as of this morning, my cosponsor included senator kirk, senator mikulski, senator murkowski, harkin, sanders, levin, menendez, stabenow, heinrich, boxer, gillibrand, durbin, murphy, baldwin, landrieu, brown and begich. when congress passed the e.r.a. in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, 38 states, within seven years. this deadline was later extended to ten years by a joint resolution enacted by congress. but ultimately only 35 of the 38 states required ratified the e.r.a. when the deadline expired in 1982. congress has the authority to give the states another chance and should do so. in 1992, i want to point out to my colleagues that the 27th amendment to the constitution prohibiting immediate congressional pay raise was

ratified after 203 years. so this additional delay is certainly keeping with our prior precedent. article 5 of the constitution contains no time limit for the ratification of constitutional changes. and the e.r.a. time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment. the 14th amendment of the constitution requires equal protection of the laws, and the supreme court has so far held that no sex and gender classifications are subject only to intermediate scrutiny on analyzing the laws that may have a discriminatory impact. in other words, right now gender discrimination does not have interpretation standards, not subject to the higher standard which it should be. in 2011 supreme court justice scalia gave an interview in which he stated, and i'm going to quote his interview -- this is an exact quote -- "certainly the constitution does not

require discrimination on the basis of sex. the only issue is whether it prohibits it. it doesn't." end quote. in other words, we don't have that protection in the constitution today. tkpwrat ra*tification -- ratification would provide the courts with a clear guidance in holding gender or sex clarification to the strict standard. the e.r.a. is a simple and straightforward constitutional amendment. it reads equality of lights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. end quote. the amendment gives power to congress to enforce provisions by appropriate legislation and the amendment would take effect two years after ratification. today nearly half the states have a version of e.r.a. written into their state constitution. my own state of maryland's constitution reads that equality of rights under law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex. i'm therefore pleased to introduce this joint resolution

today, and i thank representative andrews for introducing a companion version in the house today as well. this legislation is endorsed by a wide variety of groups, including united for equality, national council of women's organization, the american association of the university of women, business and professional women's foundation, u.s. women's chamber of commerce. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. and with that, madam president -- let me consent that i be allowed to continue to speak but that the remainder of my comments appear in a straight -- separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i rise today with sadness in my heart to pay tribute to a special individual, jean m. kirchner, a volunteer firefighter it would died in the line of duty. gene was 25. he rushed to the second floor of

a house fire on april 24 in a vain attempt to save a resident. gene was found unconscious and rushed to maryland shock trauma center but succombed to injuries on may 2. he joined the ranks when he was 14 years of age and served as a junior firefighter for two years. he came from a family of firefighters. his twin brother will is also a firefighter. so is his sister. shelly. greg hewitt, assistant chief of the fire department said gene was selfless, well liked. he liked helping people. gene was laid to rest this past sunday and the entire baltimore community is mourning the death of this kind, gentle young man who laid down his life in an attempt to save another's life. his brother and sister firefighters came from far away from new york and north carolina to pay special tribute to this young man who understood the risks he faced but dedicated

himself to helping ensure the safety of others. gene was posthumously awarded the fire department's medal of honor because he embodied what we in our nation come to look at from our first responders: courage, selflessness and dedication to duty. i know my u.s. senate colleagues will want to join me in thanking gene's family for giving our community such a special young man and send our condolences to his family, friends and fellow firefighters on this tragic loss of a hero. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and suggest -- and just yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is a quorum being called? the presiding officer: no. mr. reid: madam president, it's been 47 days now since the united states senate passed its sensible progrowth budget. as my friend and the minority leader has said many times, that after the senate passed a budget, the next logical step would be to go to conference and try to find common ground. this is what senator mcconnell said earlier this year -- quote -- "we ought not to ignore the law any longer.

and i think it's a good step in the direction of getting back to regular order, which is what we ought to follow." after years of calling for regular order, republicans ought to be here to go to conference. senator mcconnell and the republican caucus pulled a 180, a flip-flop. they were for regular order before they were against regular order. for weeks republicans have refused to go to conference, and they refused to explain why. the only excuse republicans offered came not from the minority leader but from the junior senator from texas. senator cruz objected to the budget conference on the grounds that democrats must concede basically everything before republicans will negotiate anything. as one news reporter put it, the republicans' offer is -- quote -- "first surrender and then we'll fight." end of quote. republicans know as well as democrats that's not any way to negotiate. unilateral disarmament in the legislative process is not the

same thing as compromise. so democrats along with media and the american people are left to wonder and guess the real reason republicans are so determined to avoid a budget conference. republicans, i guess, are they afraid to defend or debate the extreme budget in public view? probably. it can't be easy to stand strong for a plan that asks the middle class to foot the bill for more tax breaks for the rich. a politically unsustainable position rejected by the voters. it can't be easy to stand up for the meat-ax cuts of the sequester which guts the safety net which protects the elderly, poor, the middle class, veterans and sometimes the helpless. nor is it possible -- or is it possible republicans are hoping to delay compromise long enough to create another manufactured crisis as a nation once again approaches default on its bills? americans are tired of the knock-down, drag-out debt

ceiling battles that cost our economy billions of dollars last year. middle-class families have been through enough economic turmoil. it is unbelievable that republicans would once again hold the full faith and credit of our government hostage. so i hope my republican colleagues will come to their senses. the way to put our nation on sound fiscal footing is to set aside this obstruction and set sensible poll -- policy through regular order in the senate process, not through dangerous hostage taking. passing a budget in each chamber was a good step toward restoring regular order. the next move is to go to conference, set our minds on reaching a reasonable compromise that reverses painful cuts and sequestration. right now republicans are the only thing standing between congress and compromise. i'm optimistic they will not continue to put american families through more financial

pain. i hope i'm right. i would yield to a unanimous consent request to my friend from washington. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the 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 therefore, that h. con. res. 25 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and the care be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate all 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 her request so it not be in order for the senate to consider a conditioners report that includes tax increases orate the debt limit.

the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mrs. murray: madam president, reserving the right to object, what the senator is asking is that we go back to what we had votes on throughout the entire budget debate way into the morning hours on the issues of reconciliation, on the issues of revenue that were all debated and voted, some passed, some were defeated. we are not going to take those up again. we are going to go to conference with the budget that was passed by the majority in the senate and by the majority in the house. and those views will be represented in conference. but we can't get to that debate and that discussion without moving to conference. so i object to his unanimous request and ask for consent on my request again. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modified request. is there objection to the original request? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i'm so -- this is so

challenging. it's now been 47 days since we passed our budget. senate democrats have now requested unanimous consent to move to conference, the next step, five times. we want to take the next step in this process. we want to move forward under regular order and continue this debate in an open and public way. but every time we try to take it to the next step, senate republicans stand up and they say "no." madam president, i think this comes as a surprise to the american people. i think they're disappointed. i know i am. i think a lot of people, myself included, expected after calling for regular order so consistently for so long, republicans would be eager now to take the next step in the process. now some republicans say they want to negotiate a framework behind closed doors before they agree going to conference. but, madam president, that's what a budget is.

it is a framework that lays out our values and our priorities and helps us plan for our country's future. why can't we discuss that framework in a formal public conference, which is what we call regular order? madam president, i'm sure republicans are not excited about the prospect of defending their extreme budget all over again in a public conference committee. we have seen time and again, and we all know americans are not interested in more tax breaks for the wealthiest. they're not interested in medicare vouchers. but republicans wrote that budget. they voted for it. they passed it. they ought to be happy to defend it. i will say this, madam president. i know senate democrats are happy to stand up and talk about ours. the american people now deserve to see those two visions. they need to see our visions side by side, contrast it with each other. and they need to see who's willing to kphoeupls and who is not -- who is willing to compromise and who is not. we have heard the house republican leadership doesn't

want the senate to appoint conferees because they don't want to go to conference because they might have to take a lot of difficult votes in the house. i'm sure my colleagues here remember the vote-a-rama that we had before we passed our budget. we considered over 100 amendments. we were here until 5:00 a.m. in the morning, the entire time voting on amendments until every senator who wanted to be heard and offer an amendment did. and we had a very, very thorough and open debate and we voted a lot. i don't think the american people are going to be sympathetic to the argument republicans here don't want to go to conference because they're afraid the house has to take a few votes. so, madam president, it's deeply disappointing to me that republicans are now running away from regular order. and, in fact, they are, in fact, running right towards another crisis and they are willing to take our american families and our economy along for the ride. it should be noted that the house republicans have announced a new conference but it is not a conference on a budget deal.

it's a conference of their republican members to decide what they are going to demand in exchange for taking our -- tanking our economy over the debt ceiling. it's absurd and it's not going to happen. we know because we went through this same thing last time when we approached the debt limit. just a few months ago. republicans realized how dangerous it would be to play games with the debt limit, and how politically damaging it would be to play politics with potential economic calamity for our country. and they finally dropped their demands. the so-called boehner rule died and no amount of wishing by the tea party is going to bring that back. madam president, the republican strategy now of holding our economy hostage and trying to push us to another crisis is absolutely the wrong approach and holding our budget conference hostage so they can get to that point is not going to be considered well by the american people. getting a deal is not going to

be easy. any one of us knows that. it's going to take compromise. but this constant lurching from crisis to crisis that the house is demanding and is strategizing around is not what the american public want or deserve. so, madam president, i'm here today to say democrats are ready to take the next step. we need a negotiating party on the other side. they can bring all of their bill to conference and we can talk about it. we can find out a compromise. compromise is not a dirty word. oftentimes we don't hear it a lot around here. but i believe many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, frankly, want to return to regular order, they want to move away from constant crisis. i know that's what the american public wants. they want to see that we can govern. i really urge those who are coming up here and time and time again blocking us from getting to pint to debate our two different budgets and to come to a compromise, to allow us to get the work of the american people done and allow us to go to conference.

thank you, madam president. i yield. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: before my friend leaves the floor i want the record spread with this: the admiration that the democratic caucus has for the senator from washington is significant. she's an elected leader, she was the person chosen to be the chair of the super committee to come up with a plan to solve the nation's crisis we have economically and she did yeoman's work. it was all done until a letter was received from virtually every republican senator saying fine, great deal that chairman murray has done but we're not going to agree to mi revenue. and then to work through this contentious problems we've had here on the floor and come up with a budget is remarkable and it's a budget that we're very proud of. i would say to my friend, i think we are making some progress because just within the past hour the speaker has said

this and this is a quote, "we can't cut our way to prosperity ." now, that is a significant step forward. the speaker of the house for the first time in some time has spoken reality. the truth, the facts. and i quote directly, "we can't cut our way to prosperity." that's right and that's why we have to get to regular order. we have to do what this body has been doing for 200 years or more, going to conference when there's a difference between what the house wants and what the senate wants. that's all the chairman of the budget committee, senator murray, is asking, that we get together with our republican colleagues and work out our differences. i think our budget that we were led by chairman murray, is really a very, very good budget. is it perfect? of course not and we would be

willing to sit down and talk to our republican colleagues in conference the way we've done for centuries here and try to work out our differences. for them just to stonewall us and say as the junior senator from texas said fine, we'll go to conference but you have to agree to what we want before we'll go. what in the world is that all about? i admire as does the entire democratic caucus and i'm confident as the people of washington are very, very proud of this stalwart senator who has done so much for this country, and i want to make sure that the republicans understand she will be the chair on -- she is going to represent us. i'm not going to be negotiating this. senator mcconnell is not going to be negotiating this. it's going to be done by the senior senator from the state of washington and she is willing to deal with whoever the republicans decide she should deal with.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i wonder if the senator from washington would enter into a bit of a colloquy with me at this time through the chair. i want to join with senator reid in thanking you, senator murray, for your amazing leadership. i was on the budget committee for several years, and i know that as a result of your becoming the chairman and of course being the most senior member next to kent conrad for so long, you know this budget in inside -- inside and out and it's filt with complexities. the and mandatories, the defens, the nondefense, all the things that you know in your head and you know how to get us to balance, not only in terms of the numbers, we will move toward balance in your budget but also in terms of our priorities. so i just want to make sure that my people at home understand this. what you're telling us today is

that for several years now, two or three, the republicans have been chastising the democrats for not passing a budget in the senate. am i right on that? mrs. murray: that is correct. mrs. boxer: and the reason we didn't do it, we had another law that actually set our caps. am i right on that? so we didn't go through the budget. mrs. murray: the senator is correct. mrs. boxer: you decided with senator reid and the leadership team to bring a budget to the floor and as you relayed and i can never forget it, we stayed here until 5:00 in the morning handling over a hundred amendments. is that correct? mrs. murray: the senator is correct. mrs. boxer: we passed it and the house passed a budget. having asked the historian to go back and look, i understand we take the house budget and the senate budget and we go to conference and the conferees resolve the differences. all my friend is asking here

today -- and she's asked it or someone else has asked it in her stead -- five times, we're asking our republican colleagues to allow our leader to name the conferees, of course senator mcconnell will name his, and walk into that conference committee to finish the budget. the budget is unfinished. am i right? we have two versions, we need one version and what you're telling us today in no uncertain terms is that the republicans are stopping this country from having a budget. am i stating it correctly? mrs. murray: the senator is stating it exactly correct. mrs. boxer: let me just say to my friend i hope you plan to be here as often as you can and those of us who can help you will be here to continue to ask for conferees so we can get to the next stage. when senator mcconnell said he would amend your request, wasn't he prejudging what would happen in the conference?

he said no reconciliation and he said something else, i don't remember his other condition. mrs. murray: no revenue. mrs. boxer: that's like you saying i will go to the conference except i don't want to see any more cuts in after-school programs or senior citizen programs or veterans' programs. in other words, we don't take our priorities as individual senators into the conference, it is a team approach where we will have to compromise. so isn't senator mcconnell by laying out his conditions completely side stepping regular order? mrs. murray: the senator would be correct and i would add one other thought. what he is asking us to do is now go back and vote on votes that we already took when we went through the budget process, did not pass, and he's saying, well, my amendments didn't pass but i'm not going to let you go to conference unless, you know, i get my way. we have a majority, we have a

minority, we go through hundreds of amendments, some of them passed, some of them did not. it is the process we go through and then we take what we passed here, the house, by the way, passed a very different budget, we have a lot in difference, we go to conference and we resolve those. that is what a conference is. but if every senator came out here and said on every bill we ever did we're not going to go to conference unless i get the amendment that i lost on the floor, we would never do anything in this country. that's not how a democracy workers. mrs. boxer: i thank my friend because i got into this a little bit with senator cruz the other day. he doesn't want to go to conference because he's afraid we could pass the buffett rule. we could come out of there with the buffett rule that says that a billionaire executive should have to pay the same effective tax rate as his secretary. god forbid, he's afraid of that. so i just say they're afraid of the process. what are they afraid of thp?

they control the house. we control the senate. obviously, to be a conference you'll have to meet somewhere in the middle. seems to me they have a fear of democracy and it seems to me -- and i don't like to use this word, but i will, it rhymes with democracy, it's called hypocrisy. they said we wouldn't do a budget and now they're stopping a budget and i wanted to thank my friend and make sure america understands this. they ran around the country running against our candidates saying our candidates wouldn't do a budget and now they won't allow us to do a budget and it just seems to me ridiculous, and i'm so happy that our leader and you, senator murray, are here to bring this issue the attention it deserves. i yield the floor. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 today the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 39 and 41 under the

previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: with the consent there will be up to two roll call votes, there may only be one but but up to two on the nomination of shelly dick and nelson roman to be a judge for the southern district of new york. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ceaz: madam president, i -- mr. casey: madam president, i rise today to speak about the bill we're considering but also to speak in particular about one aspect of the bill. we know that the legislation,

the so-called wrda bill, the water resources development act, and i want to express strong support for the legislation. this bill is, in fact, bipartisan which is something we need more of around here. it provides for, among other things, flood protection, safe drinking water, wastewater infrastructure and protects the flow of commerce along our nation's rivers and waterways. i am grateful for chairman boxer's efforts, ranking member vitter and all the members and staff of the environment and public works committee for their dedication to writing a bill that addresses the challenges facing our country's water systems. i wanted to speak in particular about inland waterways. our nation has for many, many years now, many generations a system of locks and dams that play a vital role in creating and sustaining jobs and supporting economic growth throughout the country.

i know in my home state of pennsylvania, even though i had been a state official for a number of years, i didn't have a full appreciation for what this meant until about july of -- i guess it was the first week of july of 2007, when i was able to tour and actually -- actually see these major barges up-close out in southwestern pennsylvania. and to be able to see how the movement of coal or other -- other commodities or energy sources across our waterways, what that meant to the economy of southwestern pennsylvania but, indeed, the economy of our -- our commonwealth and our country. so when we hear the phrase "locks and dams" in pennsylvania, and especially in southwestern pennsylvania, we don't think of some far-off concept. we think of commerce and the movement of -- of commerce and the jobs and the economic growth that comes from that.

unfortunately, this system, this inland waterway system, is facing major challenges, challenges that threaten in ways that some of us couldn't imagine even a few years ago. the inland waterway system offers the most cost-competitive way to transport new commodities. it moves some 20% of the coal that is used to power our nation's electricity, much of it from pennsylvania. also 22% of our petroleum products and more than 60% of export grain that's moved because of this system. theshipers who produce or manufacture these comod -- the shippers who produce or manufacture these commodities are in danger of losing their competitive edge unless we focus on proper funding for the lock and dam infrastructure. unfortunately, the locks and dams of our nation have far outlived their design life. there hasn't been sufficient

investment to make headway in replacing these locks and dams, but i'm hopeful that provisions that i and others have worked on in the water resources development act that we're considering now will address the challenges facing this system. provisions from my bill, which, by the way, goes by the acronym river, the river act, that are included in the -- the bill we're considering will institute a number of project management reforms that will make future lock and dam projects, make sure that they're built in the most cost-effective way possible. we can't ask for greater commitment to the system or greater investment without making sure that we're also providing reforms. these reforms include risk-based cost estimates and an external peer-review process for army corps projects across the nation. this will help ensure that locks

and dams and the projects that are undertaken are constructed in the -- in the way that is most efficient and we also want to make sure we have cost estimates that are realistic, and, of course, avoid cost overruns. one of the provisions of the bill will also adjust the current cost-sharing system by increasing the threshold for the industry to contribute to major rehabilitation projects to $20 million. this will allow for more funding for lock and dam projects, which is badly needed right now. these provisions in the overall water resources bill are common sense. they also happen to be fiscally responsible proposals that will significantly improve our nation's inland waterway system and to help ensure our nation's waterways can continue to be an effective method to ship commodities. well, how do we pay for that? well, rather interesting development for washington,

about which i'm about to describe for you. i'm grateful that so many of the provisions in my bill have been included but we also need to have a -- an important conversation about how to finance this system and to keep the inland waterways -- or i should say the inland trust fund sustainable in the long term. i filed an amendment, amendment number 854, that will raise the barge user fee from 20 cents per gallon to 29 cents per gallon. this fee has not been raised since 1986 and as a result is not keeping up with inflation and project costs. we have great bipartisan support for this. senator alexander is leading this effort with me and the amendment is cosponsored by the following senators: senator blunt, senator mccaskill, senator durbin, senator staben stabenow, senator klobuchar, senator landrieu, senator franken, and senator harkin, indicating the wide reach of the

inland waterway system and its impact on so many industries in so many states across the country. the current rate, the barge fee of 20 cents per gallon right now is not raising sufficient funding to keep up with operations and maintenance needs along the reach of the system. if we don't make this investment now, we could have dire consequences to multibillion-dollar industries that rely on the use of locks and dams to move their goods. just consider coal being one of those examples. all 300 users of the inland waterway system support this increase. let me say that again because it just doesn't happen very much in washington. all 300 users of the inland waterway system support this increase from 20 cents per gallon of a barge fee to 29 cents. and here we have an example of an industry that is forward

looking in asking congress to allow them to pay more in order to make critical investments in their own infrastructure. in addition to the support of industry, the user fee increase is backed by a diverse array of organizations across the country, including the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national farmers union, the national association of manufacturers, the american farm bureau, the afl-cio, and over 250 national and local organizations, including barge operators, agriculture, energy and civic and conservation groups. in southwestern pennsylvania alone, over 200,000 jobs rely on the proper functioning of locks and dams on the lower monogahelia river. which for those of you who don't know, it's a river on the eastern part of our state that flows into the city of pittsburgh. one of the three rivers that we describe as part of our landscape in pittsburgh. if one of these locks were to

fail, that would endanger all 200,000 jobs and have a negative impact of over $1 billion just in that region, not to mention the impact, the adverse impact beyond the region. raising the user fee now will help prevent a catastrophe in the -- in the near future. i understand that there are objections to addressing important concerns about including funding -- a funding fix for locks and dams in this bill due to the so-called blue-slip concerns that involve the house of representatives. i will work to look for other vehicles so we don't continue to kick this can down the road and i'll talk to members of the house to include this fix in their version. if we can't raise the revenue -- if we can't raise revenue on an industry that's asking to pay more so they can invest in their infrastructure, i'm afraid that the future of our waterway system is in great jeopardy. many colleagues of mine in the senate on both sides of the

aisle recognize the importance of providing a way to pay for investments that we need in our locks and dam system and i urge the house to follow suit, and i have no doubt that they want to do the same thing. we can't squander the critical foundations that have made america what it is, and reinvesting in our nation's waterways will allow us to seize economic opportunities, remain competitive in the world and protect and create jobs for generations to come. and i'll just note one measure, one citation of history, madam president. it's a major volume here of pennsylvania history. but this goes back to the 1800's when we developed a canal system to move commodities and commerce across our waterways. i'll read one sentence from page 180 of a book entitled "pennsylvania: a history of the commonwealth." here's what they said in the 1800's, talking about coal. and i'm quoting, "through these

roots anthracite coal left pennsylvania for central europe and asia." the reason why that coal was able to get to those places was because we had a system in place to move it. what we don't want to have today in our time is a system that breaks down because we weren't willing to make the investment. and as i said before, this investment is supported by all those organizations, but especially the 300 users who are willing to invest more so that tomorrow will be bright and we can move commerce across the commonwealth of pennsylvania and across our country. with that, madam president, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, before the senator from pennsylvania leaves the floor, i'd like to thank him for his forthright and courageous statement on the situation in syria. i thank him for his involvement and his commitment to freedom of the people of syria.

madam president, today i'm introducing the television consumer freedom act of 2013. the legislation has three principal objectives: one, encourage the wholesale and retail unbundling of programming by distributors and programmers. in other words, allow the consumer -- television viewer -- who subscribes to cable to have a la carte capability. in other words, not required to buy a whole bunch of channels that that consumer may or may not -- that consumer may not wish to subscribe to. in other words, a la carte. you want to watch one television program, you can watch it. if you don't, you don't have to. the situation today obviously is

far different from that. it would also establish consequences if broadcasters choose to downgrade their over-the-air service and eliminate the sports blackout rule for events that are held in publicly financed stadiums. for over 15 years i've supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, which is known as a la carte, to provide consumers more control over viewing options in their home, and as a result their monthly cable bill. the video industry principally cable companies and is satellite companies and the programmers that sell channels like nbc and disney abc continue to give consumers two options when buying tv programming. first, purchase a package of channels whether you watch them all or not. or second, not purchase any cable programming at all. two choices: you can either buy one of their packages or not watch it at all.

that's unfair and wrong, especially when you consider how the regulatory deck is stacked in favor of industry against the american consumer. it's clear when one looks at how cable prices have gone up over the last 15 years, which is brought to light by the most recent federal communications commission pricing survey, in the f.c.c. survey the average monthly price of expanded basic service -- basic service -- for all communities surveyed increased 5.4% over 12 months ending january 1, 2011. or to $54.46 compared to an increase of 1.6% in the consumer price index. in other words, the cost of cable went up nearly four times the consumer prices that people pay for everything else. you can only do that when you have a monopoly. over the last 15 years this rise

in cost has become even more evident. according to the f.c.c., the price of expandinged basic cable has gone up at a compound average annual growth rate of 6.1% during a period of 1995 to 2011. this means the average annual cable price has gone up about $25 a month in 1995 to over $54 today. that is a 100% price increase. people are on fixed incomes. people are hurting. why in the world should they have a 100% cost increase? and the only way it can be done is through monopolies. those who provide video directly to consumers like cable and satellite companies are not solely to blame for the high prices consumers face today. many articles have been written about the packages of channels

commonly called bundles that are sold to cable and satellite companies by video programmers like comcast, nbc, time warner, viacom and the walt disney company which 80% of espn. the worldwide leader of sports as espn calls itself thrives because of the advertising revenue it's able to generate and large subscriber fees. according to a january 2012 "newsweek" article, espn charges $4.69 per household per month, citing a research company. by comparison, the next costliest national network -- tnt -- costs $1.16. again, $4.69 for espn. the next expensive one is $1.16 for tnt. whether you watch espn or not -- and i do all the time -- all

cable subscribers are forced to absorb this cost. not every american watches espn. not every american should be forced to watch espn and pay $4.69 per household per month in order to have it carried into their homes when they don't view it. because these channels are bundled into packages, all cable consumers, whether they watch sports or not, are paying for them anyway. cable and satellite carriers that consider dropping espn must also contemplate losing other channels in the bundle like the disney channel. some have described this as -- quote -- "a tax on every american household." others like the c.e.o. of the american cable association have said -- quote -- "my next-door neighbor is 74, a widow. she says to me 'why do i have to

get all that sports programming? ' she has no idea that in the course of a year for just espn and espn 2 she is sending a check to disney for about $70. she would be apoplectic if she knew. ultimately there is going to be a revolt over the cost or policy-makers will get involved because the cost of these things are so out of line with cost of living that someone is going to put up a stop sign. today we're putting up a stop sign, and we're going to find out -- we're going to find out how powerful these companies are as opposed to clearly correcting an injustice that's being inflicted on the american people. this legislation would eliminate regulatory barriers to a la carte by freeing up multichannel video programming distributors -- that's the cable and satellite companies -- like cable, satellite and others offering video services, to offer any video programming

service on an a la carte basis. but if they want to keep bundling, they can do that too. they can make both offers to the american subscriber. in order to give these companies an incentive to offer programming on an a la carte basis, the legislation links the availability of the compulsory copy right license to the voluntary offering of a la carte service by the mvpd. in other words, these companies don't offer a broadcast station and any other channels owned by the broadcaster on an a la carte basis, then that company cannot rely on the compulsory license to carry those broadcast stations. the compulsory license is a benefit conferred on these corporations. so it's reasonable to ask the recipients that have benefit to provide consumers with an a la carte option. and i emphasize: an option. to address the notion that allah cart options are being denied

distributors, the legislation conditions important regulatory benefits like network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, blackout rights and retransmission consent option on the programs allowing mvpd's to sell their channels on an a la carte basis. it's time the consumers got something in return other than a higher bill at the end of the month. furthermore, because not all programmers also own broadcast stations, the bill contains a provision that would create a wholesale a la carte market by allowing programmers to bundle their services in a package only if they also offer these services for the mvpd's to purchase on an individual channel basis. if a cable operator doesn't want to carry channels like mtv, it would have the option of not doing so and only buying and carrying the channels it thinks its consumers want to watch. finally the bill provides if the parties cannot agree to the

terms of a carriage agreement, the final offer made by each side must be disclosed to the f.c.c.. the second section of the bill responds to statements by broadcast executives that they may -- quote -- "downgrade the content of their over-the- air signals or pull them altogether so that the program receiving -- received by mvpd customers is preferable to that he is available over the air." our country is facing a spectrum crunch. and broadcasters who are using the public airwaves in return for meeting certain public interest obligations are going to deviate from those obligations; it is my view we should consider, if that is the most efficient use of our country's spectrum. it would be a distortion of this social come pwabgt if over the air -- impact if over the air viewers were treated as second grade citizens. the bill provides that a

broadcaster will lose its spectrum allocation and that spectrum will be auctioned by the f.c.c. if the broadcaster does not provide the same content over the air as it provides through mvpd's. finally, my bill touches on sports blackout rules that can limit the ability of subscribers to see sporting events when they take place in their local community but are not broadcast on a local station. in the venues in which these sporting events take place has been the beneficiary of taxpayer funding, it is unconscionable to deny those taxpayers who paid for it the ability to watch the games on television when they would otherwise be available. therefore, the bill proposes to appeal -- repeal the sports blackout rules insofar as they apply to taking place in publicly financed veteran tphaours or involve a publicly

financed -- or involves a spubically financed local sports team. this is about giving the consumer more choices when watching television. it is time for us to help shift the landscape to benefit television consumers. i know broadcasters and cable companies are likely to suggest the government should not micromanage how they offer their product to customers and that bundling can promote diverse offerings. what those interests fail to mention is that the government has already entered the marketplace and conferred certain rights and privileges like a compulsory license, network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and retransmission consent which stack the deck in favor of everyone but the american consumer. i hope the introduction of this act furthers the debate on issues like a la carte channel selection, and i look forward to the channel the consideration of the bill. i note my friend from new york on the floor who i'm sure will

illuminate us much more than i just did. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. for me to be more illuminating than my friend from arizona would be a rare, rare moment. but i'll give it a shot. anyway, i thank him. he's always cared about the consumer. and once again he's on the floor taking another one of his courageous stands to help the american people. so we salute him, as always, as he exits off into the sunlight or whatever he's exiting off into. anyway, thank you, madam president. i rise today to speak in favor of amendment number 802 to the wrda bill offered by my good friend, great legislator, chairman of the subcommittee on homeland security, senator mary landrieu. i'm proud to cosponsor this amendment. the amendment would delay flood insurance premium increases until fema has completed a study

on the impacts on afford ability of planned premium increases. nobody in this body knows better than she -- senator landrieu, that is -- the challenges faced by communities in the wake of natural disasters. and she has been beyond generous in sharing her time and expertise and lending her vocal support to the states such as mine, so greatly impacted by superstorm sandy. last year congress passed a reauthorization bill and reform bill, the biggert-waters act. we passed the biggert-waters act because if the program expired, flood insurance would have become unavailable for unaffordable for people who needed it. congress needed to reform the program going forward because it is billions of dollars in debt and needs to be put on a better financial footing and in my home state one of the counties received a very, very poor and unfair map which was undone in the bill. but in the aftermath of

superstorm sandy, many middle-class families in new york are struggling to get back on their feet. many lost everything. they've had to drain their savings to rebuild. they've been out of their homes for months. the kids get on a school bus and have to go 20, 30 miles to school. and imagine losing everything in your home as so many have. it's just an awful, awful feeling, not just, you know, the chair, you are comfortable in sitting in and all your appliances and all of that but that picture of great grandma and great grandpa that is priceless and gone. so it's a horrible thing. well, adding another layer of difficulty to this situation, the flood insurance reforms enacted last summer by congress result in many cases in huge increases in insurance premiums. so our families in new york are caught in limbo. families in breezy point in the rockaways, staten island and brooklyn, the south shore of

long island, from long beach all the way out to shirley are still trying to make decisions about repairing their homes and investing tens of thousands of dollars to do so. many of these homes are very middle-class homes. these are not rich people. they've worked hard. some of them are teachers or policemen or firemen or construction workers or small business owners. now, many of them are being told that their insurance rates could be $10,000 a year or more. what kind of insurance is flood insurance if it's $10,000 a year? it puts homeowners in the worst possible position. they either have to come up with an additional $10,000 -- worse in sandy because they've already repaid to do their homes -- but even for a normal homeowner, $10,000 a year, you don't get a mortgage? $10,000 a year? this is absurd. i don't know what's wrong with the flood insurance program, but any program that has to charge an average homeowner on

long island or brooklyn or queens or staten island $10,000 ought to be reexamined by this congress. it is just confounding. and people are upset and they should be. so recognizing the burden that these changes could put on families, fema was required to conduct a study on the affordablity of flood insurance, the effects of increased premiums on low-income homeowners and middle-income homeowners and ways to increase affordablity. the study was originally spoased to be -- supposed to be completed in 70 days, nine months after the bill was passed. that deadline as come and gone. fema hasn't even begun to collect the necessary data. we know fema has been busy responding to sustained and other natural disasters. but at the same time, it's unfair to hit homeowners with

massive new flood insurance premiums without any plan how to address the needs for those who can't afford these strocting, out-of-control and out-of-reach premiums. the amendment is a recognition of that fundamental fairness. large parts of new york city are having their flood maps revised and as a result, new yorkers, many could face the prospect of crushing increases in premiums. right now far too many sandy victims are still in the process of rebuilding their homes. they simply cannot afford a whopping increase in flood insurance premiums. so common sense and a sense of fairness dictate we should delay any unnecessary increases until we know exactly how hard they hit our communities and until we can come up with a solution that makes flood insurance reasonable and affordable particularly if it's mandated as it often is in effect or by law. so that's what the amendment does. i urge my colleagues to volt in favor. and -- vote in favor. while i'm up i want to mention

an amendment offered by my good friend from across the hudson river, senator menendez, that seeks to address many of the same concerns. his amendment would delay flood insurance premium increases until fema's hazard mitigation grant funds have been expended. this commonsense amendment would give homeowners a chance to use the hashz mitigation grant program for its intended purpose to rebuild stronger and safer, resulting in lower flood risks. so this amendment simply says let's wait until people have taken this opportunity to reduce their future flood risks before we increase their flood premiums. makes abundant sense. i hope my colleagues will pass both senator landrieu and senator menendez's fine amendments and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak as if in morning business for up to ten

minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you. mr. president, all over america, concern has been growing that the implementation of obamacare will cause serious damage to our economy and to our health care system. lost wages, soaring insurance rates, more bureaucracy, and less access to care are just some of the adverse consequences that we are beginning to see. there are as many reasons for concern as there are flaws in this ill-advised law. but today i want to focus on just one of the flaws, and that is the affordable care act's definition of a full-time

employee. i also will comment on legislation i've introduced to fix this one flaw. my preference, of course, mr. president, would be for us to repeal obamacare and start all over again, taking some of the good features of the law such as the feature that allows young people to stay on their parents' health care policy until age 26, some of the provisions having to do with preventive care, and some of the provisions having to do with preexisting conditions. we should have crafted a bill, mr. president, that focused on lowering health care costs because it is the high cost of health care that is the reason we have millions of americans

who are uninsured. but here we are with a deeply flawed law that is having very serious adverse consequences for the people of our country. let me talk further about the issue of the definition of a full-time employee. under obamacare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is defined as full time. that's a definition that is completely out of step with standard employment practices in the united states today. according to a survey published by the federal bureau of labor statistics, the average american works 8-8 hours -- 8.8 hours per day which equates to 44 hours per week president. the obamacare definition is

nearly one third lower than actual practice. likewise, the obamacare definition of full-time employee is one quarter lower than the 40 hours per week used by the g.a.o. in its study of the budget and staffing required by the i.r.s. to implement this new law. in that report, the g.a.o. described a full-time equivalent employee as the measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works the equivalent of 40 hours per week for 52 weeks. we also know, mr. president, that generally speaking, it is required for employers to pay overtime after 40 hours a week. that's another indication that 40 hours a week is the standard

definition of a full-time employee. and yet inconceivably, obamacare defines a full-time worker as one who works only 30 hours a week. the effect of using such a low hourly threshold is to artificially drive up the number of full-time workers for purposes of calculating the draconian penalties to which employers can be exposed by obamacare. these penalties can begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 employees, plus $2,000 for each additional full-time equivalent employee. needless to say, these -- these penalties will discourage

businesses from growing or adding jobs, particularly for employers who are close to that 50-job trigger. in addition, these penalties create a powerful incentive for employers to cut the hours their employees are allowed to work so that they are no longer considered full time for the purposes of this law. now, mr. president, this is not is not some hypothetical concern. if have heard from employers in maine who feel they are going to be forced to stay under the 50-employee threshold and they are even considering, very reluctantly, cutting the number of hours per week that their employees are working.

there also have been media accounts, for example, last week the the "los angeles times" reported that the city of long beach, california, is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time workers to just 27 hours a week to make sure that they do not work over the 30-hour threshold. here this is a municipality that is cutting the hours and thus the wages of its workers simply because of the requirements of obamacare. according to this news story, the parent company for the red lobster and olive garden restaurant chains is limiting the hours of some of their employees for the same reason. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the "l.a.

times" article entitled "part-timers to lose pay amid health act's new math" be entered into the record immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: bringing it closer to home, mr. president, one maine business i know has 47 employees. now, it is doing pretty well, and it would like to create more jobs and hire more employees, but it simply won't because of the onerous penalties that it would incur once it got to 50 employees. if more businesses follow suit, millions of american workers could find their hours and their earnings cut back, and jobs lost to them at a time when our country is still struggling with an unacceptably high rate of

unemployment. a study just published by the labor center at the university of california berkeley underscores the danger. that study, which examined the hours worked in businesses with 100 or more employees, found that 6.4 million workers in these firms worked between 30 and 36 hours per week and another 3.6 million workers had variable worker schedules that make them vulnerable to having their hours cut as a direct result of obamacare. the study identified 2.3 million workers as being at the greatest risk. not surprisingly, these are workers who are employed in retail trade, nursing homes,

restaurants, and hotels. these are some of the most vulnerable workers. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that this study be entered into the record, again, immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: let me give you an actual example from my state of maine. peter daeckle who runs lapiet hotels, the largest hotel chain in the state of maine has told me that many of his 800 employees work between 30z 40 hours -- 30-40 hours a week and that from a financial standpoint it would make sense for his company to limit their hours to ensure that they do not go over the 30-hour threshold. this is an artificia limit that is driven solely by

obama care. as peter puts it, "it concerns us that employers are being put in a position that they would have to cut their associate's hours just to meet a federal regulation." and believe me, mr. president, the owners of the lafayette chain of hotels are civic minded, good employers who care deeply about the well-being of their employees. mr. president, during the consideration of the budget resolution, the senate adopted my amendment calling for legislation setting a more sensible definition of "full-time employee" for purposes of obamacare penalties. last month i introduced a bill to protect americans who may otherwise find that their hours

are curtailed and their earnings are cut as a result of this unrealistic definition of full-time employee that is included in obamacare. under my bill, a full-time employee would be an individual who works a 40-hour work week. that only makes sense. this is a sensible, commonsense definition in keeping with actual practice. i urge my colleagues to support my legislation. it will not solve all of the problems, the many problems of obamacare, but it will help to ensure that millions of american workers do not have their hours reduced because of an

artificially low, unrealistic definition in the law that is completely inconsistent with actual practice in this country. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: test

quorum call:

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will now proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: shelly decree earth dik of louisiana to be united states district judge for the middle district of louisiana. nelson stephen roman to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. the presiding officer: under the

previous order, there will now be 30 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form. ms. landrieu: thank you. i rise today to present to this chamber the nomination of shelly deckert dick as nominee for the middle district court of louisiana. i was pleased to recommend mrs. dick to president obama and the committee has unanimously recommended her for confirmation. she is equipped with decades of federal court litigation experience, she brings with her a thorough understanding of the federal court system, having practiced for years before the court. she is from all indications from her peers and colleagues fair and even-handed, her temperament i think is appropriate for the bench. she is a current resident of baton rouge but she was born in

el paso, texas. she earned her bachelor's degree in business administration from the university of texas at austin and graduated on the dean's list with honors. she brings with her years of experience not just in the -- her work as a lawyer before the federal bench, but has also been extremely active in community affairs. she graduated from law school from louisiana state university where she was a member of the law review, demonstrating a commitment to public service early in her legal career she served as a law clerk to a woman who went on and was actually mentored by the first woman of our supreme court, kitty kimball who went on, of course, to become chief justice of the louisiana supreme court. following law school at an early age she became an associated attorney at the firm of gary field and landry in bradford

before becoming a full partner in one of our strongest and best law firms in baton rouge, louisiana. she has extensive experience in federal court representing both plaintiffs and defendants as well as government and nongovernment clients. she has a well-rounded legal career and is very active in the community in her church, having done missionary work for many years throughout the world, as well as very active in the american bar association, the louisiana state bar association, louisiana association of defense counsel and the baton rouge bar. she was admitted to practice in the district court of the western middle and eastern district in the fifth u.s. circuit court of appeals and the u.s. supreme court. she has written numerous articles for legal lel 3ub8 educations preantded -- legal publications preantded on a wide rage of topics. i've known ms. diction for

years -- ms. dicks now. she, to step up and serve on our bench. she and her credentials were brought to my attention by many members of the community, and i am very happy to nominate ms. dik. she will be the first woman to serve in the middle district of louisiana and i think it's about high time after a couple of hundred years that we have women now qualified and stepping up to assume these leadership positions. i've been very proud to help bring diversity and excellence to our bench, both at a prosecutors level and at -- on -- as judges in the courts in louisiana. as i said, shelly has also volunteered for international missions overseas, particularly in cambodia, south africa and kenya working with her church

and other nonprofit organizations. i think she is perfectly suited to be a judge with all the prerequisite experience and legal degrees and academic degrees required, and most importantly, she's enthusiastic, she's excited about serving, i'm sorry it's taken us so long to get her to this point where the senate will hopefully confirm her by if not acclamation by a strong and overwhelming vote. i know of no opposition to her nomination. it's just these days, these things seem to be going a lot slower than they should. so i want to thank her and her family for their patience, as they have waited and waited for this day to come, and hopefully she will be able to put on that robe and get to that bench in the middle district and do a fine job for us both in louisiana and around the country. and i yield the floor.

i think the junior senator from louisiana may want to add a word. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. i rise for two reasons. first of all, i certainly look forward to supporting the confirmation of shelly dick to become a judge in the middle district of louisiana and look forward to that vote in five minutes. i think as i've said before, she'll serve well. and secondly, i also wanted to come to the floor to certainly add my support to the landrieu flood insurance amendment. i'm a cosponsor, and we're working very hard on clearing a path for some important substantive version of that amendment. senator landrieu and i have talked, we've talked to others including senator boxer and many other supporters and we're working very hard to not get into the weeds but to take care of some technical issues, some

budget points of order, some other issues, and clear the path for a strong, substantive version of this amendment. this is a big, big deal. it's a big, big deal for the country it's a big, big deal for any coastal area certainly, certainly a big, big deal for south louisiana. we need to ensure that as the new flood insurance program is administered, it's done in a fair, reasonable way, and we don't price anybody who's been following the rules, don't want price them out of their home because their flood insurance rates increase so astrom onlyally. that's the fear. that hasn't played out, we don't know for sure, new rates aren't out but that's the legitimate fear. and certainly i'm working, senator landrieu is working, our entire delegation is working to make sure we avoid that. right from here, right after this vote i'm going to travel to

northern virginia to meet with a louisiana group at the fema offices to talk about this very issue. i'm convinced fema has some authority under law already to mitigate these issues in an important way, many ways, but including by making sure they get their lamp process right and take into account all flood barriers and protections in a given area as new areas are mapped. and so i'm going directly from this judge vote to there for that important meeting. and we'll all be following up in important ways to make sure we get it right, to make sure fema gets it right, including, hopefully, with the good, workable amendment that can be passed on this bill and we're all working toward that goal. so i thank my colleague from louisiana for that joint effort

and i yield back to the chair. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: can i just follow up on my colleague from louisiana, senator vitter, i'm pleased he's going to be accompanying many of our elected officials to the fema offices this afternoon. i had the chance to meet with them yesterday, with the fema officials, that at my request came to the capitol to meet with them. and we are very hopeful, the both of us, there are some things within the new mandates and authorizations that fema can do to mitigate against the projected 25% increases annually for some of our policyholders. not the majority, but for some of them. but i am fearful or i am anticipating that some of these issues are not going to be addressed administratively, that it's going to take a change of law. now, again, the reason i'm

pushing this issue and pushing on this bill is because this new law that we're talking about that we are expressing frustration about, that we are questioning, never came to this floor for a vote. and i am not clear still at this point whether this bill was ever voted on by the full house. this bill, flood insurance, reform bill of last year, was tucked into a conference committee at the last minute in a larger bill that was widely supported, the national transportation bill. of which funds -- millions -- billions of dollars for everyone's district. a very popular bill. this relatively small but significant flood insurance bill was tucked into a conference report, which is really not

that usual, particularly if the bill itself had not passed one body. there are lots of times things are put into a conference committee that haven't passed the senate but it passed the house, or it passed the house but not the senate, and you have an indication of broad support and because we've got to move legislation and sometimes you've got to use expedited means. but i am still waiting to get clear from the staff whether this bill ever got a vote in the house of representatives. i know it didn't get a vote here, and it would probably in its current form not pass because the delegations from louisiana, texas, mississippi, california and any numbers would have insisted on some amendments and some procedures to help our people that are going to be affected by these very significant increases in flood insurance to give them more time to meet their

obligations. now, i know we're on a judgeships so i'm going to yield the floor but i just want to say i hope we can continue to work on this issue. i thank senator vitter and senator boxer for their support and we're continuing to work on the language of this amendment. and i'd like to yield back all time for the -- on the executive calendar. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the question is on the dick nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question now occurs on the roman nomination. a senator: yeas and nays.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 9, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the taifnl the president will be immediately notified of the senatest action and the senate will resume legislative session. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise with senator wicker today. blazing wildfires in the west, massive tornadoes in the south -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mrs. gillibrand: cripple be droughts in the midwest, routine hurricanes battling the coast. we can't accept the status quo

and i think we must do more because, as we've seen in new york, the storm of the century has literally become the storm of the year. in 2011 we saw wide vied and devastating damage from hurricane irene and tropical storm lee. one year later superstorm sandy hit us harder than we could have ever imagined. the federal government must step in. it must step up to do the hard work, to lead the way, in preparing for and protecting against these extreme weather events. this does not mean just building a higher flood wall or moving public infrastructure out of a flood zone. it means taking a smarter, longer term, regional approach to disaster planning. along with saving lives, this makes smart economic sense. for every dollar that we spend to reduce disaster risk, we save $4 in recovery costs. our bipartisan amendment can help achieve in goal. it is called the strengthening

the resiliencive our nation on the ground, the strong act, to give the federal government a real plan to strengthen our resiliency. first, the bill would investigate effective resiliency policies, identify the gaps, and identify the conflicting policies, knowing what resources we have, what works, what doesn't, we can write and implement a national resiliency strategy to support the local efforts. this would include a one-stop shop to gather and share data, to develop smarter resiliency policies, incorporating existing databases and ongoing efforts across a range of sectors from weather and climate to transportation and energy. it also eliminates redundancies, entouring all levels of government are coordinating effectively and efficiently, sharing their expertise, their data, and information. this national resource will work hand in glove with local efforts providing the most recent scientific information and best

practices to help our communities plan for and survive the worst. as we learn the lessons of superstorm sandy and other natural disasters, we need to ensure that our communities are thinking broadly about resill weren'tcy across all sectors of society. the strong act is the foundation to build smarter and stronger cities, states, and a nation. only with communities built for the 21st century can we withstand the extreme weather of our time. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. wicker: i would like to speak as if i was in morning hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i want to talk a little bit about the health care bill. i hear more and more concerns from families and individuals and more and more employers.

in 2009 the president repeatedly said that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. i notice nobody is saying that anymore. and maybe that's not what the measure should be because that's certainly not going to happen. i think the question is, are you going to have health care, and can you afford it? during the presidential campaign, the president said he liked the term "obamacare." so i feel a little more free to use that than i did previously. i don't mean it to be despairagessing in any way. i just happen to think it is plan that won't work. in the three years since the affordable health care law became larks it's become increasingly clear that this plan will only deliver more broken promises and bad news. opponents have long warned that this overhaul is bad for the

economy. there are now over 20,000 pages of new regulations, and i'm talking to the people i work for. they say we were concerned when people didn't read the 2,000-page bill. now since the election, there's been 20,000 pages of regulations. there will be at least 159 new bureaucracies, boards, and programs. a number of recent reports have reinforced everybody's concerns, noting that the health care bill will burden americans with $1 trillion of new taxes over ten years and penalties. it will stifle job creation. the investor "investors busines" noted that retailers are cutting worker hours at a rate not seen in more than three decades. a sudden shift, according to them that can only be explained by the onset of obamacare's

employer mandates. that ends their quote. "only explained by the onset of obamacare's employer mandates." in the april job figures, 288,000 people moved from full-time work to part-time work. almost all of us in the senate, as we talk to people in the states we represent, talk to somebody who's figuring out how they can replace full-time employees, when they leave or maybe earlier than they wanted to leave, with part-time imleesms the congressional budget office warninged that the president's health care plan will slash approximately 800,000 jobs. increase government spending by $1.2 trillion, and force 7 million americans to lose their employer-sponsored coverage. on that last one, i think that's optimistic. i think it'll be more than 7

million people who two years from now don't have health insurance who had some kind of health insurance two years ago or even up till today. i think the -- setting the standard that you have to meet that ... if you can't meet that standard, just pay the penalty and don't provide anything is going to put people in a position that they're going to find themselves really troubled to be in. a leading health care advocacy group recently noted that millions of people will be priced out of the health insurance market under obamacare, thanks to a glitch in the law that hurts people with modest incomes who can't afford family coverage offered by their employers. and of course the only thing the employer gets any credit for offering in the new world we're about to move into is individual coverage. in fact, if you have a family member that's covered in your

family policy, the person they work for appears to get no credit for that coverage. an independent study by the society of actuaries -- these are the people that try to calculate benefits and life expectancy and all of -- estimates that insurance companies will have to pay out anage of of 32% more on medical claims on individual health policies by 2017. now, why would that be in these are health policies that there is a small penalty for not having, but the insurance company has to issue you to whenever you decide you want it. i've talked to more than one hospital group that said we just -- we'll just put the insurance forms in the ambulance. and under the law, ac, as i reae law, you can spell out the insurance in the ambulance and

they still have to give the guaranteed issue no matter what your health is. for missourians, this study shows that medical claim costs could increase by almost 60%. i think the exact was 58.8% per person. this actuarial stiewrksd i stude says that claim costs could increase by 5.8% making it the eighths-highest in the country. at a time when millions of americans are still searching for jobs, the last thing we should be doing is discouraging job growth, but every single person here has heard somebody that they work for in the state they represent say we're not going to grow above 50 people or we're not going to hire full-time employees. next year, job creators will be forced to start complying with the law or pay a penalty. this will lead employers to reduce hours for full-time employees to avoid paying those

penalties or providing health care, either one. state governments like the state of virginia all across the river from where we're working in the nation's capital said that after july 1, none of their part-time employees will be allowed to work -- that's the beginning of their spending year. after july 1, none of their part-time employees will be able to work more than 29 hours. now, why would the entire state of virginia be saying that? because the federal government says 30 hours is the time when you have to provide a benefit and once we start saying as a government you have to do something, suddenly it seems to be okay to meet the exceptions. for companies that for five decades after world war ii have done everything they could to provide benefits for health care, at whatever level they thought they could because they thought it was either the competitive thing to do or the right thing to do or both, those same companies are now saying well, the exception in the law

says i don't really have an obligation to provide you health care, and so i'm not going to. as we see people move toward the part-time work force, i believe we're going to see people having more than one job but none of those jobs will have benefits. the person who served you your breakfast or sells you your coffee in the morning may be the same person you see at a meal later that same day at another place because they're working two jobs, not one, and neither of those have benefits. for those employers who decide it's cost-effective to pay the penalty rather than comply with the law, those people that work for them obviously will see their plans change or lose their plan altogether. maybe that's why my friends across the aisle were beginning to say the things that they're saying about this. everybody has heard senator baucus comment that -- warned

that implementing this bill will be a huge train wreck coming down. senator wyden said there is reason to be very concerned of what's going to happen to young people if their premiums shoot up, and i can tell you that is going to wash up on the united states senate in a hurry. "new york times" reported that senator ben cardin told white house officials he was concerned about big rate increases being sought by insurers in his state, one of the first states to report what the new rates would be. senator jeanne shaheen says she is hearing from a lot of small businesses in new hampshire that do not know how to comply with the law. senator rockefeller said he's of the belief that the health care act is probably the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the congress. he said it -- quote -- "worries me because it's so complicated, and if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse."

the secretary of h.h.s. says there may be a higher cost associated with getting into this market. she said -- mrs. boxer: for purposes of a little colloquy on what we are about to do here because it involves his amendment we're about to pass. mr. blunt: i am certainly interested in my amendment, and chairman i am interested in your bill. i can yield for a short discussion of that. mrs. boxer: well, what i need to do is just lay out what we're going to do. it's going to take me about six minutes at the maximum. mr. blunt: i will be here when you are done. mrs. boxer: thank you, because we are about to do your excellent bill which we're very pleased about. okay. i understand we have a number change, so i will -- i will start my six minutes and say this, that i have good news for the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. i'm glad you don't object to good news because there is not always good news. what we have seen on this wrda bill is that we have handled a number of amendments both

through the managers package that we substituted for the original text and individual amendments. so -- so what we have seen is that the boxer-vitter substitute strengthen participation in environmental agencies and project delivery. we address challenges in every part of the country. we reached agreement with appropriators on future harbor maintenance trust fund expenditures. we authorize additional regional programs. we accelerate investment in the inland waterways trust fund. and here on the floor we adopted amendments to set up an oceans trust fund, a new program to address asian carp. we have made sure that rural areas are treated fairly in the wifia program. we require performance measures for levee safety grants. and these amendments are good amendments offered by both sides

of the aisle. and we are about to, as soon as we do this little technical change to an amendment number, and it looks like it has been done, we're about to adopt senator blunt's very important amendment that has so much support of both sides of the aisle for resilient construction, meaning that we are going to make sure that as we enter a phase of extreme weather situations, that we have -- using the best materials on these projects, and that's the blunt amendment. then we go to the sessions amendment, a land transfer to help his local communities, uncontroversial. a coburn amendment to deauthorize projects that have been inactive for a very long time. that saves us money. and a warner amendment that makes technical amendments for four mile run. and we will set aside the inhofe amendment, number 797, that will be pending. so i ask unanimous consent that

in addition to the blunt amendment number 800 in the previous order, the following amendments be the next amendments in order to the bill -- sessions 811 as modified with the changes that are at the desk, coburn number 823, warner number 873 and inhofe number 797. further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to any of these amendments or the blunt amendment prior to votes in relation to the amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: and further, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments which have been cleared by both sides be considered and agreed to en bloc -- blunt numberral 00, sessions number 811 as modified, coburn number 823 and warner 873. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: well, thank you so much, madam president. the presiding officer: the amendments are agreed to en bloc. mrs. boxer: thank you so much. do i have to move to reconsider? i move to reconsider and lay it

on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i just want to thank everybody. we have made great progress on this bill. we are working very hard, senator vitter and i, still over tomorrow, saturday, sunday, monday, we urge you if you have amendments -- and we're just saying let them be relevant and not controversial. we can't solve every problem in america on this water bill, but we're trying our best to get a really good bill through the united states senate. and i understand from the house they intend to look at our bill, work off our bill, make their changes, and then we'll go to conference and hopefully have a very good result. so i want to say it's about 3:00 on a thursday. we have disposed of numerous amendments. we're still looking at more. we're trying to resolve all of those. and one way or the other, it is our plan to finish this bill next week. it is very rare that you have a bill that's so bipartisan that will, in fact, support over 500,000 jobs, that has the

support of business and labor and all kinds of community groups. so with that, i thank my colleagues for working with us. i have talked to the majority leader. there will be no further votes today, and next week we will finish this bill, and i thank you very, very much. and i want to thank my friend from missouri. i want to say it's been a pleasure working with him and his staff on his excellent amendment with senator nelson. we're really pleased that we were able to clear this. i also thank senator landrieu and senator durbin. they stepped back and let us move forward with these amendments. people are working together, working hard. i am very pleased as to where we are. i yield the floor. i again thank my colleague from missouri. mr. blunt: i thank the chairman for her work. as this bill progression, i will just remind our friends on the floor that one of the major bills we passed last year was the highway bill in the last congress that she and senator

inhofe worked on and now she and senator vitter are bringing another important bill to the floor, and that's significant. madam president, i'd like my remarks to appear in the record now as if uninterrupted as i finish. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i was about to say that even -- even the top health care official in the country, the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, said there may be a higher cost associated with getting into this market where folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time or not. what she didn't say was or not. what she didn't say was this insurance may cost more than what your employer used to think they could afford to provide to you and now maybe they are not providing anything at all or maybe they are providing this something that meets the new standards, not the person paying the bill thought they could afford but what was the only

option available. this isn't like if you can do some of this, fine, you will just pay part of the penalty. it's not like that at all. in fact, what this really is if you don't meet the standards that the federal government has decided should be the standards for employees of yours that they have never seen, that you pay $100 a day if you try to offer insurance that doesn't meet the insurance per employee. that's $36,500 a year is the penalty if you don't offer the insurance exactly like the government says it has to be offered at a minimum. now, if you decide not to offer any insurance at all, it's $2,000 a year. so now we have got to the point where the government is so right that it's a $36,500 if you don't offer exactly the insurance they say you have to offer and it's a $2,000 penalty if you don't offer any insurance at all.

now, what kind of parallel universe is this that this has taken us into that we have that kind of ridiculous situation develop? last week, president obama said that there may be -- he said glitches and bumps in the rollout of his massive government overhaul, the "chicago tribune," one of his hometown newspapers that same -- after he said that said give us -- in an editorial, they said give us the choice of train wreck or glitches or bumps, we're betting on train wreck. this is his paper, his hometown paper that's saying that. certainly not what the president and congressional leaders promised when this became the law. we can all agree that we must fix our health care system. i think the path we're on is the wrong path to take. there are a number of things we could do. medical liability reform, more

vigorous competition, buying across state lines, more individual ownership of policy, set up high-risk pools that work. the choice should never have been you can do this or we can do nothing at all. there were things in the great health care system we had that could have been improved and still had the benefits of that great system. it appears that none of these are being allowed to happen until we see for sure that the new system either will work or won't work. i recently voted for the amendment to defund the program, and that's go back to the drawing board and see what we can do to get started again. i -- i think this is a flawed concept. i think we have to replace this concept with common sense reforms that put patients and doctors in control of health care, not new bureaucracies in washington, and i would yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that i be able to address the senate as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president, thank you. i recently had a great conversation with an individual, august busch, iii. he is the long-time president and c.e.o. of anheuser-busch company. we talked about the state of the economy. we talked about the desire to get jobs created and the country back on a good, solid fiscal footing. that conversation reminded me of the opportunities we have here in the united states senate and the united states congress to work together to see that we enact policies here in the nation's capital that would make a real difference in the everyday lives of americans by creating jobs, by making certain

that our business climate is beneficial to large and small businesses. in that climate, they then have the opportunity to add additional employment opportunities for all americans. in this overly partisan climate of washington, d.c. it's easy to lose sight of the fact we should be working toward that same goal of getting our economy back on track. i think the number-one issue standing in the way of a robust economic growth is the uncertainty that continues to be there, as described in part by my colleague from missouri, in regard to the affordable care act, but great uncertainty that is out there with americans and people making family as well as business and investment decisions about where we're headed with our national debt and our deficit spending. as elected officials, americans expect us to confront our nation's fiscal challenges and not to push them off into the future. but last year's budget shortfall

just to remind us of the facts, last year's budget shortfall reached $1.1 trillion, the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. this out-of-control, too much spending that we have in our government has increased our national debt to a record $16 trillion, which is more than the entire u.s. economy, it's more than the entire u.s. economy produced in goods and services in 2012. the fact is that our current fiscal state is the responsibility of many congresses and several presidents from both political parties. it's not always the opportunity that we sometimes take to point fingers, but it is over a long period of time we've allowed ourselves to live way beyond our means, and it's gone on far too long.

when i was elected to the united states senate just about three years ago, and i was invited to the white house to have a conversation with my colleagues and president obama, the conversation was really all about deficit spending, the national debt and the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling. unfortunately, since that time it's pretty much been business as usual here in washington, d.c., and almost no progress has been made. it's time for to us get back beyond the conversations and the rhetoric that too often is pretty empty around here and get down to the business of making real changes in the way that we conduct our business. first and foremost, we must reduce the government drag on the private sector. start-ups and small businesses, the real job creators in this country, are being held down under the weight of a 74,000-page convoluted tax code

and a $1.75 trillion worth of red tape. every single job creator that i meet, whether it's at what town hall meeting back home in kansas or here in washington, d.c., they come here to tell us their story and ask for our help, what they tell me is that we've got to reduce the massive regulatory burden. the overwhelming cost of compliance prevents many small business owners and entrepreneurs from hiring new employees, expanding their facilities and growing the economy. second, in addition to the regulatory environment, we've got to say no to spending and yes to pro-job measures. this will help reduce the uncertainty in the marketplace, encourage business investment and help us become more competitive in the global economy, and most importantly, create jobs. the president's solution is to raise revenues to balance the budget, but the president's tax

increase proposals would only cover the deficit for just a few weeks. and does anyone -- in fact, i would be pleased to be convinced that if we increase taxes that the money would be used to pay down the debt. i don't think i'm overly cynical, but my view of history, my review of the facts suggests that every time there's more revenue, more money in washington, d.c., more money is spent. history shows that money raised in washington, d.c. only results in more spending in washington, d.c. the revenues we need to balance our books are not from increasing taxes but revenues that come from a strong and growing economy. we're not immune from the laws of economics that face every nation. congressional budget office estimates that government spending on health care entitlements, social security, and interest on the national

debt will consume 100% of the total revenues by 2025. what that means is that money the government spends on national defense, transportation, veterans, health care, and other government programs will have to be borrowed money. that drives us further and further into debt. so regulations, getting the deficit under control on the right path toward a more balanced budget, third, we must take serious action to address the $48 trillion in unfunded obligations found in social security and medicare. these programs represent promises that were made to americans, and in my view they're promises that must be kept. our family's circumstance, my parents, i pretty much know what life is like for people who utilize social security and medicare and the benefits they

provide for their lives at a stage in life that we all aspire to. when social security was signed into law by president franklin roosevelt, average life expectancy was 64 years of age, and the earliest riermtd age -- retirement age to collect benefits was 65. today, americans live 14 years longer, retire three years earlier, and spend two decades in retirement. so we've gone from a time in which social security was there really for a short period of the remaining life expectancy, to a social security system that now is a source of income and support for people through a couple of decades of retirement. it means we have to change the way that we support social security in order to fit today's demographics. more people retiring, more people living longer, and yet

the revenues are therefore insufficient to meet those program needs. when this year's kindergarten class enters college, spending on social security and medicare plus medicaid and interest on the debt will devour all tax revenues. congress should, can, ought to, ought to begin today, should have started a long time ago, we can address these questions concerning the sustainability of very important programs. lastly, our country's fiscal house, to get it back in order, congress should consider and adopt many of the bipartisan recommendations put forth by the president's own deficit reduction commission. the cochairs of the commission have warned -- this is the simpson-bowles commission -- the cochairs warrant that if we failed to take swift action, and if we fail to take serious action, the u.s. faces -- quote

-- "the most predictable economic crisis in history." in other words, we know it's coming. people who know that something bad is on its way, an economic crisis is coming, you can predict it, one would expect to us take evasive action to avoid the consequences. yet the president and senate leadership have ignored the recommendations contained in simpson-bowles and we continue to spend borrowed money without regard for those consequences, without regard for what we know is coming. i don't want americans to experience the day when our creditors decide that we're no longer creditworthy and we have to suffer the same consequences as those countries that ignored their financial crisis. one needs to look no further than places in europe, greece, italy, spain, to see what high levels of national debt will do to a country's economy. out-of-control spending is slowing america's economic

growth and threatening the prosperity for future generations who will have to pay for our irresponsibility. thousands and thousands of young americans will be graduating this month, typically graduation day, i would guess many of my colleagues will be giving graduation addresses and encouraging our graduates to go forth and pursue a great life. we ought to also be telling ourselves that for our college grawdz to be able -- graduates to be able to pursue that wonderful life, we need to make changes in the way that we do business and get our country's economic conditions and fiscal state to a place in which the american dream can be expected to be pursued and in many cases achieved. i'm fearful that while my parents' generation handed off a country to my generation in which the expectations were high, the belief that we all could live the american dream was felt, i worry that my generation is failing to do the

same for the generation that follows mine. if we fail to take action now and leave it for another congress, another year, another session, another election, if we fail to take the action that we need to do so today because we believe it's just too difficult to do, that we can't afford the political consequences of making what some people describe as very difficult decisions, we clearly will reduce the opportunity of the next generation to experience the country that we know and love, and we will diminish the chances that they can pursue and achieve that american dream. i had somebody in my office who gravels the globe, he was indicating every place he goes people around the globe, around the world know what the phrase "american dream" means and they all want to pursue the american dream but the reminder was that more and more, the american dream is pursued outside of america because of the inability

for this congress, the failure of past congresses and presidents, to come together and do the things that are responsible for today but more importantly, responsible for the well-being of americans in the future. we were not elected, not one of us was elected to ignore problems. people tell us, each one of us, all the time some circumstance or condition that's a challenge to them, and i have no doubt but what each one of us in the united states senate try to figure out how can we help you. well, the american people are experiencing a problem. our country faces a challenge. and we ought to respond in the same way that we respond individually to our own constituents when we say how can we help, what can we do? we know the answer to those questions. we just need to have the will, the desire, the courage to work together to see that rewee address the issues that make certain that america is a place that we're proud to pass on to

the next generation and that no american because of our fault is unable to pursue that beautiful american dream. madam president, i yield the floor. and, madam president, i -- i yield the floor. madam president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: thank you. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, may i be recognized? the presiding officer: yes, the senator is recognized. mr. nelson: i want to speak in support of the water resources development act. i want to congratulate senator boxer and senator vitter for showing how t two senators of opposite parties can work together, which is something that is sorely needed around here. i want to thank them for clearing the amendment that

senator blunt and i offered on resilient construction to study the need to improve our infrastructure in order to withstand extreme weather conditions and events such as hurricanes. the last time we passed a water bill it was back in 2007, and the gridlock that the american people are seeing so much of now is part of what has delayed us passing a new water bill. the controversy over earmarks, but all of this inaction since 2007 puts our ports, beaches and environmental restoration projects, such as the everglades restoration, in jeopardy. so now this water bill is going

to authorize new flood protection, navigation and specific restoration projects which are so important to our state of florida, such as everglades restoration. also, this bill is going to authorize important updates to our nation's ports. our ports obviously are a main source of the economic engine of this country and all of these projects are now in this bill and we'll be able to proceed. this senate water bill means good news for florida's beaches, waterways, ports, and the everglades. and rather than talk about the

specific projects, i just want to say that congress made a promise 13 years ago to restore the everglades and this bill puts us on the path to finally fulfilling that promise and restoring as much of that extraordinary ecosystem known as the everglades back as much as it could be in the way that mother nature designed it. i also want to talk about another part of this bill that is just extremely important to the state of florida. people think that california has the biggest coastline. not so. florida's coastline is much larger. actually, alaska's coastline is the longest. but when it comes to a coastline

with beaches, almost all of florida's coastline is beaches. so beach renourishment is exceptionally important to us. it's important to our economy, with all of our tourism that comes. it's important to our environment. and the beach restoration saves lives, mitigates property dama damage, and it keeps the recovery costs down. now, i see the majority leader just walked in here. would the majority leader like me to suspend? would the majority leader like me to suspend? mr. reid: madam president, if -- the presiding officer: mr. leader. mr. reid: i would like the record to appear as not being interrupted. i appreciate, of course, the courtesy of my friend from florida. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, this is

an important unanimous consent request. we've been working on this for a long time. i now ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me, in consultation with senator mcconnell, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 92, there be one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. a senator: madam chair? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: i would just ask the leader -- reserving my right to object. i'm on the floor, as senator nelson is, to speak to the wrda bill and to offer two amendments. and so i would just ask that i

be allowed to do that before we move to executive session so that the amendments can be offered. mr. reid: madam president, through the chair to my friend from new mexico, i'm not managing the bill. however, it's my understanding that there's been objections raised in offering more amendments. we can get the chair back here, i hope, or somebody that phaepbgz -- manages this bill, but that's where we are. mr. udall: i totally respect the hraoerpbd the discussion he has -- the leader and the discussion he has had with the chairman. i have tried today to contact the chairman. i've called her. i wanted to talk to her about this issue. i want to get these amendments in. i know, leader reid, you have been encouraging throughout this debate to wrap this up, to try to get amendments in. i'm here to offer them, and i

would like to do that. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection to the u.c.? without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: this is how business is done in the united states senate. when the majority leader speaks, people listen. and then things get done. well, i was talking about beach renourishment that's in this bill. it's another reason that i support the bill. and coming from the state that has more beaches than any other state, naturally our beaches are of critical importance to us not

only from an environmental standpoint, but also from the economic standpoint, the tourism standpoint. and the way mother nature operates, it comes along, and there's something known as the le toro drift. that is from north to south it will take sand off the beach and take it south. and when you have a cut in the beach, such as an inlet that you're going into a port, it all the more aggravates the kind of beach erosion. and then when the storm comes, oh, watch out, because the beach can completely disappear. and so i strongly oppose any efforts to cut funding of beach renourishment. it's about protecting our communities from natural disasters. these investments save lives.

they mitigate property damage, and they keep recovery costs down. for every $1 that is spent on shoreline protection, we see a return of $4. and in florida, we have several coastal communities anxiously waiting for the reauthorization of beach renourishment programs because they are so vulnerable to erosion caused by hurricanes and the sea had -- and the sea l rise. it for us pretty simple. we have to protect coastal communities from flooding and storms by adding sand to the beach. and i will continue to try to prevent any kind of cut that we see.

as a matter of fact, we're going to see a coburn amendment that's going to try to take money out of the beach renourishment. and i will urge my colleagues to vote "no" on that coburn amendment. now, madam president, as i conclude, let me just say that a very disturbing circumstance occurred about a week ago in the turks and caicos. and, first of all, the arrest and the jailing of two older american tourists on ammunition charges at the turks and caicos island's airport. these two americans were arrested on back-to-back days.

a 60-year-old businesswoman from texas was arrested on april 25. and an 80-year-old retired neurosurgeon from florida was arrested the next day. both were on vacation in the turks and caicos, and both were arrested at the airport and spent days in jail because after they checked their luggage in, supposedly when their luggage was being examined by the authorities, they found a single bullet in the luggage. does it sound suspicious? well, it will sound more

suspicious when both of the american tourists on vacation have said adamantly that they had no ammunition, and, therefore, could have had no way of putting a bullet in their luggage. and it's going to sound even more suspicious that when they were arrested and hauled off to jail, that they had to pay $4,000 cash in order for bail to get out of jail and to return home. and, so, the senator from texas, senator cruz, and i today have sent a letter to the charges of

the u.s. embassy in the bahamas, which includes the turks and caicos, to ask them to investigate this matter. and what we want to know, if there have been similar cases this year to make american tourists a target under a similar kind of scheme. and so, madam president, i would like to enter into the record the letter that senator cruz and i have signed to john dinkelman, charges of the american embassy in the bahamas, asking -- letting him we are very concerned on behalf of our constituents. and we want to know in essence if this was a shakedown operation, or is it legitimate.

this happening on two successive days with a single bullet found nut luggage of american tourists gets to be awfully suspicious. and so i would ask unanimous consent that our letter be placed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i yield the floor. mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you very much, madam president. as you noticed a minute or so ago, i had a discussion with the leader, and he was moving to executive session.

but i've been down here, as senator nelson has and other senators, to try to move the wrda bill forward. and leader reid says that's the business of the day. we're trying to move this forward. we're trying to get our amendments in. i really hope that we can do that, and do it in efficient order. so i'm going to speak to both of my amendments. senator ben.net is here, and i know he has a statement on immigration. so i would just ask you to give me notice when i'm in the five-minute range or so so i can try to wrap up and get everything in at this point. my message is simple today on the nepa process and wrda. despite what you hear, environmental reviews protect people, taxpayers and the environment. on average, it takes the corps just two to three years to complete a feasibility study once funding is available.

studies of complex and highly controversial projects may take longer, but these are exactly the projects that require more in-depth review. the administration has warned that the streamlining provisions in s. 601 -- quote -- "may actually slow project development and do not adequately protect communities, taxpayers, or the environment." end quote. the real cause of project delays are, number one, limited funding; two, poor project planning that does not focus on national priorities or identifying the least possible damaging solution to a water resource problem. project studies take the longest when the project developers insist on pushing out data damaging extremely costly projects instead of adopting low-impact modern solutions that could quickly gain broad-based support. now, there are a number of examples, and i'll put my full statement in the record here.

but i have two amendments that really go to the heart of making sure that we have a good wrda bill here. first is udall amendment 581, streamlining is an empty promise if the backlog is not addressed. the corps currently has an estimated backlog of more than 1,000 authorized activities costing an estimated $60 billion to construct. wrda in 2013 will add to this backlog. it authorizes more than 20 new projects and increases cost by $3.4 billion over the next five years. the plate is full. cutting corners on environmental review won't change that. it will just hurt communities. and the plate has been full for over 25 years. project authorizations far exceed the money to pay for them. according to the congressional research service, between 1986 and 2010, congress authorized

new corps projects at a rate that significantly exceeded appropriations. in 2010 dollars, the annual rate of authorizations was roughly $3.0 billion, and the rate of appropriations for new construction was roughly $1.8 billion. completing project studies is not the problem. a newly authorized project will still have to wait. it has to compete for funding with a thousand other projects already on the books. so this amendment would go directly to that process and solve it. udall amendment number 853, this talks about the value of a pilot project. the current environmental review process has been used successfully for decades resulting in better and less damaging projects, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. there's no evidence that the process proposed in s. 601 would actually speed up project planning.

there's no evidence that the process will speed up project construction. and there is absolutely no evidence that the process would produce better projects. quite the opposite. the evidence shows the streamlining provisions will lead to more damaging and more costly projects and will hurt communities, taxpayers and the environment. the corps does not want congress to enact these changes. the resource agencies don't want these changes. the environmental community does not want these changes. the legal community does not want these changes and the public does not want these changes. so with that, i would ask consent to put my whole statement into the record as if spoken, and i would just say once again, i wish the floor managers were here on this bill. i am here, as leader reid has requested us to be, to put in amendments. as soon as we get back here, i want to bring up these amendments, make them pending

and continue with this process. so i'm very discouraged that we can't move forward as our leader as said. this is a bill -- it's on the floor. the managers need to be here to manage this process. i'm here to meet with the leaders and try to move this along. thank you, and i yield to the gentleman from colorado. i just want to say one thing. he has done such great work on immigration. he has been a marvelous senator, ever since he's been here. this gang of eight has contributed something that's very, very important to this country. so i hope that everybody listens very carefully to his words because he's giving us very wise advice as to how to proceed. i yield to the senator from colorado, senator bennet. mr. bennet: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. been binld like to thank the

senator from new mexico for his kind remarks and for keeping it brief today. i know it is an issue of great importance to hi him and his st. mr. bennet: this morning the committee started working on the border security immigration act known as a bill to fix our immigration system. as we are here today, they are continuing to work on that bill and i think will work into the night. working with this group of antiquity i call i--working wi eight, it's been one of the most rewarding experiences during my time in the senate. my senate colleagues in this group include senators schumer and mccain, durbin, graham, menendez, rubio, and flake. and i want to come to the floor today first to stay thank you to them for their leadership and

courage to move past the talking points on this issue and to produce this bipartisan product the committee is now considering today. this is a bill that's been applauded by editorial boards from "the wall street journal" to "the new york times," two editorial pages that seldom agree on anything. in colorado, editorial boards from across the state, including the denver poarveghts the colorado springs gazette and the durango herald have all praised this bill and it has the support of wide-ranging coalitions from the left and right, from business and from labor, from rural and urban all across the united states. all this is to say that the pieces are in place today to actually get something done in this town, in washington, d.c., and in this congress. that's not a small feat for a place where a stale mate has become standard operating

procedure. we have, madam president, i would say, a golden opportunity to rise above politics as usual, to do something big and something real, something that lasts and endures. we have the chance to pass commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will strengthen our economy and our families, better protect our borders and our communities and offer a tough but fair path to citizenship to those currently here without any legal status at all. in this way, we have the chance to act together to do something great for our nation and for its future. it's a cliche uttered many times in this chamber, including by me, that america is a nation of immigrants. and of course that's true. but we're so used to saying and hearing that phrase that we rarely take the time to ask or to think, what does that even

really mean is this there is literally no other country in the world on this planet for which immigration is so central to its history and to its identity as the united states of america. all of us in this chamber -- and more important, every family back home that we're privileged to represent -- can tell you when and how their family came to this country. did they come on a boat in the 17th century? did they come by plane in the 20th century. did they come by foot or by bus, with papers or without is this every one of us has a story. my family has one of its own that won't surprise you to know i find pretty interesting. it's also utterly ordinary for this country. when i was in the second grade, we were asked to research whose family had been in america the shortest time and the longest

time. so we interviewed our parents and grand parent pairchth, we traced our jea jeanologies and e came up with our answer in the class. and the answer was me. my family was the answer to both of these. my family came over on one of those 17th century boats. then there's my mother. she was born in poland. in 1928 while nazi tanks were amassing at the border, she had and her pawrntses endured that war in and around warsaw. they and an aunt were the only members of their family to survive. everybody else in their family perished at the hand of the nazis. they lived in poland for a couple of years after that, but then by way of stock hol stockhy

mother arrived in new york city in 1950. she was 12 years old in 1950. like so many children of immigrants, she was the only one in the family who could speak any english at all of th all. but the three of them were alive. they were free. and they had made it to america. my mother and grandparents were able to rebuild their lives and succeed here because america welcomed them. they greeted them not with prejudice but with opportunity. and they worked hard, extremely hard, to be worthy of that great gift. it was a gift that my grandmother hellen in a cludgeman taught me and my brother and my sister never to take for granted. so my family's history happens to run through both policewomenh

plymouth and poland. stories like the town of san luis colorado, founded in 1851. the town was established by latino settlers from new mexico who migrated under a land grant issued by the mexican governor in santa pavemen santa fe. 25 years -- 25 years before colorado officially became a state. the naturives of how we come here matter because they tell us who we are and where we've been. but they matter just as much for where we are going as a nation. the future of this country will be determined not just by those of us who are in this chamber nor this city or even in this country today. it's going to be written by people who have yet to step foot in the united states of america, because over our history, it's

the refugees fleeing persecution, the parents seeking opportunity for their children who make america the america that we love. they're the ones who keep us fresh and free-thinking and free. they are all of us. they are every single one of us, a nation of immigrants. unfortunately, today's immigration policies do not reflect the history or the values that shaped it. neither do they reflect our 21st century economic needs. instead, our system is a hodgepodge of outdated, impractical, and convoluted laws. it is a mess of unintended consequences that hurt our businesses and families and keep america at a competitive disadvantage in an ever-shrinking world. there's an old capital visa slogan that says something like, life takes visa?" well, the united states, work

takes a visa and our visa system is working against us today. it is stifling growth and making us less competitive. travel around my home state of colorado, as i do, and you'll see what this looks like. you'll meet vegetable growers in brighten and peach growers from palisade who fear they won't have enough labor to harvest their crops season after season. think you're part of colorado's $40 billion agriculture industry, the supply of blood of our state and so vital to our nation that they have no confidence, and for good reason, that a legal, reliable, and competent workforce will be available for their farms and ranches. 57 million tourists visited colorado in 2011, madam president. i don't know whether you were among them, but we'd love to have you back. and if you talk to our ski resort operators and restaurant owners, you will hear loud and clear that we need a program for low-skilled workers to come into

this country and fill jobs that americans don't want in cities like denver and bowle boulder, l find graduates with degrees in science and engineering, the kind who are far more likely to file patents a and 30% more likely to create new businesses. more thank 40% of the 2010 fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants and their children. 40% of the largest companies in the united states of america, which once were small companies. that grew to become large companies, were created by immigrants. these companies employ more than 3.6 million people in this country and generate more than $4.2 trillion in revenue every single year. you're also going to see thousands of foreign students with these highly technical, advanced degrees that are be turned away. you'll hear them tell you that they have no choice but to go home -- to go back to india, go back to china and use whatever

they've learned at american universities to compete down the line with american workers. students like wolf gang polly, german psychology ph.d. student who atndzed the university of colorado in boulder. he was studying under a temporary visa sponsored by his advisor through the university of colorado. but because of the inflexible nature of our visa system, he wasn't able to be kept for an advanced research project despite his skills and experience much the position went unfilled. it is a loss for the project, for innovation and for wolf gang. i have been to india i've seen people sitting in front of computer screens in a room with a clock on the wall, madam president, that said underneath it, "east hartford, connecticu connecticut." i said to the man who ran the show, why does it say that?

because think you're redesigning the engines for pratt & whitney in east hartford. i asked them, where were the people sitting at those computers educated? he said, half were educated in my country, in india, and half about educated in your -- were educated in your country. what you know is if they were given the opportunity to stay here, to contribute to build their business to apply their intellect here, many of them would. but today we're sending them away. this is crazy. and it doesn't end there. go into our schools, all across america, like did i when i was superintendent of the denver public schools, and you will see kids, you will meet kids, great kids, hardworking students, see them at the end of their junior and senior years. they are peers considering careers and you'll see what it looks like when those students

fully realize in the starkest and most heartbreaking terms imaginable what it means to live in a country without legal status, what it means to live if a place you got to through no fault of your own without legal status. many of these young people, inspiring young people like octaviokay -- like octavio morgan imagined to carve out a future against odds. i don't know how we to inpreach opportunity and social mobility without dealing with their legal status. you'll hear about dangerous border crossings. you'll hear about separated families and disrupted dreams. and, yes, if we're being honest, you'll also hear about jobs that went to new neighbors and gang violence and overcrowded schools. you will see, as you study this and hear and feel a system that

hardly qualifies as one. but that's the system we're living in, unless we do something about it. for year, even though congress has done nothing, immigration has become a poster child for the kind of dysfunctional politics that the american people have rejected. but we keep passing it. we keep on practicing this dysfunctional policy. and that's the way it's been in congress. i hope it's now changing. but thankfully for a lot of us that are here, that's not what we see back home, not even close. a few years ago, a small group of us in colorado began working on a set of principles to begin a more pragmatic and productive immigration discussion. utah launched a similar effort in 2010, so i'd like to recognize the leadership of our friends to the west for paving the way. and i was very pleased to take part in my state's effort along with former senator hank brown, no stranger to some of the people in this chamber.

senator brown, a republican, is one of colorado's greatest statesmen with a long record of working across the aisle to get things done. and over the course of 18 months, we traveled over 6,300 miles in colorado, which, by the way, is not a hardship. a lot of people fly over oceans to get there to have their vacations, but still 6,300 miles and held about 230 meetings in the state. we talked to farmers and business owners, law enforcement officials and educators, faith leaders and latino leaders, and all are struggling with different broken pieces of our immigration system. we found far more agreement on what immigration reform should mean to them and what it ought to look like than you would ever think was possible if you listened to the politicians here in washington or the pundits on tv. and together we created, developed a commonsense blueprint called the colorado compact. it puts its emphasis on a strong

economy and strong national security. it cares for families while keeping our citizens safe. i'm glad we developed these principles and i'm glad it was done in such a bipartisan way in rural parts of the state as well as urban and suburban parts of the state and that we have such a broad coalition of people, including my former opponent for this very seat that we assembled in support of it. mr. president, one of the things we all agreed on was that as promising as efforts like this are, the effort in colorado, the effort in utah, this issue needs more than piecemeal reforms. no state's effort can be a substitute for smart, sensible national strategy to overhaul our immigration system, and with this new set of proposals, that's exactly what we have. the bipartisan senate bill we have introduced addresses each

of the issues that we mentioned in the compact, and it does so in a way that's reasonable, that's compassionate and respects the rule of law. it recognizes that we must take concrete steps to further secure our borders. we're building on steps already taken. since 2004, the u.s. has doubled border -- the border patrol. we have tripled the number of intelligence analysts working at the border. we're seizing a higher volume of contraband weapons, currency and drugs, and that migration from mexico is at its lowest level in decades. our bill would make substantial further investments at the border, including new fencing and technologies, motion sensors, visual monitoring systems, inexpensive surveillance and other innovative approaches that enable us to secure the border more cheaply, more effectively and with a smaller footprint.

however, there is still more that we can do. with 40% of illegal immigration due to visa overstays, we need to ensure a better system for tracking people that come to our shores who enter and exit our borders, which is why our bill provides for a stronger and more comprehensive entry-exit system. this is a very interesting point, mr. president, that a lot of people don't know. 40% of the 11 million people here that are undocumented entered the country lawfully on a visa. we have a system to check them on the way in but we don't have a system today to check whether they ever left. this is one of the ways, by the way, that the bill will prevent our finding ourselves back where we are today to begin with. we need to secure opportunity also for those who are already in this country. our bill provides a fair but tough pathway for many of the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, especially young people whose parents brought

them here as children just like my mother was in search of a better life. those here without status today would be required to upped go a background check, pay a $2,000 fine, pay all of their back taxes. they would have to go to the back of the line, which is what both parties have said for years, behind those who have gone through the proper process to emigrate. that's only fair and it's only right. this is not just a humane thing to do but it is sound economic policy. conservative economist doug holtz-eakin estimates that immigration reform would help grow the economy. some experts have said this bill would grow the economy by more than a percentage point of g.d.p. that's more than a trillion dollars or so over a ten-year period. a path to citizenship would lead to higher wages in this country, more consumption of goods and

increased revenue. our bill proposes a more coordinated effort across federal, state and local governments in partnership with private organizations to help new immigrants and refugees integrate into their communities. our integration title which was influenced by cities like littleton and greeley, colorado, would help provide immigrants with greater access to english language classes and civics education and help us cultivate stronger citizens with a greater appreciation for our nation and our history. with a broken immigration system hurting our businesses and workers as well, we propose an efficient, sensible and flexible visa system that would be more in line with our changing 21st century economy. as i mentioned earlier, roughly 40% of fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants. we want an immigration system that harnesses the world's innovation and talent here in the united states of america.

there is no place where this is truer than the state of colorado where one in ten entrepreneurs is an immigrant. colorado has a high-tech sector that includes more than 10,000 companies and 150,000 workers that produce almost $3 billion worth of exports each year. $3 billion worth of exports each year. as well as a new patent office openings. we want the next facebook or iphone or clone energy technology, breakthrough medical device to be built in our state or at least in america. that's why we create a new invest visa for foreign entrepreneurs who want to start new businesses here in the united states, a new category of visas proposed in our bill provides this investment opportunity. immigrant entrepreneurs who have launched successful start-ups can stay or come and continue to create jobs and fuel our economy if they can show that they have

been backed financially. we make it easier for foreign students who graduate with advanced degrees in stem fields to get a green card. i know this is a bit of great interest to the presiding officer, and increase the number of h.i.v. visas. this will help fill labor shortages in some of our fastest growing industries, including bioscience and computer engineering. our bill also creates a new -- this is a lot to take in, i know, mr. president, and i hope people will have the chance to study this. this is why i am so glad we took the time we did to negotiate this bill with the eight of us, but that now it's going through the committee on which the presiding officer serves, the judiciary committee, to have hearings, to have a markup, to have everybody have their chance to offer. i think when i last heard, there were more than 300 amendments to

the bill, to offer those amendments, and to get it to the floor where we can debate it here. there is going to be time to do all this work, and this requires time to understand it. so our bill creates a new w. visa, program for lesser skilled workers to come into the country. this in addition to several other reforms that are made throughout our bill will ensure that we can continue to fill our labor needs in sectors such as hospitality, our vibrant ski industry which hosts 56.5 million visitors every year. and there was complete agreement among democrats and republicans that were meeting in this group that our visa system must protect american workers and prevent exploitation such as requiring efforts first to recruit american workers. it also must be paired with a reliable cost-effective employment verification system that prevents identity fraud, protects our civil liberties and

is critical to stopping future illegal immigration. that's one of the key objectives in this legislation. we do not want to end up right where we are today with 11 million undocumented people, and we put the systems in place, including very importantly this employment verification system to -- to deal with that. this has been a bill that's been on -- had broad bipartisan support on this part for many years in this congress, and it is now part of our legislation. and this all has to come with a determination to crack down on employers who normally hire illegal workers. simply put, if we want to reduce illegal immigration, we need to make legal immigration a much more straightforward process in this country. that's one of the reasons that i was glad to take part in the -- in the agriculture negotiations around this bill under the leadership of senator feinstein and with senator rubio and

senator hatch. this bill alone is going to stabilize our agriculture work force for years to come and is critical to protecting and growing our agricultural economy which has a $40 billion economic impact in colorado. this bill provides a faster path to citizenship for agricultural workers to be able to do the important work of producing our nation's food and increasingly our energy. it also creates a new streamline program for agriculture guest workers that is more usable for employers while maintaining critical worker protections. and it is the first time we have had an -- a title of this bill that is endorsed by both the farm workers and the farm bureau. i want to thank them for taking part in these negotiations and for the willingness of both sides to give a little up for the greater good. i think that their example is one that we should embrace as we

go forward on this bill. and as i said earlier, i feel the same way about the bipartisan colleagues that worked on this bill. in crafting this bill, we all had to give a little, just a little to get a lot. each of us had to come to the table with our diverse perspective, representing different constituencies. we each would have written certain pieces differently were we left to our own devices, but these types of compromise need to happen if you're crafting a bipartisan and complex bill to fix the immigration system in a country of 300 million people, and every single member of the group was committed to working together to accomplish that goal. in particular, i want to thank again senators schumer and mccain especially for driving this process forward, and as the committee begins its important work, i want to acknowledge the work and leadership of chairman leahy to see it through.

and in the spirit of our partnership, i think it's important to remind ourselves on an issue where emotions can run so high and so hot, that all of us are trying to do right by the american people as each one of us sees it. every proposed path to citizenship is not amnesty. and this proposed path to citizenship is not amnesty. and every opponent of these reforms were not antiimmigrant. we need to do more to secure our borders, but we don't need to treat people trapped in a failed system as criminals. these changes will be difficult. it's understandable that people worry about what this is going to mean for their jobs, their schools, their businesses. but if we just apply a very basic test, is it smart and is it right, then i am confident we can find common ground and move forward. i'd like to close,

mr. president, with one last reflection on my own grandparents' experience. on my first birthday, which was november 28, 1965, my grandparents gave me a birthday card and sent me a gift, and in that card, they wrote -- "the ancient greeks gave the world the high ideals of democracy in search of which your dear mother and we came to the --" they wrote this in english, by the way. remember, when they came to this country, they spoke none." the ancient greeks gave the world the high ideals of democracy in search of which your dear mother and we came to the hospitable shores of beautiful america in 1950. we have been happy here ever since, beyond our greatest dreams and expectations, with democracy, freedom and love and humanity's greatest treasures. we hope that when you grow up, you will have a chance to

develop in other parts of the world a greater understanding of these american values." democracy and freedom and love. in my grandparents' view, humanity's greatest treasures, and they called them american values. this is a lesson that my wife susan and i are now trying to teach our three little girls because opportunity is indeed a precious gift that this country has given each generation, asking only that they in turn not squander that inheritance but increase and pass it along to the next. that, mr. president, is our responsibility as we consider this piece of legislation and really, for that matter, any other. if history is any guide, someone waiting in line for a visa at this moment or someone waiting to enter what my

grandparents called beautiful america, will go on to become a brilliant artist or a talented surgeon or a path-breaking businessperson. someone whose father picked grapes will grow up to found the next apple. someone operating a ski lift in veil is going to be the parent or grandparent of a united states president or god help us, of a united states senator. and that person will stand in our shoes a generation from now, and they will know whether we had the courage to do what was smart and what was right and what was hard. now is not the time to pat each other on the back. we have a long way to go, as the presiding officer knows. but what we do have is some momentum. i think a lot of momentum. and a balanced, reasonable piece of legislation. there are going to be some

difficult discussions and challenges ahead. there's no doubt about that. but what i know is that if we use the efforts and insights of the colorado compact as a guide, we will alive at -- arrive at the shared, sensible middle ground and we will pass legislation that's worthy of the great hope of my grandparents and of future generations in this country. and with that, mr. president, i thank you for your patience and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i rise today to say a few words about an issue that i think is not getting enough discussion here in the senate, but is of great concern to the american people in general, and that is the need for congress to pass comprehensive postal service reform as soon as possible. the postal service is of enormous importance to tens of millions of people, people in rural states like maine or vermont, to businesses all over this country, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of employees who serve us so well in the postal service. mr. president, about two years ago, the postmaster general of

the united states came up with a plan for the postal service that would have -- let me just tell you and the american people what it would have done. it would have eliminated about 220,000 postal service jobs, including the jobs of many american veterans. it would have closed about 15,000 post offices throughout the country, many of them in rural areas like the state of vermont. it would have eliminated half of the mail processing plants in this country. it would have substantially slowed down the delivery of mail by eliminating overnight delivery for first-class mail, and it would have ended saturday mail delivery. many of us here in the senate and in the house thought that that plan was a disaster for our country, for our economy, and for american workers. and we organized and fought back against that plan, and the goal was to convince the postmaster

general to substantially revise the ideas that he had brought forth. instead of closing down 15,000 post offices, the postal service in fact came up with a plan to reduce the hours of service at about 13,000 post offices throughout the country, and many in the state of vermont. was i happy with that? no, to be frank with you. was it better to see a reduction of two hours or four hours than seeing the entire rural post office shut down? it was. instead of closing down half of the mail processing plants in this country, the postal service decided that they would keep about 100 of the sale sorting centers that were originally on the chopping block open. in other words, they did shut down some but not anywhere many as they had intended to shut down. instead of ending overnight

delivery standards, the postal service has adopted a plan to keep overnight delivery going although not as strong as it previously was. and although it took an act of congress through the appropriations process, the postal service for the time being, at least, has decided to obey the law of the land and not eliminate saturday mail delivery. mr. president, last year the senate passed a comprehensive postal reform bill that did not go as far as i would have liked but it was certainly a substantial improvement over what the postmaster general had proposed. and we won that vote, i think 62, 63 votes, bipartisan support for it. unfortunately, the house of representatives failed to even schedule a vote on the floor of the house for any postal reform bill.

as a result, nothing was signed into law last congress, forcing us to start this process all over again. what i fear the most, mr. president, is that all of the work that the senate did last congress -- and the committee of jurisdiction worked hard on it, some of us put together an ad hoc committee of 15, 16 members of the senate who worked hard on that issue. but i fear very much that all of that work to save the postal service will go for naught if congress does not get its act together and pass a comprehensive proposal reform bill as soon as possible. so, mr. president, in my view, the time has come to send a very loud and clear message to the leadership of the house, the leadership of the senate, the postmaster general of the united states and the president of the united states, and that is that in the midst of this terrible

recession which has significantly impacted the middle class and working families of our country, it is imperative that we do not destroy thousands and thousands of decent paying middle-class jobs including the jobs of many veterans. and that's what happens when you make the kinds of cuts that the postmaster general has been talking about. mr. president, in the midst of this terrible recession, it's important that we do not harm small businesses who depend upon the postal service to sell their products. just yesterday i met with some businesses in the state of vermont for whom it is enormously important that they know that there is a strong postal service that can provide rapid delivery of the packages that they produce. it is terribly important. that as we talk about postal reform we understand that many senior citizens depend upon the

post office for their prescription drugs. it is also important, again, for the economy that we not slow down the delivery of mail, that we do not close half of the mail processing plants in this country. now, here is the important point. there is no question that the postal service has financial problems. nobody disagrees with that. but i think many people do not understand the basic causes of the postal service's financial problems. and that is that the postal service today is in terrible financial shape because of a congressional mandate signed into law by president bush in december of 2006 forcing the postal service to refund 75 years of future retiree health

benefits over a ten-year period. let me repeat that. the postal service, as a result of a decision in 2006, is forced to prefund 75 years -- 75 years -- of future retiree health benefits over a ten-year period. clearly, no other government agency at the federal level, state level or local level comes anywhere close to that kind of onerous burden. and, in fact, to the befs my bey knowledge, no private-sector company in this country is burdened with a mandate anywhere near that extreme. its prefunding mandate is responsible for about 80% of the postal service's financial losses since 2007. let me repeat that. you're going to read often -- we

read often, postal service facing severe financial proble problems. so let me repeat, this prefunding mandate is responsible for about 80% of the postal service's financial losses since 2007. before this prefunding mandate was signed into law, the postal service was making a profit, a profit. in fact, from 2003-2006, the postal service made a combined profit of more than $9 billion. that is a significant profit. and i should also note that despite, from what we read in the medai, the postal service actually -- media, the postal service actually made a profit of $100 million during the last quarter sorting, processing and delivering the mail. so if we are serious about

dealing with the financial problems facing the postal service, the first thing we have got to do is to end this prefunding mandate once and for all and allow the postal service to use the $48 billion sitting in that future retiree health fund to keep the postal service healthy and thriving for years to come. so when we talk about the financial problems facing the postal service, we have got to understand that to a very, very significant degree, some 80% of the problem was caused by the united states congress as a result of a decision made in 2006. now, it is clear to me and i think all americans that we live in the year 2013. the world is changing. we are more -- becoming more and more a digital economy. but it is also clear to me that the postal service does not

survive by cutting back on its services to the american people and to the business community. mr. president, in order to save and strengthen the postal service, i have introduced the postal service protection act, s. 316, and i'm very proud to say that that bill now has 23 cosponsors. and let me thank all of the senators who are cosponsoring this bill and those are senators baucus, blumenthal, brown, casey, cowan, franken, gillibrand, hearken, hen heinrich, leahy, menendez, merkley schatz, stabenow, tester, tom udall, senator warren and senator b wyden. and, mr. president, i would ask that senator cardin be added as a cosponsor to s. 316. i would ask permission that he be added as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i am delighted that we are making progress on real postal reform not only here in the senate but in the house as well and i want to thank congressman peter defazio from oregon for his leadership efforts in cosponsoring the exact same bill in the house as we have in the senate and that now has 139 cosponsors. so we have 24 cosponsors now in the senate and in the house that bill has 139 cosponsors, which tells me that the american people and their representatives here in washington understand how terribly important it is that we pass serious postal reform. and let me just very briefly talk about what is in that legislation, what the legislation, if passed, would accomplish. that bill would reestablish

strong overnight delivery standards to ensure the timely delivery of mail. when people put a -- a letter or a package in a mailbox or go to the post office, they want to know that that post office -- that letter or package is going to be delivered in a timely manner and we do that. this legislation would prevent, in order to make sure that we do have timely mail delivery, it would prevent the closure of hundreds of mail processing plants throughout this country and save the jobs of tens of thousands of workers. this legislation would end once and for all, as i just mentioned, the disastrous prefunding mandate that is the major problem facing the postal service. this legislation would allow the postal service to recoup over $50 billion that it has overpaid into the civil service retirement system.

and this legislation would prevent the postal service from ending safor saturday mail delir rim. further and significantly, our bill would give the postal service the tools that it needs to compete in the 21st century. i understand, we all understand the world has changed, so it's not simply a question of finances, it's a question of giving the postal service the ability to compete in today's market. and to allow it to sell innovative new products, new services and, as a result, raise more revenue. we need a new vision for the postal service and this legislation would provide that vision. mr. president, many americans don't know this but right now, the federal law -- federal law is tying the hands of the postal service in terms of the products

and services it can provide. so we say to the postal service, we're upset you're not making enough revenue and yet you tie their hands and prevent them from going forth in terms of producing new products and services to raise the revenue that would help their bottom line. this legislation unties the hands of the postal services and would develop a process to allow the postal service to explore offering the best products and services that would raise the most revenue. let me just give you an example of some of the absurdities that the postal service is now operating under. mr. president, if you were to go into a post office in maine with a document and you say to the clerk who is waiting on you, say, listen, i need you to notarize this letter. what the clerk would tell you is, sorry, it is against the law for me to notarize that letter.

now, that's pretty absurd. if you were to walk into a post office, as i'm sure every day people do and say, "listen, i need you to give me ten copies of this document here because i got to send it out to ten different people." they would say, sorry, it is against the law of the united states of america for me to make ten copies or three copies or one copy of your document. furthermore, it is against the law for post offices to sell fishing or hunting licenses. well, in my state, we're a rural state and people might in certain parts of the state or other parts of america like to be able to walk into a post office and say, hey, how do i get a fishing license? how do i pick up a hunting license? against the law. right now if somebody has a check that needs to be cashed, it is very difficult to cash that check in a post office.

and what you see, by the way, all over america are payday lenders who are charging outrageous rates to low-income people to cash a check, a service that i suspect the postal service could do, make some money and save people a whole lot of money by not having to pay these outrageous rates. mr. president, today if you were to pick up a case of beer or a case of wine and you wanted to send it to a relative in california, it is against the law for the postal service to deliver wine or beer. currently it is against the lay for the u.s. postal service -- law for the u.s. postal service to engage in ecommerce activities. now, all of that, you know, what we say to the postal service, we want you to go out, we want you to be competitive, but, by the way, you can't do this, you can't do that, you can't do that, you can't do that. and on top of that, we're going

to cause a massive financial problem for you, demanding that you prefund 75 years of retiree health care in a ten-year period. good luck. well, that has a lot to do with why the postal service is in the serious problem -- facing the serious financial problems that it is today. mr. president, we have got to give the postal service a lot more flexibility and we have to give them the opportunity and the ability to develop a very different business model than it currently has. in my view, we need to give the postal service it i service theo do what other countries throughout the world are doing to respond to the shift toward electronic mail and away from hard copy mail. fewer and fewer people are using first-class mail. we understand that. they're using e-mail. that's the reality and we have to respond to that. let me give you just a few examples. this really is just a few of

what other postal services around the world are doing. in sweden, the post office will physically deliver e-mail correspondence to people who are not on-line or don't have access to a computer. could that work here? i don't know. it's an interesting idea n. in switzerland, people can have their physical mail received, scanned and delivered into their e-mail boxes by the postal service. in germany, the post office will allow customers to communicate through secure servers. people i think are increasingly and legitimately concerned about who is going to get into their e-mail, and in germany they provide secure services. could that work here in the united states senate i don't think. is it worth exploring, worth looking into? i think it is. mr. president, the point here is

that the postal service must be given the opportunity to innovate and implement a an expanded business strategy for a changing world. can't keep doing the same old, same old in a world that is changing. for over 230 years and enshrined in our constitution, the postal service has played an enormously important role for the people of our country and, in fact, for our entire economy. a strong postal service, a postal service that delivers mail and packages in a timely manner, is extremely important for our economy. and that mission today remains as important as it has ever been. so, mr. president, let us stand together and fight to save the postal service, not destroy it. let us stand together in the midst of this recession to fight and save hundreds of thousands

of jobs. i again want to thank the 23 cosponsors on my legislation. i look forward to having more. but let's go forward together to save the postal service. ask with that, mr. president, i would note -- yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: