in january and february, often with charts demonstrating the number of days that it has been since the senate has passed a budget. now, we know that in -- as part of the debt ceiling deal, a bill was passed, signed by the president and so arguably even the claim of no senate budget was inaccurate, but just taking that claim at its word, that the senate hadn't passed a budget in four years, you would think -- you would think that, having passed a budget, everyone would be excited and would be willing now to move forward to try to find a compromise for the good of the nation. instead, what we have is an abuse of a senate rule, an individual senator standing up and even though they had a chance to vote against a budget and to vote on a hundred amendments about a budget, they're utilizing and really abusing a prerogative to block a budget conference. and for those listening to this who don't understand what a conference is, it's exactly what it sounds like. we passed a budget. the house passed a budget.

the next step in normal business would be for the two budgets to be put in a conference and house and senate members to sit down and, god forbid, listen to one another and dialogue and hopefully find compromise. that is all we are asking to do, to have a process of -- of listening and compromise, and yet individual senators are objecting to blocking even the opportunity to have this discussion. in the four months that i have been in this body, we've had two major budgetary issues and i think it's important to point them both out. the first was the issue surrounding the sequester, a designed regimen of nonstrategic, stupid, across-the-board budget cuts that were never supposed to go into place. in late february, this body developed a plan that was able to attain more than 50 votes to turn off a sequester, to avoid the harm to the economy and other key aspects of the military, and to do it and find

first-year savings. that proposal was able to get more than 50 votes in this body. it had sufficient votes to pass. but the minority chose to invoke the paper filibuster process to block it from passing. they weren't required to. 50 votes is normally enough for something to pass. we could have avoided the filibuster altogether. we could have avoided the sequester altogether and the harmful cuts and yet the other side decided we're going to invoke filibuster to block it from happening. that was the first instance of an abuse of senate rules to proceed with normal budgetary order. now we're in the second instance. on march 3 this body passed a budget and as we've seen over the past few days the very group of people that criticized the senate for not wanting to pass a budget have done everything they can and pulled out every procedural mechanism they can come up with to block the nation from coming up with a budget. this is an abuse of rules and it

is directly contrary to the members' claims now for years they wanted to pass a budget. this is not just a matter of budget, it's not just a matter of numbers on a page. this is hurting our economy. when -- everyone in this chamber will remember that when the american credit rating got downgraded in the summer of 2011 in the aftermath of the discussion about the debt ceiling limitation, the reason cited for the downgrade was not that the mechanics of the deal were bad, instead, our credit was downgraded because of the perception that legislators were engaging in foolish behavior threatening to repudiate american debt instead of focusing upon their jobs and trying to do the right thing for the economy. it was legislative gimmickry, not the details of the deal that got us a bond rating dwrown grade for the first time in the history of the united states. this hurts the economy when we

elevate gimmickry before doing the nation's business. this there are signs of economic progress these days. the stock market is moving up, the deficit projections going forward are moving down, but we know that we have a long way to go and that there's more work to be done and that finding a budget deal that addresses the components that senator warner mentioned is one of the things that can create confidence to additionally accelerate the economy. a budget deal will provide additional acceleration of the economy, and i have to ask the question, is that what people are really worried about? are they worried about doing the budget deal that will accelerate the economy because it might not work to their political -- particular political advantage? that is the concern that i have. otherwise, why wouldn't they be true to the cause they've had the last few years to actually have a conference and find a deal? this is not only hurting our economy, this is hurting our defense.

the hearing that i had before coming to this meeting with senator kaine king was a meeting of the sea power service. we talked about the effect on the nation's security that is visited upon us as we are going through budgetary challenges including the sequester. we talked about the effect of sequester on what the witnesses called the platform, the shipbuilding, the assets that we need to keep us safe in a challenging world. we talked about these budget crises and how they hurt our planning. because instead of planning in a forward looking way we're tying up all of our planning time to meet one self-imposed crisis after the next. we talked about the effect on readiness. because of the sequester one third of the air combat command units in this country are standing down at a time we may well need them today or tomorrow. and finally most importantly, we talked about the effect of this budgetary uncertainty on our people.

whether it's civilians being furloughed, whether it's private-sector ship repairers getting warn notices because the ship repairing accounts can't be done consistent with the sequester or whether it's people trying to make a decision whether they want to make the military a career and they look at congress' unwillingness to provide budgetary uncertainty and they decide maybe it's not the best thing to do right now, whether it's our platd form, whether it's our readiness, whether it's our planning or whether it's our people, this sequester and these budgetary challenges and crises are hurting our ability to defend our nation at the very time when the world is not getting simpler or safer because but it's getting more challenging. many of my colleagues came from a joint session this morning with the president of south korea visiting at a time of incredible concern because of north korean nuclear ambitions that will call upon us, the united states, just as so many challenges around the world call upon us, to have a well-planned

and well-financed defense of the nation. and so i join senator warner in expressing disappointment. we've patched this budget 46 days ago, we were here till 5:00 in the morning, we voted on a hundred amendments, everyone had their chance to have their say and after a conference they'll get their say again. they'll have a chance to express their opinion. i urge my colleagues to rethink the position that they're on and to allow this budget to move into conference so we can do the business of the united states of america. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i want to thank my budget colleagues that are here with me today who spent many, many hours putting together a budget, coming to floor with all of the senate to work over a hundred amendments way into the middle of the night to get a budget passed. and we are all here ready because we came to the senate, to this congress to solve problems. and we decided as a committee,

we decided as a economic caucus, we decided -- democratic caucus, we decided to show where our priorities are and solve this problem and come back to regular order where our country knows what our priorities are, our businesses, our communities, everyone knows what path we're on so we can bring some certainly to this country again. it is so disappointing to me that four times now the republicans have objected to us now taking the necessary next step. which is to work together with our house colleagues, find a compromise, and move forward. we're working for certainty here, mr. president, and it is disappointing to me that those on the other side of the aisle who we all remember spent months and months and months and charts and charts and charts telling us that we hadn't passed a budget, we needed to go to regular order, now themselves saying no, no regular order, no budget, no process, no certainty, no conclusion to this really important problem

that we have all come here together to work on. mr. president, it is disturbing for a number of reasons and my colleagues have talked about it, but we have constituents at home who are wondering how they are going to manage their budgets whether they have a business or whether they have a school, or whether they are delivering meals on wheels or whether they are planning their military operations for the next year, whether it's the agricultural industry wondering what their plan is for the future, and what they're being told now for the fourth time in a row by the republicans in the senate is we're not going to give you any certainty. we like to live with uncertainty. mr. president, there is no doubt moving to conference is not going to be easy. solving this problem is not going to be easy but i want our colleagues to know what i have consistently heard from the democratic side is we understand the word "compromise." and we know that in order to

solve this huge problem we have to come to a table and compromise and listen to the other side. we can't do it in the dead of night, we can't do it with a couple people sitting in a room, that's been done before and it doesn't work. we need to have regular order and we need to have this process out in the open, we need the american people to hear what the difference sides say and then we're all going to have to take some tough votes. i can assure the american people on this side we understand tough votes and the word "compromise" and the need to get our country back on track. we need to say as the senator from virginia said, we need to show the country democracy can work. we're willing to take the step to make it work and i urge our republican colleagues to step forward and allow us to move. do not object to us trying to solve problems. that's what's happening here and i urge our republican colleagues and the house as well to move to conference and let's have a

debate and discussion on this deeply urgent matter from our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i first want to thank the chair of our committee, the budget committee, for doing such a terrific job in bringing us all together. my colleagues on the committee, as we all know, we worked very, very hard together in order to be able to put together a balanced budget that reflects the values of the american people, that's fair, that's balanced in values and approach as well as in numbers, and we did that. and it was 46 days ago. so 46 days ago after over three years of hearing about how the senate hadn't passed a budget, the senate hadn't passed a budget, well, even though we had passed a law, by the way,

called the budget control act that actually had done the same thing as a budget, but we heard this politically over and over again, ro, those of us on the ballot this last time heard it over and over again from opponents. so i'm stunned actually that we would now be 46 days and counting into a situation where we have been trying to take the budget we passed by a majority vote -- by the way, this passed on a majority vote. just as each one of us run for election and it's winning by one vote, that's the majority, that's how decisions are made, passed by a majority vote, 110 amendments that we went through to all hours of the night as we all know, a lot of tired faces by the time we got done with all of this. but we got it done. and we made the commitment that we were going to get a budget done. the house did a budget, very different budget. no question about it.

there's no question that we have a very different vision of the country. the budget in the house eliminates medicare as insurance plan, certainly not something i would support. we rejected that approach but that was in their budget, they have a right to put forward their vision for how things should be done. many, many differences in values and perspectives. that's what the democratic process is all about. so we've passed a budget by a majority, they've passed a budget by majority. the next step is to negotiate and coming come up with a final. that's how the process works. different views, different perspectives and then you sit down and in something called a conference committee. we can't now get to that next step. we've had 46 days of trying to get to a point to get it done working with the house and all we get is objection after

objection after objection. i appreciate that colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have voted for similar budgets to the ryan republican budget would have preferred that in our budget we eliminated medicare. we didn't do that. we're not going to do that. but the majority here said we're putting forward a budget that is going to move the country forward and address the deficit and reflect the values around education and innovation and outbuilding the competition in a global economy, and we're putting forward our vision, the house has their vision which cuts innovation and cuts education and doesn't allow us to build, very different visions, but the democracy that we have says you take both of those visions and then you sit down and you try to figure something out. and that's the next step.

we're not interested in just being on the floor counting the days although we will, mr. president, be on the floor counting the days, that's not really how we want to spend our time, we would rather spend our time listening to colleagues in a respectful way about very different visions, very different values and finding a way if we can to come together in a way that will tackle the last part of deficit reduction. we have gone about $2.5 trillion towards the $4 trillion that everyone says we need to do to begin to turn the corner as it relates to the economy and the deficit. in order to get the rest of it, we need to sit down in a room together and to figure it out. and so we're going to continue to come to the floor and ask for agreement and, unfortunately,

if there is an objection we go through this whole process here of trying to get it done but we're going to keep pushing and pushing and pushing until we can do that, until we can get a budget done. why is this so important? well, it's very important because in our bill we stop what everyone feels is a very crazy approach to the final step in deficit reduction, which is to across-the-board, regardless of value or importance or impact, making cuts in the investments and in the discretionary budget of our country. we know there need to be spending reductions. we have voted for them. we've already put in place about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. and right now about 70% of that has been in had spending reductions. the concern i have and others that we have in the majority is

that most of those have fallen right in the laps of the middle class, our children, the future through innovation, seniors, and we've said no budget, no more. no more. we have to look at an approach that's balanced that says to those who are the wealthiest in our country who are the most blessed economically, you've got to be a part of the solution, in a significant way. we want to look at spending in the tax code. we all know how many times do we talk about special deals in the tax code, things that don't make any sense in terms of spending, special deals that support jobs going overseas rather than being here at home. there's spending in the tax code that needs to be addressed so it's more fair for american businesses, for small businesses, for families, for the future of the country. our budget does that by saying we're going to tackle spending

in the tax code, we're going to tackle the question of fairness in the code and asking those that are the wealthiest among us to contribute a little bit more to be able to help pay down this deficit, not just cutting meals on wheels or head start or cancer research which is what's happening right now. and so the intensity that we feel about getting this budget done is to be able to stop things that are now happening that are very, very harmful. we saw the lines at the airports. we don't as readily see the lines of people that can no longer participate as people that i know in cancer research efforts that may save their lives. we know that there is incredibly important research going on in science and medicine and pest and disease control and every area of research where our

country, the united states of america has led the world, and that doesn't show up in lines like at the airport. but it does show up in the future of our country, it does show up in the lives of someone who has alzheimer's or parkinson's disease or breast cancer or other diseases where we are this close to cures. where there's treatment going on that can save lives, is saving lives and it's stopping. we don't see the seniors lining up, those getting meals on wheels that are getting one meal a day right now, mr. president, one meal a day that allows them, you know, a little bit of a visit from a volunteer and one meal a day to eat through meals on wheels, and now because of these irrational cuts we're told there are waiting lists for one meal a day. how do have you a waiting list

for one meal a day? i don't get that. so we're saying yeah, okay, we want to fix the airports, we appreciate that, we want to fix the one meal a day going to somebody's grandma. who can't figure out what's going on in terms of the priorities of this country. the children who are getting a head start to be successful in school, how many times do we all say education, the most important thing, children, the most important thing. but because they don't directly have a voice here, like a lot of other special interest groups who gets cut first? our budget values children and families, opportunity, innovation, fairness, and the ability to grow this economy to create jobs so everyone has the dignity of work. we want to get to conference committee. we want to get about the business of negotiating a final budget because we do not accept

what is happening right now without a budget. tackle the deficit, yes. doing it in a way that works for growth in america and jobs. doing it in a way that supports families, that lifts up our children, that respects our elders? yes. that's the budget that we voted for in the senate and that we want to see come to completion in this process. we can't get there unless we can negotiate and that's what this whole discussion's about. 46 days since we passed a budget. we're ready to go. we are more than ready to go. sit down in a room, work it out. we know it's a negotiation. we know we have to have give-and-take. but we're blocked right now from even getting in the room and that's wrong. and we're going to keep come cog

every day and we're going to keep counting the days until the colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide that they're willing to get in the room and to get a budget done that works for the growth in the families of our country. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, this discussion, this debate isn't about budgets. it's not about deficits. it's about governing. that's the fundamental question that's before this body, it's about governing. i rise surprised and disappointed. i expected to come here and debate issues. instead, we're debating debati debating. we're having to argue and debate about the very act of getting to talk about these issues. and the problem, mr. president, with the economy of this country right now, in my mind, is very

largely attributable to the uncertainty about whether the government in washington is competent. it's the uncertainty that's killing us. a reporter asked me last week in maine, "what do you think you can do in washington to help us create jobs?" and my immediate answer was, the most important thing we could do is pass a budget in a kind of rational process, in the normal way that's been done for 200 years and show the country that we can govern. it's less important what's in the budget than whether we can do it at all. and that's why i'm so surprised and disaintd tand disappointed o this impasse, where we can't even get to point of negotiating with the majority budget in the other body. it -- it makes me wonder if the -- if the -- if the members on the opposite side of the aisle here lack so much confidence in their colleagues in the house that they don't think they can hold the line on

whatever the issues they believe are important. these two budgets are very different but i think there are items of value in both and i can see the outlines of a compromise. we need deficit reduction. we need to clean up the tax code. we need tax reduction as part of cleaning -- a tax rate reduction as part of cleaning up the tax code. we need to make investments in the future of this country. but the idea that we can't even get to talk there i, frankly, am just perplexed. i don't understand what the strategy is. because when -- when i was running last year and when i was in maine just last week, the single question i get more than anything else is, "in the heck can't you people do something down there?" only they state it a little less elegantly than i just did. why can't you get anything done? the question that was raised in thering that mornininthehearingm the people in the street, we're having a hard time understanding what is happening and why.

well, i'm a united states senator and i'm having a hard time understanding what is happening and why. passing a budget, budgeting is one of the most fundamental obligations of government. i was a governor. i know about putting budgets together. i know about making choices. it's not easy. it's not going to be easy to make the choices that are going to be required for this budget. it's going to be very difficult. but that's what we were sent here to do. that's our job. that's our obligation to the american people. and i do believe that there are areas of consensus and there are some areas in the house budget that i think are ideas that with worth considering. the american people simply want us to act. and, sure, everybody in this body has different views and there are partisan views. but as somebody who was sent down here explicitly to try to make the place work, i think that was why i was elected as an independent, because people are

so frustrated with this warfare that they don't understand, that doesn't contribute to the welfare of the country. so i hope, from the point of view of -- of someone who sees values on both sides and -- and believes that the only way we're going to solve these problems is by discussion and, yes, by compromise, that's what we have to move forward toward. that's what we have to do in order to regain the confidence of the american people, and we have a long way to go. but i believe if we could move in a regular, orderly way to go to conference, which in the civics book has always told me what we're supposed to do next. the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill. they have differences. you go to conference, you resolve the differences. both houses then vote. it goes to the president. that's the way the system was designed. if we could do that, almost regardless of what the content of the budget is, that in itself

would electrify the country. it would be so remarkable and people would say, "oh, now they're finally doing something." and so i believe and i hope my colleagues on the other side will decide to -- to engage, to allow the conference to go forward with members of both parties to go over to the house and sit down and try to work something out. we all know what the issues r. we all know what the amounts are. we all know what the dollars are. i believe that people who entered a room in good faith could solve this in about an afternoon if they left their ideological blinders at the door. i think there are solutions to be had and we have a responsibility to find them. but today we can't even begin to talk about them, and that's what's so puzzling to the american people. that's what's puzzling to me. i just don't understand what's wrong with debating?

what's wrong with working on the problem? and to -- to -- to just say, oh, well, we can't do it, the sequester is going to be with us, it's going to be with us for another couple of years, i just think that's -- that's -- that just doesn't meet our fundamental responsibility as people who came here to govern. we all know that there was a thing passed last year about no budget, no pay. well, unfortunately it only said if you pass a budget in the house, they get it. if you pass a budget -- well, we've done that. it should have been no budget that finally gets done, no pay, because now we're just stuck at an impasse. i don't know what the outcome of the negotiations would be. i'm not sure i would like them. but i believe that the real task before us today is not budgets and deficits. the question before us is, is this experiment in democracy

that's an aberration in world history, is it still working? are we able to make this idea work in the 21st century and meet the challenges of this country? and it seems to me that the only way to begin that process is to talk and debate and argue and work through the process that the framers gave us in order to solve the problems of the country. mr. president, i hope that before long we're going to reach a time when all of us can agree in this body that it's time to go to work on trying to bring a budget back to both houses that we can all support and move this country forward. the act -- the act of -- of at least coming up with a solutio solution -- not a perfect solution, but a solution -- itself would be the most important gift that we could provide today to the people of this country. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, a few weeks ago, the chairman of the senate finance committee, senator baucus of montana, warned that the president's premier domestic legislative accomplishment, obamacare, was turning into a huge train wreck. now, that's pretty remarkable for a number of reasons, one of which that senator baucus is one of the principal authors of obamacare. so his comments cannot be dismissed as simply partisan rhetoric or politics as usual. a few days after he made those comments, another important contributor to obamacare, dr. zeke emanuel, brother of rahm emanuel, the former chief of staff, acknowledged that the massive uncertainty generated by

the health care law is already, already causing insurance premiums to go up. and here's the scary part. obamacare hasn't actually been fully implemented and won't be until next year, 2014. so when it does take effect in 2014, we can expect insurance premiums to continue to rise, particularly for young people who are being asked once again to subsidize their elders, this time in the context of health care premiums. so much for the president's promise that the family -- average family of four would see a reduction in their insurance premiums under his premier health care law by $2,500. that's right, you remember? the president said, if you like what you have, you can keep it, which is proving not to be true as employers are going to be

shedding their employer-provided coverage and dropping their employees into the exchange. and he also said, the average family of four would see a reduction in their health care costs of $2,500. neither one of which are proving to be true. and it gets worse from there. according to a news study, there is a new tax that was created by obamacare on insurance premiums. so you have to pay a tax on your insurance premiums too, which will reduce private-sector employment anywhere from 146,000 jobs to 262,000 jobs by the year 2022. and quorum of course the majorif those jobs will be in small businesses. that's not surprising since small businesses are the engine of job creation in america, that they will be disproportionately

hit. to make matters worse, obamacare's looming employer regulations are already prompting businesses to lay workers off, to reduce their working hours and transform many full-time jobs into part-time jobs just so they can avoid the penalties and the sanctions in obamacare for employers. last month alone, the number of americans doing part-time work because their hours have been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time work increased by 278,000, more than a quarter million americans. indeed, the total number of involuntary part-time workers was higher in april 2013 than it was in april 2012, just a year before. so the message for president

obama couldn't be any more obvious. his signature domestic legislative initiative is driving up health care costs, destroying jobs and damaging our economic recovery. that's why it's so important that we repeal this law which i'll grant the president his best intentions, but in practice has shown to be the opposite of what he promised in so many different instances. but the consequences on long-term unemployment are the things that most people will feel, and that is the story of a very human tragedy for many, many people, some of whom have simply given up looking for work. in fact, the bureau of labor statistics has something called the labor participation rate. you can search it on the internet. look under labor participation rate. it will reveal that the percentage of americans actually

in the workforce and looking for work is at a 30-year low. what that means is that some people have simply given up. and we all know the longer you're out of work, the harder it is to find a job because your skills have gotten rusty. others may in fact be more qualified to get a job opening if one presents itself. i can't imagine the pain and frustration felt by millions of americans who have been jobless for more than a half a year. that's a long time. unfortunately, the president does not seem to have an answer to this unemployment crisis, and that's exactly what it is, other than more taxes. after he got $620 billion in january as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations, the expiration of temporary tax

provisions, the president seems to believe that more spending, even after his failed stimulus of $1 trillion which ratcheted up the debt even more, and more regulations, that's his answer to the unemployment crisis. more taxes, more spending, more regulations. but since the president has taken office, he's raised taxes by $1.7 trillion already. that includes the $620 billion i just mentioned. $1.7 trillion. his policies have increased our national debt by $6.2 trillion and he's added another $518 billion worth of costly new regulations. on the very people we're depending on to create the job and to provide employment opportunities. the consequence is the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression.

now for some good news, tomorrow the president is traveling to texas to the city of austin where my family and i live. according to forbes magazine, austin is one of america's ten best cities for good jobs. in fact, half of the top-ten best cities for jobs in america include dallas, fort worth, houston, and san antonio. so, yes, i am bragging. but we must be doing something right, and i hope the president goes with an open mind to try to learn what is the cause of the texas miracle when it comes to job creation and economic growth. let me just point out that for the eight consecutive years, texas has been ranked as the best state for business by chief executive magazine. that explains why between 2002

and 2011, texas accounted for almost one-third of all private-sector job growth in america. one-third. many of these in high-paying industries. and we only have -- i know we lime to claim about being big, but we're only 8% of the population, but we accounted for one-third of all the u.s. private-sector job growth between 2002 and 2011. now there isn't a secret sauce or secret formula. it's pretty clear why we've enjoyed that sort of job growth in america. it's something i think the rest of the country could learn. it's low taxes on the very people we're depending upon to create jobs. it's limited government. it's belief in the free enterprise system as the best pathway to achieve the american dream. and it's sensible regulations.

we also believe in taking advantage of the abundant natural resources that we have in our state and using those resources to expand the domestic energy supply, bring down costs for consumers and create jobs in the process. i was reece -- recently in the midland odessa region, as the presiding officer knows. this is an area that since 1920 has been one of the most prolific producing energy regions of our state and the country. but because of new drilling technology, horizontal drilling and fracking, it's anticipated that from this point forward we'll produce -- that region will produce as much as it has since 1920. that's amazing. that's something we ought to be very excited about. and it's created a lot of jobs. the nominal unemployment rate in

the perimeal basin is about 1.2%. some of these folks that have had problems in the past that might otherwise disqualify in the past for work, as some employers told me there is nothing like a job to provide people an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and get themselves on the right track. president obama seems to send the message that only washington knows how to revive our economy and by spending money we don't have to boot. in other words, with all due respect to my colleagues from the west coast, he favors the california model. unfortunately that model hasn't worked too well for even our friends in california. and it won't work well for the rest of america either.

by comparison, in that laboratory of democracy known as the state of texas, our state has become a powerhouse for job creation, and it would go a long way to restoring the fiscal and economic health of the united states. and, yes, it would help those people who have been unemployed for six months or more, or even shorter period of time find work that will help them regain their sense of dignity and productivity and allow them to provide for their family which is a goal i know we all share. mr. president, on another matter, but it's an important matter, i want to share a few words and a few observations about the president's selection for the nominee of secretary of the department of labor,

currently serving in the justice department -- i'm talking about assistant attorney general tom must pettus. we know the department of labor plays a very significant role in our economic policy and even u.s. immigration policy, which is a very controversial topic that we're just getting to take up tomorrow in the senate judiciary committee, of which i'm a member. during his tenure at the justice department, mr. perez has been in charge of the civil rights division, which includes the voting section, obviously a very important responsibility. the one that ought to eschew politics. and unfortunately under his watch as head of the civil rights division and voting section, that section has compiled a disturbing record of political discrimination and selective enforcement of our laws, something antithetical to

what we consider to be one of the best things we have going for us in america, which is the rule of law, that all of us, no matter who we are, are subject to the same rules and play by those rules. but you don't have to take my word for it how the voting section in the civil rights division have gotten dangerously off track under mr. perez' leadership. the department of just inspector general published a report that says the voting section under mr. perez's leadership has become so politicized and so unprofessional that at times it became simply dysfunctional, couldn't function properly. this 258-report by the department of justice's inspector general cited deep ideological polarization which

began under his predecessors and which has continued under mr. perez's leadership. the inspector general said this polarization has -- quote -- "been at times been a significant impediment to the operation of the section and has exacerbated the potential appearance of politicized decision-making." this is at the department of justice. so instead of upholding and enforcing all laws equally, the department of justice civil rights division voting section under mr. perez has launched politically motivated campaigns against commonsense constitutional laws like the voter i.d. laws adopted by the state of texas and south carolina. in addition, he's delivered misleading testimony to the u.s. commission on civil rights back in 2010.

the inspector general said that mr. perez's testimony about a prominent voting rights case -- quote -- "did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees." close quote. so when you're not telling the whole truth, you are not telling the truth. before joining the department of justice -- and this is part of his unfortunate track record -- he served as a local official in montgomery county maryland and during those years he consistently opposed the proper enforcement of our immigration laws. in fact, mr. perez testified against enforcement measures that were being considered by the maryland state legislature. i would ask my colleagues, because we have an important function to play under our constitutional system, one of advise and consent -- that's the confirmation process for presidential nominees -- is this

really the type of person that we want running the department of labor, especially at a time when congress is contemplating passage of important immigration reform laws? given his record, i'm concerned mr. perez does not have the temperament or the competence we need as secretary of the department of labor. and i fear that just like he has at the department of justice, he would invariably politicize the department of labor and impose ideological litmus tests. for all these reasons and more, i will oppose his nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, i'd ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, i come to the floor today to express my deep disappointment that once again republican obstructionism and procedural tricks are preventing this body from carrying out its constitutional duty and responsibility. its obligation to consider important presidential nominations. this time, the target is mr. tom prez --, perez, the nominee to be secretary of labor. the help committee of which i chair was scheduled to vote on his nomination at 4:00 this afternoon. obviously, we're not doing that. an anonymous republican has invoked an obscure procedural rule to prevent our committee from meeting at that scheduled time. this pointless obstructionism is extremely disturbing.

i would like to point out that we had previously been scheduled to vote on his nomination in my committee two weeks ago. but in an effort to bend over backwards and to be accommodating to our colleagues who requested more time to consider documents related to the nomination, i deferred it for two weeks. as sort of senatorial courtesy. this time, there is no allegation that they have had insufficient time for consideration, just delay for delay's sake. now, the nomination of tom perez has been before our committee since march. we've had our hearing during which mr. perez fully answered all questions posed to him. i cut off no one. i allowed anyone to ask whatever questions they wanted. mr. perez has met with any interested senator personally, and answered over 200 written

questions for the record. it's an understatement to say that his nomination has been thoroughly vetted. so this continuing delay is unconscionable. it only hurts the american workers and businesses that rely on the department of labor each and every day. as our country continues to move down the road to economic recovery, the work of the department of labor is becoming even more vital to the lives of our working families. whether it's making sure workers get paid the wages they deserve, helping returning veterans reenter the work force, protecting our seniors' retirement nest eggs, ensuring a new mother can care for her baby without losing her job, the department of labor helps families build the cornerstones of a middle-class life. now more than ever we need strong leadership at the department to help strengthen

our fragile recovery and build a stronger and revitalized american middle class. that's why this nomination is so important. there's been a lot of public discussion about mr. perez, but remarkably little of it has focused on what should be the central question before our committee today: will tom perez be a good secretary of labor? the answer is unequivocally yes. without question, he has the knowledge and experience needed to guide this critically important agency. through his professional experiences and especially his work as secretary of the maryland department of labor licensing and regulation, he has developed strong policy expertise about the many important issues for american workers and businesses that come before the department of labor every day. he spearheaded major initiatives

on potentially controversial issues such as unemployment insurance reform, and worker misclassification, while finding common ground between workers and businesses to build sensible, commonsense solutions. he also clearly has the management skills to run a large federal agency effectively. he was also an effective manager and steward of public resources, undertaking significant administrative and organizational reforms that made the maryland dllr more efficient around more effective. his outstanding work in maryland has won him the support of the business community and worker advocates alike. to quote from the endorsement letter of the maryland chamber of commerce, mr. perez proved himself to be a pragmatic public

official who was willing to bring differing voices together. the maryland chamber had the opportunity to work with mr. perez on an array of issues of importance to employers in maryland from unemployment and work force development to the housing and foreclosure crisis. despite differences of opinion, mr. perez was always willing to allow all parties to be heard and we found him to be fair and collaborative. i believe that our experiences with him here in maryland bode well for the nation. end quote. that's a pretty strong endorsement by a chamber of commerce. for a nominee that the minority leader today on the floor characterized as -- quote -- "a crusading ideologue willing to do anything or achieve its ideological ends" -- end quote.

by the republican leader today. but the maryland chamber of commerce didn't seem to think so. so that grossly unfair characterization by the republican leader is manifestly inconsistent with the experiences of the republican leader's and businesses who have actually worked with tom perez. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record today letters from businesses and republican leaders demonstrating the strong bipartisan support for mr. perez's nomination. these people clearly disagree with the republican leader's assessment of mr. perez's qualifications and character. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: indeed, i think mr. perez's character, his character, is exactly what qualifies him for this job. his character.

tom perez has dedicated his life to making sure every american has a fair opportunity to pursue the american dream. at the maryland department of labor, he revamped the state's adult education system so that more people could successfully train for better jobs and brighter futures. as the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the u.s. department of justice where he is right now, he has been a voice for the most vulnerable and he's reinvigorated the enforcement of some of our most critical civil rights laws. he has helped more americans achieve the dream of homeownership through his unprecedented efforts to prevent residential lending discrimination. he's helped ensure that people with disabilities have the choice to live in their own homes and communities rather than only in institutional settings.

and to make sure that people with disabilities receive the supports and services they need make independent living possible. he has stepped up the department's efforts to protect the employment rights of service members so that our men and women in uniform can return to their jobs and support their families after serving their country. i can tell you that tom perez is passionate about these issues. he's passionate about justice and about fairness, and i believe these are qualities that tom perez learned at the hand of his former employer here in the senate, our former committee chairman of the help committee, senator ted kennedy, for whom senator -- for whom tom perez worked here in the senate. but as he explained i at his confirmation hearing, he also

learned from senator kennedy -- quote -- "that idealism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive." mr. perez knows how to bring people together to make progress on even controversial issues without burning bridges or making enemies. he knows how to hit the ground running and quickly and effectively become an agent of real change. now, that's exactly the kind of leadership we need at the department of labor. we need his vision. we need his passion. we need, yes, his character at the helm of this important agency. now, allow me to state very clearly that while i know there has been generated controvers controversy -- generated controversy -- not real controversy but generated controversy -- surrounding mr. perez' nomination, there's absolutely nothing that calls into question his ability to

fairly enforce the law as it is written. there's absolutely nothing that calls into question his professional integrity or his moral character or his ability to lead the department of labor. as i mentioned, mr. perez has been as open and above board as he could possibly be throughout this entire confirmation proce process. he has met with any member personally who requested a meeting. as i said, he appeared before our committee at a public hearing. he's answered more than 200 written questions. he's bent over backward to respond to any and all concern raised about his work at the department of justice. the administration, this administration and president obama has also been extraordinarily accommodating to any republican colleague, especially to their concerns about mr. perez's involvement in the global resolution of two

cases involving the city of st. paul, minnesota. magner v. st. paul and newell v. st. paul, these two cases. the administration has produced thousands of documents, they've arranged for the interview of government employees, they have facilitated almost unprecedented levels of disclosure to alleviate any concern about his involvement in these cases. as chairman of the committee, i've also tried to be as accommodating as possible, joining in requests for documents that i, quite frankly, thought were unnecessary but willing to do and postponing the executive session for two weeks to provide members additional time for consideration. all that this extensive process has revealed is that mr. perez acted at all times ethically and appropriately to advance the interests of the united states

government. for example, with respect to the magner and newell matters, mr. perez consulted with both outside ethics and professional responsibility experts at the department of justice and mr. perez acted within their guidelines at all times. and it's no surprise that outside ethics experts have confirmed that mr. perez acted appropriately in this manner. i'd like to submit again, mr. president, for the record letters and statements from several legal ethics experts and experts in the false claims act confirming that mr. perez's handling of the magner and newell cases was both ethical and appropriate. mr. president, i ask consent to submit for the record these letters and statements. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: as professor steven gillers, who has taught legal ethics for more than 30 years at

new york university school of law, wrote in one of these letters, "mr. perez's actions in these cases -- quote -- "violated no ethical rule that governs lawyers. he was acting in what he would be in the best interests of his client, which is what lawyers are required to do." in short, mr. perez did his job at d.o.j. and he did it well. when it comes down to it, i think the fact -- i think that fact, the fact that he did his job well, is probably the source of much of the generated controversy surrounding his mom nation. i guess maybe some people just don't like tom perez precisely because he is passionate about enforcing our civil rights laws. and has vigorously pursued such enforcement in his current position.

i take great issue with the minority leader's suggestion today that mr. perez doesn't follow the law or believe that it applies to him. i would respectfully suggest that the republican leader needs to check his facts. to the contrary, tom perez has had a remarkable career as a result of a determination to make the promise of our civil rights statutes a reality for everyday americans. maybe these are some of the same laws that some colleagues sometimes would like to forget are on the books. but these laws matter. voting rights matter. fair housing rights matter. the rights of people with disabilities matter. these laws are part of what makes our country great. i'm incredibly proud, incredibly proud of the work that mr. perez has done at the department of

justice to make those rights a reality after years of neglect. he should be applauded, not vilified, for the service he has provided to this country. and mr. president, it almost seems that when mr. perez's name came up, there was a controversy generated about these cases in st. paul involving whistle-blower claims and that somehow he had acted inappropriately. denied the government the ability to re -- to -- to get back a couple hundred million dollars or so. that seemed to be a belief that some of my colleagues on the other side had. so we looked into it. we went through all the documents, all the e-mails,

thousands of pages, ethics lawyers, both in the government and out. what we came up with is mr. perez acted elt i cannily aniethically andappropriately a. there's no "there" there. so the facts belie the belief. but it seems that the belief carries on and that somehow the belief trumps the facts. well, i -- if some of my colleagues want to belief the worst about tom perez they can believe that, but they have no facts to back it up. it is an unfounded belief. is that what's going to guide this body in approving nominations for this president or any president? that if i believe something and

i can get maybe some of my colleagues to join in and belief believe it, that that's enough, that's sufficient to vilify a nominee, to try to tear them down? what about the facts? don't fact matter? doesn't the record matter? of course it does. and the facts are, as proven time and time and time again, that mr. perez acted ethically and appropriately at the department of justice at all times and especially in the two cases, magner v. st. paul and newell v. st. paul. that's been clearly, clearly brought -- brought forward, that he acted appropriately and ethically. so he i saso i say to my collea, believe what you want. but that belief, mistaken as it

is, should not be used to tear down a good person, to vilify a good person, to cast this person in a light in which it' is totay false. so, mr. president, yes, there was an objection to our meeting today under this obscure rule of the senate but we have rescheduled the meeting for a week hence. so in a week, we will meet again and we will vote to report out the nomination of tom perez. and then we'll come to the flo floor. and again, i hope that it won't be filibustered by my republican colleagues but that we'll be able to vote up or down on mr. perez based not upon what

someone believes but what the facts are, what his record is, what his record has been both in local government, state government, at the department of justice. when you look at that record, it is an exemplary record of -- of unstinting public service in the best interests of the civil rights and equal rights of our country. and that's why, with his background and his experience, his dedication to fairness and justice, the fact that he's actually worked in the senate on the help committee, on the committee that has jurisdiction over the department of labor gives him a tremendous background and insight in how to be a truly great secretary of labor.

so we will vote next week. i hope there are not other kinds of roadblocks, unfounded kind of roadblocks, thrown in the path to his confirmation, but we will do everything that we can to make sure that this good person takes his rightful place as our next secretary of labor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: