>> i'm honored to be a part of the committee and be part of the bill and the work involved. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madam children and ranking member koch run. we appreciate the hard work and reform oriented legislation. like all of the other members of the committee, i recognize that our producers need a strong five year farm bill that ensures our nation has the world east safest, most affordable and most reliable food supply and fiber. we know the only way to imlish this is for this committee to report a bipartisan bill that provides a safety net for all crops and regions, invest in the

future of rural america, preserves the safety net for the most vulnerable members of the community, and finally, a bill including significant reforms and contributes to reducing our federal deficit. the chair and ranking member as well as their staffs have demonstrated tremendous leadership in negotiating the delegate compromise that brings us closer than ever to achieving these capstone principles, and i appreciate that the manager's package includes the nine amendments. while this bill before us leaves room for improvement in terms of meeting all needs of the producers and increasing efficiency, its frame work is a tremendous step in the right direction. i think we'll all well on the way to getting a five-year bill that achieves all objectives and achieves both chambers of commerce. lowering target prices to 55% of the simple average other than rice and cotton leaving gas in

the price protection part of the safety net and puts rice and peanuts in a separate calllation -- calculation. they need an update in terms of the reference price, but providing them with their own special calculations separates from other crop, raises serious concerns. this committee on behalf of our nation's provisions of food and fiber included 23 billion in reforms from 2012 spending levels. we eliminated the direct payment of countercyclical programs, no easy task; replacing them with the programs, improved crop insurance, and lowered government spending. this fabric of risk management tools provides a responsive, market oriented safety net for the future of american agriculture, and reformed the conservation title in the bill reducing the number of programs, and achieve savings, but in a way that continues to give farmers and ranchers the tools they need to protect the environment.

finally, madam chair, i'd like to say that i realize that there continue to be regional differences, and i think that everyone sees things in this bill that they may not like. at the same time, i have to offer my appreciation to you and the ranking member for common ground with a frame work of greater equity for all crops and regions. if we continue work together to work and improve on the delegate balance created, we undermind our ability to live up to the committee's speedometer to get a five year bill done. the only way we can get a five-year farm bill is by moving legislation with broad bicart pan "sports illustratedded" from -- by partisan support. the ranking member's commitment to the principles, and i look forward to work with you throughout the rest of the process for the five-year farm bill signed into law this year. i yield back.

>> thank you. going based on seniority, senator harkin, i want to say, also, senator harkin, this is your last farm bill of many, and senator chambliss as well. looking at the incredible expertise on the committee, looking at the walls, there's four sitting senators on the committee whose pictures we get an opportunity to look at through their portraits every day, and, to me, it's a reminder of the depth of experience and commitment and certainly, senator harkin, you have, over the years, exemplified in areas of nutrition to conservation to the right kind of policies in so many areas, tremendous leadership. we'll miss you as well as our other colleagues that are leaving us, but we thank you for your leadership and look forward to working with you getting this across the finish line. >> well, madam chair, chank very much for the kind remarks. appreciate it very much. i love this committee ever since i got on it in 19 # 85, and my

previous service on the house agriculture committee with senator roberts and you were not on the health committee, were you? >> [inaudible] >> that's right, and then you came here. who? >> [inaudible] >> oh, dave bowens was on that committee. i loved my work op agriculture and real issues for as long, ans a lot of expertise on the committee, and i don't want to let the moment pass without thanking senator chambliss for the work we did together on -- well, first of all, one farm bill we did together in 2002, and then we did the 2008 with senator chambliss, and that was one where we had, remember up and down the ladder? two presidential vetoes, overriding vetoes. that was something else, but anyway -- >> [inaudible] [laughter]

>> we won. final analysis, we did win. i -- it -- this has been an enjoyable tenure on this committee, and, again, i thank you, madam chair, for your great leadership of this committee. i marvel at the fact that our chair was, has unique distinction of having served on the agriculture committee on the state legislature, the u.s. house, and the u.s. senate. i don't know that anyone else has ever had that kind of a career, so, again, i thank you, and thank you for all your diligence in getting this bill through hardships, the budget fights we had, we had the bill, i thought, put together last december if i'm not mistaken, and then you know what happens outside the committee so we didn't get it. again, hopeful to get it over the line now. a couple things. look, i know there's a lot of problems we have, budget

problems to solve overall generally, but, again, i take great solace on the fact we worked hard to limit those budget impacts on rural america. rural america, small in numbers, we don't have the clout in the house, we still do in the senate, thank goodness, but not in the house, and so a lot of the cuts seem to always focus on those areas, rural america, and so this committee, i think, has been a bull work in limiting those kinds of impacts on the farmers and on small towns and rural america. i would just note on the nutrition cuts, we should take great pride. i think all of us should take great pride in the fact that in america, we don't -- well r there's pockets of hunger. i don't mean to say there's not. there are. we take the lead of any nation

in the world in ensuring that people who are having a hard time, who are in poverty, out of work, for whatever circumstances, can access good nutritious food in this country. that has to be a source of pride for us, and a continuous source of pride. i hope as we work ourselves out of budget problems, we just don't succumb to the fact that, well, people light that don't have a voice or a vote, and, therefore, we can take it all out of nutrition. we took, as you know, 4 billion out here, the house is over 20 billion. i hope we can stick with your number, madam chair, agreed upon in a bipartisan basis. briefly, the conservation title. again, i commend both you, senator cochran and roberts for improvements in the program including the stewardship program. i regret, however, that

conservation funding is cut from the budget baseline levels, but, again, i thank you all for limiting the conservation budget cuts. lastly, i just want to say the bill contains a crop insurance program. that's wonderful. in fact, it makes it more beneficial to farmers. that's a substantial economic value to my iowa farmers, farmers all over america. i especially want to express my strong congratulations for the moe mentous agreement reached between the farm community and the conservation community to reinstate minimum conservation requirements in order for a farmer to receive federal crop insurance subsidies. i think this is a very, very important policy reform. lastly on energy programs, again, i commend our senator stabenow and cochran for including a substantial level of mandatory funding to continue the effective and beneficial initiatives. again, madam chair, thank you, and thanks senator cochran and so many others that work to

bring together, i think, a truly, truly very good bill. >> well thank you very much. i'd like to turn to senator johannes, and in addition to having four former chairman of the committee, we have a former secretary of the department of agriculture. i don't know any committee that has such a wealth of expertise and depth as knowledge as this one, and senator johanns, we appreciate your leadership and experience with the committee. >> well, thank you very much, madam chair. i might just note that during the time i was secretary of agriculture, i had the pleasure of working with two different chairs because the senate slipped, and it started out working with chambliss, and that was an honor and particular, and then i had the opportunity to work with senator harkin, honor and pleasure, and the thing i would say that most impressed me, there was no difference whatsoever in the level of partisanship. whether i was working with tom

harkin or chambliss, we worked on policy issues. we had our agreements and disagreements on policy issues. there was never an issue about partisanship, and i sure appreciate that back in the days when i was the secretary. let me also start today and just say thank you to the chair and to the ranking member. i want to tell you i appreciate all the work you've done also. thank the staff. i'm guessing all of our staff are working on few hours of sleep and it's because of the hard work we're here today to mark up the farm bill. i certainly know that creating a farm bill is never easy. there's philosophies of different parts of the country with different crops, but as many of you know, i have concerns president farm bill. first, let me start at the ma

crow level and talk about the savings in the bill. the bill in its purported 23-24 billion worth of savings actually double counts 6.4 billion in savings from spending. that's not actually in the bill. it was already signed into law in 2011 in the bill that resulted in the sequester. second, it contains, hides 3.1 billion in payments right outside the 10-year budget window. it reminds me of the days back when i was governor of nebraska, times were tough, and somebody was suggesting, well, we can balance the budget just delaying the school aid payment until the next fiscal year. that didn't solve any problems, and this doesn't solve any problems. that's no way to deal with budget issues. i also fundamentally disagree

with target prices. congress should get out of the business of setting prices. that's why we have markets. farmers don't always get the price they want and farmers recognize that's the part of agriculture. if we keep telling farmers to plan for prices higher than the market or cover the cost of production even, they will simply respond to that and the end result is you have planting that is too much and lower prices. that drives prices down continuing the cycle of low prices in government payments. it's just not the right policy for agriculture. i don't recall ever being at a meeting in nebraska where a farmer said to me, mike, we don't need direct payments anymore, but we could really use higher target prices. i don't even remember them saying to me we need a shallow

lots program. farmers just basically said the basic crop insurance program we have is working, try to do everything you can to sustain that program. having said those things, there are some things in the bill that we can't ignore that i would rate on the positive side. it does have the agi and payment limits of any farm bill that i'm aware of. it also makes sure that farmers are actively engaged in the farming operation. furthermore, this farm bill preserves and does a good job with the basic crop insurance policy program. i appreciate that those reforms are not always popular in some regions of the country. i certainly know that having proposed some reforms in those payment limit areas when i was secretary, so i applaud you for including those. that's tough sledding. i'm especially pleased with the

efforts to streamline and simplify the conservation programs. that's an issue i heard a lot about, and i suspect we all have. in fact, i proposed similar changes, in fact, secretary in the last farm bill process, an i'm just pleased you followed up on that, madam chair. the improvements to reduce cost as well as make the programs more farmer friendly. this bill provides for basic rearming at usda universities, private foundations, and companies that is needed to meet demands for our farmers to produce more food on less land, helps us address challenges of the future. well, my hope is that we can do more in that area. it does so in a way that includes new avenues to ensure that important work continues in times of tight federal budgets. finally, i'm pleased this bill builds on efforts to support beginning farmers and ranchers,

veterans, and others looking for a career in agriculture. my hope is that during the marketup today we can improve upon this bill, madam chair. thank you very much. i thank the ranking member also. >> thank you very much. senator, welcome to the committee, glad to have another strong agriculture voice from north dakota, and i appreciate your leadership. >> thank you very much, chairwoman stab know and ranking member cochran. there's not a lot of members of my freshmen class to sit at a table like this and say this is why i wanted to be in the united states senate, to represent north dakota agriculture, to represent our producers, and really represent an economy in north dakota where 90% of what we do is agriculture. we are a huge part of that 16 billion people strong effort, and we are very, very proud of what we do because we do a lot of diverse things where somebody

might be deeply concerned about commodities. we are also concerned about specialty crops and beekeepers and custom combiners. we really are, we think, the bread basket and food producer for our state and for our country. i just wanted to make the point where you heard a lot about energy. we -- yes, we produce a lot of fossil fuels, but we also are concerned about the energy title, and continuing the efforts for all of the above which have got to continue to include biofuels. i'm going to submit remarks for the record, but i wanted to tell you how grateful i am for your leadership and the leadership of the ranking member to bring a bill, all be it, not perfect, but there's things in the bill just as you heard, the gentleman on the minority talk about that i wouldn't necessarily agree with, but i promised the people of my state that i would come with the attitude of compromise, what's doable? i close with a final thought. the farm bill has never been a

part sapp bill. might be a regional bill, but never a partisan bill, and we will be judged, seems to me, in our states and judged inthis country if we can, in fact, get public policy out to app area that provides 16 million jobs in a timely fashion, and so, hopefully we'll be able to do this, achieve compromises we need to move it forward, but we're extremely hopeful the host will do this, and for once, set a goal of getting this done before the expiration of the extension, that would be an amazing feat and one, i think, we could talk about for a lot of years coming forward an as example of what we could do. thank you, chairmanwoman, and i look forward to the markup. >> thank you very much, and now turning to senator thune, thank you for the leadership in so many areas, certainly, a strong advocate for reform, conservation, and i appreciate all of your involvement in this bill. >> thank you, madam chairwoman, and i want to thank you and the

ranking member cochran and all of your staffs that have worked hard to get us to where we are. it's deja vu all over again. we went through the process a year ago and produced a bill that we had hoped would make it into law. it didn't. we are back. i hope that as this bill moves forward, we can shape it in a way that moves us into a future for agriculture that's more based upon the market and less on planting for the government. the drk i -- i think this bill is back to the past in some respects in terms of the agriculture that is used in past farm bills. it encourages farm es to plant more for the government than for the market, but i do believe that this is a starting point, and in the current climate of budgetary and fiscal constraint, it's important to subject all areas of federal spending to close examination, and the farm

bill, no exception. we have to do our part to figure out how to have savings so we can begin to reduce the deficit and dealt. of coursings we can't exempt any program from reform. over the past two years in preparation for this particular farm bill, i've introduced various preeses of legislation to reform several components of the farm bill saving ore than $50 billion. i think this committee can write a farm bill providing an equitable safety net for agriculture, delivers systems under the nutrition title to those who need and deserve it, and also makes available the tools needed to conserve and protect our forest, soil, and natural resources. yet still saves taxpayer dollars. we all must face reality that the commodity title programs as we currently know them need reform. commodity programs should provide a safety net and not an unnecessary enticement that distorts planning intentions. i commend the members of the various commodity crop insurance

wildlife organizations who responsibly came together in the last few weeks, and on their own, solved the issue of linking conservation compliance to crop eligibility for crop insurance premium assistance. i support the agreement at which they arrived, and i'm pleased it's included in the bill we mark up today. together, with senator johannes and roberts, there's comnsz reforms that generates significant savings without altering benefits to needy families. the snap program is exceedingly complex, and we have to ensure 670 billion of the taxpayers' money goes to lift those in need out of poverty. holding states accountable, reforming nutrition education and obesity grants ensuring that bodied dolts work part-time or participate in job training are small stems to improve the program. i'm hopeful to adopt these and other reforms to save taxpayer

dollars of the 2013 farm bill. the mark up is not the end, but the beginning of drafting the 2013 farm bill, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the draft on the floor and ultimately in conference with the house agriculture committee to ensure much needed commodityiti and conservation reforms are included in the final 2013 farm bill. madam chairman, i thank you, and i look forward to the discussion in the amendment process. >> thank you very much. we now have the chairman of the finance committee who arrived, senator baucus, a leader for many, many years, thinking about this in terms of this also being your last farm bill, and so we're pleased to be able to work with you, have a strong life stock assistance program, and put together something that works for mops and because of the relationship. we welcome you, and in addition

to the secretary of agriculture, great to have the chairman of the finance on the ag committee. senator baucus, thank you of your leadership. >> thank you very much, madam chairwoman. i highly command you, the way you put this enterprise together. with that, i mean the bill, members of committee groups and so forth, done a terrific job. i think i can speak for all members of the committee in expressing appreciation for how well you put this together. it's. a long road. it's also very important that we have five-year bill. many of us are believes that the short term extensions just don't make sense for all obvious reasons. thank you for coming up with the five-year bill. five is a very important number m one in five montana jobs is related to agriculture. it's our number one industry, agriculture. one in five jobs are related,

and thank you for op behalf of montana for addressing this. in addition, the national disaster provisions are extremely important to people in the state of montana. we have droughts. we have floods, fires, and we just need some permanent revision of the bill that addresses natural disasters. you've done that, and we very much appreciate it. you also addressed commodities, entitlements, in a way that's important to the state, and we appreciate that as well, and i must say, too, that the bill saves taxpayers a lot of money with debt reduction. that, too, is a big feather in your cap, a lot of reasons why this is a good legal -- legislation, and, again, thank you for the efforts here. >> thank you very much. i reasm appreciate it, and now i believe that senator hovens is

with us. we have not heard from you if you have comments at this point, we'd like very much to have you do that. we, because of the importance of the agriculture in north dakota, we have both senators op the committee from north dakota, and we make sure north dakota is covered. >> thank you, madam chairman, and thanks so much for the opportunity to comment. thanks to both you and our ranking member for working to get us into committee with this markup, appreciate it very much, and i know our farmers and rarnlgers across the great country appreciate it very much as well. i also appreciate the spirit with which you've approached this farm bill building on the work from our bill last session, and then really working to add some things that i hope can ensure that we go to the floor united with this bill.

i've been clear about some of my priorities starting with crop insurance, and i'll be offering some amendments there, but my objective has been to, of course, first and foremost, get the best possible farm bill for the farmers and ranchers, recognizing that they provide the highest quality, most cost food supply in the worlding but be together, get the bill passed, over to the house, in conference, and get the task done. thank you so much for the opportunity to comment and for both of you for all your work. >> and thank you very much for being involved in this process as we've moved along. i very much appreciate it. certainly, last but not least, senator collins, this is your first farm bill, this will be your only farm bill. we are very happy that you are part of this. i was so pleased when the senator from massachusetts wanted to be on this committee, and in the short time you've been here, you have given us a

lot of important input i know is very important to your state, and we are pleased to have you a part of the committee. >> thank you, madam chairwoman, and thank you and your staffs for all the effort to get us to this point providing a strong frame work for a farm bill for the next five years. it's an exciting time for this committee and for me, personally. i thank the committee members, their staffs, the opportunity to work with you in the important juncture, and i've had the opportunity to travel the great common wealth and visit the farm eases and those in the farming industries concerned about the issues excited to have a representative in this committee to have a voice for them, and i intend to speak for them throughout the process and as we take the bill to the floor. by the way, as i said in the first gathering, madam chairwoman, i speak not just for the farmers who till the soil

and cultivate the land, but those who cultivate the sea. i applaud you and others for the conservation compliance represented in the markup. it's a good compromise, and everyone will benefit. i also want to join senator in recognizing this is an opportunity to have an honest important discussion about nutrition in snap benefits. i thank you, madam chair, for doing the best to protect the snap benefits in this bill and others, and i know it's not. easy. there's no more work -- there's more work to be done, but i heard from many constituents about the cuttings proposed, and others that have been discussed, and there are concern. as there is for more personally as someone whose family in various points in our lives depended on public benefits. i certainly fully support efforts to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, but this provision, some of the provisions proposed are not, in my opinion, to that end, and

certainly not as the program implemented in massachusetts, the people who administration snap benefits in the commonwealth use a lot of snap relationships, and it's valid, programmatic coordination to streamline the coordination of multiple programs serving low income family, and i will continue to have a voice in fight for the benefits. i look forward to the conversation today in the amendment process and taking a bipartisan bill to the floor. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator brown. >> yeah, operating under the illusion people were not doing opening statements, but never missing an opportunity now, i guess. many of you saw the movie "lincoln," and there was a quick episode, and the conversations made me think about this. when president lincoln was under pressure from the staff to stay in the white house and win this war, preserves union, and abolish slavery, he said i wanted to get out and get my public opinion bath.

throughout our states, and listening to what the senator said about the importance of snap, the importance in all the states of rural development of the conservation title, and i think the more that all of us get out and hear people talking about the daily lives and telling the story -- >> today, the house agriculture -- >> days before polling in the days before as aids come in and say here's what the -- >> a couple moments left in the hearing. see it in the entirety at c-span.org. the senate is gaveling in this morning to complete work. : let eternal god, the heavens speak of your wonders and the skies declare what you have done. let your everlasting grace and compassion encompass our senators today. lord, give them such grace that they will be faithful in each task,

striving to honor you in their work. may the work they do help provide for the security and well-being of our nation and world. protect them and those they love by the power of your loving providence. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, may 15, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william m. cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30. the republicans will control the first half and the majority the feignal half. following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the water resources development act. there will be up to seven roll call votes to complete action on the bill and we're going to start the voting at about 10:30 this morning. mr. president, there's a lot going on here, committees meeting, but i want to alert all senators, my democrats and the republicans, we have a lot of votes to do, and we're not going to wait around while someone

strolls in. we're going to first vote -- i direct this question to the chair: are the final six votes ten-minute votes? so the first vote will be the regular 15-minute vote. after that it is 10 minutes. i am alerting everyone that we're going 0 close the votes as quickly as we can, so we can finish this. the republicans have an important meeting beginning by 1:00 p.m. today. so we'll move through these votes as quickly as we can. we also expect votes today on confirmation of marilyn tavenn tavenner, and we may get to see if we can finish the o orrick nomination. i'm told that s. 953 is due for

a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 53, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings on this bill at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, albert einstein, the great albert ann stein, defined insanity as follows: doing the same thing over understand a oveandover again ag different results. that's what albert einstein said. if his deaf mission is true -- and i'm not going to argue with einstein -- the house republicans have truly lost their minds. this week the har house of representatives will vote for the 37th time -- mr. president, 37th time. what are they voting on 37 times?

exactly the same thing -- they are vietnaming to repeal the landmark -- voting to repeal the landmark constitutional health care reform bill known as obamacare now. and i say that proudly. after last year's election, speaker boehner conceded that obamacare is here to stay. here wheys said, and i quote. "it's pretty clear that the president was reelected." that's a fair statement. he went ton say, "obama is law of the land. it's pretty clear that president obama was reelected and obam obamacare is the law of the la land." so no matter what he said then, this is now. and he's changed his mind. the house will waste yet another week on another dead-end repeal vote. perhaps republicans think the 3th time is the -- the 37th time is the charm.

37 times on the exact same thing. the key party extremists bullied the leader into holding yet another vote to repeal the ah. affordable care act and roll back benefits for tens of millions of men's. this is what the speaker said last week, this is a quote. "we've got 70 new members who have not had an opportunity to vietnam on the president's health care law. frankly, they've been asking for an opportunity to vote on it." mr. president, this political cakabuki has tied up the floor f the house of representatives for weeks and cost the american taxpayers $52.4 million and counting. these are figures compiled by cbs news. just wasting 37 votes, all the house staff, all their personnel that have responsibilities for making sure that place runs as well as it does.

that money -- $52.4 million -- is enough to restore funding for 19 million meals for homebound seniors or 6,900 children dropped from the head start program. although the vote may be political theater, it does have one benefit: the american people will know where the freshman class of the house of representatives stands. i think we know. there will be another opportunity to see this. do they stand with millions of americans who are already benefiting from obamacare? we know that answer. or do they stand with the insurance companies? we know that answer. the insurance companies, who would like nothing better than to have things the way they used to be, and to once again deny coverage to sick children, impose lifetime caps on care, and discriminate against those

with preexisting conditions. since president obama signed the affordable care act into law, insurance companies can no longer put profits ahead of people. one of the provisions in this bill says that of premiums paid to insurance companies for health care, 80% of those benefits must go to patients. no long, as they did, 50% of the premium goes for salaries and bonn uses and other perfection -- and bone bonuses and other t. insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. they can no longer raise year rates for no reason. they can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. mr. president, that's what happened. but this week, for the 37th time, house republicans will try to change all that. here are a few of the other benefits already in effect that house republicans would eliminate: in nevada -- mr. president, we're not a heavily populated

state like massachusetts or california or new york, but we are getting bigger. we have about 3 million people. in nevada alone, tens of thousands of seniors have saved tens of millions of dollars on medicines because the affordable care act closed the gap on prescription drugs. that means millions of seniors across this country have more money in their pockets pour food, gas, electric bills. more than 3 million young people, because of obamacare, including 33,000 young nevadans, have benefited from a provision in the law that allows children to stay on their parents' health plans until they're 26 years old. that means no person will have to worry about getting sick while looking for a job that offers insurance. or they don't -- they can go to college. mr. president, in my little town of searchlight, nevada, a boy

made a decision, was he going to join the military? -- a very patriotic family -- or go to school in he decided to go to school. the family is not one of means. his mom worked part-time in a post office and his dad worked in a power plant about 40 miles from searchlight. this -- oh, they were so happy. this boy was going to go to college, the first person in their family to go to college. and he did extremely well, finished one year, he's in his second year, and he started feeling some discomfort. he had tes testicular cancer. he wasn't -- the time had had passed. he was 23 years old and could no longer be on his parents' nuns. they had no money to cover this cancer that their son had, their youngest boy. they begged and borrowed aly --y

"begged," but they had a difficult time. a difficult time. he needed two surgeries. they -- the republicans in the house i guess want to go back to that. maybe the republicans here. they love voting against obamacare provisions. they want to go back to a time when that boy, jeff, would no longer have insurance. that's what they want these young men and women who are trying to go to college, get a job, they want to go back to that time. thaunder obamacare, hundreds of thousands of businesses already offer their employees health benefits through tax credits for doing the right thing. small business owners can spend their capital on growing their firms instead of growing insurance premiums. thanks to the affordable care act, insceo arbitrary lifetime

caps on benefits, as they did. what does that mean? there's a provision hidden in thatolicy tyolou that when your benefits reach $50,0 $50,000, coverage stops. doesn't matter if you've been noter an automobile accident -- you've been hurt in an automobile accident, cancer, or some other dread disease, it used to stop. no more. millions of americans are no longer one car accident away from bankruptcy. today children can no longer be denied coverage because they're born with a disease or disability. and soon being a woman will no longer be a preexisting condition. i said it right, mr. president. no longer will being a woman be a preexisting condition. my daughter has a preexisting condition.

why? she's a woman. but no longer. in a few months, 129 million americans with preexisting conditions such as high blood pressure or epilepsy can rest assureassured that they'll haves to affordable insurance and lifesaving care regardless of how much money they make or don't make. and conge 2 soon 25 million more americans will have access to reasonably priced health care. if republicans get their way, these benefits and more will disappear. there's going to be a vote take place in the house of representatives to repeal everything that i've talked about. not change it, repeal it. obama was -- led the charge here and we were able to pass the affordable care act. the most significant change in health care delivery system since medicare. those many, many years ago.

-- it ensures access to quality, affordable health care for every american. republicans would erase these gains and force millions of american families to r rely on expensive emergency room care or go without care at all. fortunately, the republicans' latest exercise in insanity, as described by albert einstein -- that is, their latest repeal effort -- is doomed to fail like the previous 36. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: it seems like

with each passing hour the facts get more and more inconvenient for senior folks over at the i.r.s. yesterday it was reported that the agency may have gone after a ministry founded by billy graham. we also learned that the very same i.r.s. office that admitted to harassing conservative groups also released nine spending applications for tax-exempt status to the liberal group propublica. how did we find out? propublica revealed it. basically all we've gotten from the i.r.s., on the other hand, is an attempt to scapegoat some folks out in cincinnati and a laughable attempt to move past this whole issue wary dick includes -- with a ridiculous op-ed claiming -- quote -- "mistakes were made." most folks don't think that ignoring the constitution is

simply a mistake. i like the fact that one group the i.r.s. targeted when asked by the agency to provide reading materials related to their mission simply mailed them a copy of the constitution. and today i'd like to encourage every group that feels like it's been unjustly targeted to do the same thing. maybe just underline the first amendment before you put it in the envelope because that's what this is all about. but getting back to the latest news, the leak to propublica, let's be clear about what that means. the i.r.s. is forbidden from providing that kind of information about groups that haven't been approved. it's a bright-line prohibition -- a bright-line prohibition that even the lowest staffers at i.r.s. should surely know about. and we intend to find out the relevant details. yesterday i said the administration needs to fully comply with all congressional

inquiries on the matter. this propublica leak will unquestionably be one of them. the administration needs to make witnesses available to testify on this and on any other incident of targeting the administration's ideological opponents and to resist the temptation to stonewall or obfuscate what took place. today other senate republicans are joining me in this call. more than 40 members have signed a letter demanding as much of the president. if the president is truly concerned about this issue as he claims, he'll work openly and transparently with us to get to the bottom of what happened. and people will be held accountable. these allegations are very serious. if there was an effort to bring the power of the federal government to bear on those the administration disagreed with,

in the middle of a heated national election, it actually criminal.-- could be -- and we're determined to get the answers. let's not forget that we wouldn't know any of this -- we wouldn't know any of this if congressional republicans hadn't demanded better answers than the ones we were getting from this administration. when i and several of my colleagues wrote to the i.r.s. last year -- last year -- seeking clarification of allegations that they were harassing conservative groups, the response was got was essentially, "nothing to see here." and go on. when i pressed the issue in a speech last june -- last june -- the left either ridiculed the suggestion or ignored it. when i.r.s. officials were asked point-blank in congressional

hearings whether this was happening, they said it wasn't. well, of course it turned out it was. it did happen. by the way, you know who didn't have any trouble getting information out of the i.r.s., who didn't have any trouble at all getting information out of the i.r.s.? propublica. which was pushing an ideological agenda friendly to this administration. when they asked the i.r.s. for information, they got it in 12 days. 12 days. some of it wasn't supposed to be released. when i asked the i.r.s. for information, when did i get it? propublica got it in 12 days. when did i get t. only when it was coming out anyway in an i.g.

report. so there are a lot -- a lot -- of unanswered questions that remain. which officials knew about the scandal? when did they know about it? what did they do when they found out? did they deliberately mislead congress and the american people? the number of officials involved continues to grow. and now with this revelation from propublica, it appears that the campaign against conservative groups was of a broader scope than originally admitted. so it's no surprise that the american people are demanding more than just some half-hearted apology made under duress. that isn't going to cut it. as an activist from one of the targeted groups in kentucky said

yesterday, "apology not accepted." there are many questions that still need to be answered. there are many that remain unanswered. my constituents are absolutely right. mr. president, i'm going to ask consent that the letter signed by my colleagues appear in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: on another unrelated matter -- let me take a few moments here to point out that this week we mark national police week as a time to pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of many men and women in federal, state and local law enforcement across america. it's an appropriate time for those of us who benefit from their efforts -- and that is actually all of us -- to express our gratitude. the nation's capital welcomes

thousands of police officers who are gathering to celebrate national police week. they will honor their fallen fellow officers and rededicate themselves to their duties of defending the property, dignity and lives of those who would fall prey to criminals outside the law. i want to especially recognize the many men and women who work to enforce the law in my home state of kentucky. many of them have traveled to washington this week, and today i will have the pleasure of meeting with some of kentucky's finest. i want to personally thank them for bravely risking their lives and service to our people across the commonwealth. earlier this month in richmond in my state, a solemn ceremony was held at the kentucky law enforcement memorial on the campus of eastern kentucky university. this memorial lists the names of every known fallen police officer in kentucky history. along the bottom of it are the words "blessed be the

peacekeepers." the ceremony was held to add the names of two law enforcement officers from kentucky who were killed in the line of duty in 2012: hodgeenville police officer mark tolby was killed in a vehicle pursuit on december 16. marion county sheriff's deputy anthony rake was sto*pd shot in a traffic -- was shot in a traffic stop on november 14. i want to send my condolences to the families of those officers for their tragic loss. their names will be added along with six other kentucky police officers whose names had not been previously on the memorial. there will be a total of 509 brave kentuckians on that wall. i know my colleagues in the u.s. senate join me in holding the deepest admiration and respect for many brave law enforcement officers in kentucky and across the nation. theirs is both an honorable profession and a dangerous one.

it is also a necessary one as the maintenance of peace and order in a civil society that we take for granted simply could not exist without them. kentucky is grateful to our law enforcement officers and their families, and we're grateful for the sacrifice of officer mark talb and sheriff's deputy anthony rakes to preserve the rule of law. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the names of the commonwealth of kentucky law enforcement officers added to the kentucky law enforcement wall this year be included in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half.

the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, like millions of americans, the events of the last few days and last few months have caused me to reflect on the nature of our federal government and our special system of federalism which delegates to the federal government certain powers but reserves to the states and the people those remaining powers. that's roughly what the 10th amendment to the united states constitution says. i've also reflected a little bit on what some wise people have said in history about the nature

of power, government power. power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. our founders pointed out in the "federalist papers" and elsewhere that a concentration of powers in the hands of a few is the very definition of tyranny. and we've learned from hard experience over 0 the course of our nation's history that when government thinks it knows best, particularly here in washington in a country as big and diverse as ours is, that the natural tendency then in washington is to try to suppress the voices of those who see things differently, those who want to exercise their constitutional rights, particularly to free

speech, freedom of association, and, yes, even freedom of the press. it's not true to say we haven't been warned about the dangers of concentration of power in the federal government and big government and that human frailties that follow, we have been warned time and time and time again. and now we've been reminded once again of the wisdom of our founders and the wisdom of the structure of the united states constitution. over the last week a series of events have highlighted the administration's massive credibility gap. first we learned more details about the coordinated attempt to misrepresent the september 2012

terrorist attack in benghazi, libya. you may recall immediately after that attack the president had a press conference, and he said later, "well, i said it was a terrorist attack then." that was reviewed by the fact checker in "the washington post." hardly an unsympathetic newspaper editorially to the administration's point of view, and the fact checker gave the president of the united states four pinocchios. some ask why four pinocchios? i think the true answer is because they never give five pinocchios. maybe they do, but you get the point. and of course we cannot escape the fact, and we should not ignore the fact that this attack took four american lives. then we learned this last week that a senior i.r.s. official

had acknowledged that her agency deliberately targeted certain political speech and activity for harassment. using the instruments of power given to the internal revenue service, perhaps the most awesome, pervasive and potentially intrusive power the federal government has, in the hands of that agency. interestingly, the white house counsel said she learned about it in april. the president said he didn't learn about it until later. an investigation needs to be undertaken, and i'm happy that senator max baucus, chairman of the senate finance committee and senator orrin hatch, the ranking member of the finance committee, have committed themselves to doing an investigation of the i.r.s. and how this could possibly happen. on top of all that, the top

administrator of health and human services, secretary kathleen sebelius, has been soliciting funds from the very industry she regulates. to help implement obamacare. well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine the potential for coercion by the government of these private-sector industries because of their fear of retribution if they don't contribute. to this effort. a huge conflict of interest and perhaps illegal. we need to get to the bottom of that as well. so whether the issue is a terrorist attack in libya, political and partisan abuses by the i.r.s., or efforts by the department of health and human services to shake down the

health insurance industry they regulate, it appears that the birds have come home to roost, that the founders warned us about, the concentration of government power invariably leads to abuse of that power and i.tit's the same old story of hn frailties over and over again. and it is no respecter of political parties. it has happened to both political parties. and we should have been more careful, we should have listened, we should not have persistently engaged i engaged s power grab. so what's the price to be paid by these scandals? well, the first price is a lack of credibility and public

confidence in the most basic institutions that make up this government. the other damage is to the credibility of folks at the highest level of the administration. after all, if the administration were willing to prey ver indicate, mislead -- to prever indicate, mislead and assemble about an al qaeda-linked attack in benghazi that cost the life of four americans, what else are they willing to prevaricate, mislead and dissemble about? can the public trust this administration in can th? can the public trust this government to provide accurate information about the war on terror or anything else?

similarly, if i.r.s. officials knew that they are agency was targeting certain political activity and failed then to hold anyone accountable, how can the american people ever trust the internal revenue service or the federal government to be neutral and law-abiding? i heard the junior senator from virginia on the radio, as i came in this morning, senator kaine, who asked, i thought, a pretty good question. he said, what does it take to get fired in this town? what does it take to get fired in this administration for cover-ups, for misleading the american people? if secretary is h sebelius is wg to strongarm the very industry she regulates to fund the implementation of obamacare, can the american people trust her

agency to be objective, even-handed, and fairminded as a regulator? all this boils down into a very sad statistic that demonstrates that the public's confidence in the federal government and particularly in congress is at an all-time low. that's not the end of the story. it shouldn't be the end of the story. that ought to be the beginning of a bipartisan effort to get to the bottom of these abuses, but also to restore ourselves to the constitutional framework that our founding fathers envisioned when this great experiment in democracy was created more than 200 years ago. it wasn't a national government that dictated to the rest of the country how you should run your life, what choices you should

make. it was a federal system of separated powers, with checks and balances, with authority given to the federal government to do things that individuals and the states could not do by themselves, like national defense. but we've gotten far afield from the framers' vision of how our country should operate or from the constitutional system that they created, and which we celebrate. now, more than ever, washington needs credibility. if you don't have the public's trust, how in the world are you ever going to gain their confidence that we are going to address the many challenges that our country faces? i'm not pessimistic about our future. i am optimistic about our future. but it will take a change of attitude. it will take a change of behavior. it will take, in some sense, a return to the founders'

philosophy on the framework and structure on which our government operates, because for too long the federal government has said, we know best. if you don't like it it's because we haven't given you enough information to convince you to like it. and to take the policies that are unpopular and merely to shove them down the throat of the american people and think we're doing our job. but we know we have huge challenges, which call on us to work together on a bipartisan basis to regain the public's confidence. the and i know we can do it -- and i know we can do it, if we will. it's a matter of whether we have the political courage and the will to do it. and here are some of those challenges: the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression, the largest percentage o of the americanworkforce had -- workfoe

given up and stopped looking for jobs because the economy is so weak. the second challenge is a woefully unpopular health care law that even some of the architects of that law now say they see a train wreck occurring. -- train wreck occurring in its implementation. and we know our world continues to be dangerous, as benghazi reminds us, and we see from murderers like bashar al-assad of syria, people who threaten innocent people are chemical weapons and murder, fighting for their very lives in places like syria and iran on a pathway to develop a nuclear weapon which will completely disrupt the balance of power in the middle east and create an arms raise while other countries seek their own nuclear weapon. and let's not forget iran is the

primary state sponsor of international terrorism, with its support for hezbollah, among others. and we've seen in north africa and elsewhere the proliferation of al qaeda affiliates and allies. and, yes, we also need to fix our broken immigration system. none of these individually are easy things to do. all of them are hard, but they're not impossible. if we will try to work hard to regain the public's credibility and we will simply do our work and respect the wisdom of the ages when it comes to concentration of power and its impact on individual liberty, and temptation when power is absolute to see that power corrupted and abuse that power when it comes to dealing with the american people.

unfortunately, so far the obama administration has valued its agenda more than its credibili credibility. without regaining credibility, we will never regain the public's trust, and without that trust, it will be much, much harder to solve america's biggest problems. that is the biggest single challenge to president obama's second-term agenda. and to our ability as americans to show that this 200-plus year experiment in self-government actually works. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in

morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i am going to take just a few minutes to talk about why the events of the last 24 hours drive home how valuable it would be to have a house-senate budget conference begin to meet and to deal with the extraordinary set of fiscal challenges our country has in front of us. as the president of the senate knows, a number of senators on our side have been trying to get a budget conference with the house. it's been several months since the budget resolution resolutioe respective bodies have been in effect been set in motion. and i want it talk about what's happened in the last 24 hours because it again drives home how valuable it would be for the senate and the house to move to a budget conference at this time. yesterday the congressional budget office -- of course, our

official arbiter of budget numbers and trends -- made public a new report showing that there has been a significant reduction in the budget deficit. in fact, ther their analysis shs that there's been something like a 24% reduction from what was estimated just a few months ago. now, you couple that new evidence from the congressional budget office with the fact that consumers continue to spend -- which is certainly encouraging -- the housing market coming back, employers adding 165,000 jobs in april -- all of this drives home that in the short-term, in the short-term, mr. president, the economy is picking up and we're making real

progress. the point of a budget resolution, on the other hand, is to give us a chance to look long term. to look at the next ten years, how democrats and republicans can come together, for example, on the long-term challenge of holding down health care costs. we have certainly seenrogress -- again, in the last few months -- on that. therthere's a debate about why health costs have been moderating of late. i happen to think it's because providers and others are beginning to see what's ahead. but we can have that debate and certainly there is a lot more to do in terms of holding down health care costs for the long term. that's what i'd like to see the senate and the house go to in terms of the budget resolution. for example -- i think i've talked about it with the president of the senate before -- chronic care is where most of

the medicare money goes. this is for people with heart, stroke, diabetes, cancer, these kinds of challenges. we've got some ideas that we believe could be bipartisan, would be exactly the kind of thing the house and the senate should take up in a conference on the budget, which we have been seeking for sometime, and i only come to the floor today by way of trying to lay out why the events just of the last few days dramatize how useful it would be for the senate and the house to start thinking about what the country really cares about, which is our long-term trends. in fact, this morning i was struck by the fact that some economic theorists say that the congress has really, over the last few months, really it backwards. we have been consumed with everything short-term when in

fact we ought to say, look at some of those positive developments that i just cited, including the congressional budget office numbers here recently, that would indicate that maybe a little bit less of the back and forth and what certainly voters see as unduly partisan should give way to some thoughtful long-term efforts in sort of that ten-year window, which is really what's examined on the budget side. i would also point out, mr. president, that some of the leading republicans, some of the arch conservativearchconservatit to economic analysis, are all saying the same thing, that we ought to be talking about long-term trends, which democrats have side -- and i cite again today -- is a reasoning for a budget conference. glenn hubbard, one of the most respected of the conservatives,e

long-term challenge and the dangers, mr. president, of waiting. well, on this side of the aisle we're saying we don't want to wait anymore in terms of getting a budget conference. we want to be in a position to tackle these major cine kind of questions. pro-growth tax reform, tax reform that can again generate ref new york and we have some ideas -- some revenue, and we have some ideas that we'd like to raise in a budget conference that we think would be attractive to the other side. so i hope that colleagues who have had questions about whether or not there ought to be a budget conference now, an actual budget conference twaoepbs the the -- budget conference between the senate and the house will look at these matters anew given these kind of trends i would point out and to tell you the truth i'm encouraged on this point. we've heard colleagues in the last few days on the other side of the aisle say yes, they too think that this is time for an

actual budget conference between the house and the senate. they've called for it for a long time. we've now got a chance to not just call for it but actually do it. and if anything, the economic tt i've citeds that some of the focus on these short-term trends really ought to give way to more emphasis on bipartisan concern for the long-term trends which are, in particular, going to revolve around health care, especially medicare, and taxes where we have an opportunity to look at bipartisan approaches for tax reform. and i commend particularly senator baucus and senator hatch, our leadership on the finance committee on which i serve, who have been talking with senators in weekly sessions that they've pulled together on particularly the tax reform issue. so you couple, mr. president, the opportunity for the long term, looking at things like chronic health care, which is where most of the medicare

dollar goes, where i think there is some good opportunities protecting the rights of seniors while having quality care and holding costs down. those are the things that you could really look at in the longer term, which is what a budget resolution, mr. president, is really all about. so it's been two months since the house and senate adopted their respective, you know, budget resolutions. i think if anything, what we have learned in the last few days is yet more evidence why senators and house members of goodwill who want to tackle the long-term economic challenge, which, if anything, becomes increasingly important day by day, we ought to go to a budget conference and go forth with to that effort in a bipartisan way. later on in the morning, mr. president, i intend to

propound a unanimous consent request to in fact go to that conference with the house on the budget. i would just urge colleagues -- i know senator coburn is here, and i commend him because he's been one who's been interested in tackling long-term fiscal challenges. long-term fiscal challenges, mr. president, is a debate between the house and the senate over the next ten years and the future trends that we're looking at are going to be front and center. we can tackle those questions, particularly on health care and taxes, by going to a conference, looking at the long term. and we would also be, in my view, picking up on what economists and leaders in the private sector of both political parties are saying now, which is there should be a little bit less of a focus on short-term sparring about our economy and

more of a focus on the long-term economic challenges, which is what a house-senate budget conference looking at the ten years ahead could be all about. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr askhat the

quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: we're still in morning business, and i'll speak as if in morning business about two amendments i'll call up when we get out of morning business. one is amendment number 815 on this bill, which is really aimed at lessening state dependence on the federal government. we now over a period of 50 years help with beach newerishment. in this -- new rischment. in this bill is a section that extends from 50 to 65 years government subsidization of beach nourishment. if you look at it, it's targeted for a few states because they're running into the 50-year headline. all it does is block it from going from 50 to 65 years. the clinton administration, the bush administration, the obama administration, the obama fiscal commission all recommended eliminating the federal subsidization of beach nourishment projects.

so you've had great leadership, bipartisan leadership on both sides of the aisle to bring this back and put what is truly a state responsibility there. and in this bill what we're doing is furthering the dependence of states for beach nourishment projects on the federal government. so i'll call up that amendment. the next amendment is amendment 816, which this committee has done a great job in setting up a review board that can eliminate authorized projects that no longer make sense. but they've limited what this can look at. they're not letting them look at the whole water resources projects. so, therefore, they limit those amendments. and all we're saying with this amendment is you ought to open it back up. now one of the criticisms of this amendment is that a project may be in the midst of completion and the review board might say you should eliminate it. it doesn't mean we'll eliminate it, because in the wisdom of the committee, what they did is they

gave the opportunity for congress to disallow any of this. so i think what the committee has done is a great step forward in getting rid of projects that are no longer apropos to whatever the needs are. but my question is: why did they limit it to such a narrow package when in fact they want this outside input to help guide us on what we should do. so at the appropriate time when we're out of morning business, i will call up those amendments, and i won't speak further on them; just call them up so we can move ahead with the bill. i see the chairwoman of the committee is here, and good morning to her. and i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, for the benefit of all senators, we are moving forward today. i thank all colleagues on both sides of the aisle. senator vitter and i have tried to allow all kinds of amendments. we did, unfortunately yesterday there was an objection to one

contentious amendment, and senator landrieu was -- i mean, she really took one for the team and withdrew her amendment because she wanted to make sure this wrda bill moves forward. and i appreciate that because it's a very important issue about flood insurance, and it's complicated, and i know how strongly she feels. i know she'll be back. so we have a number of amendments, and we'll be debating them a minute a side. i did want to address my friend from oklahoma because, let me tell you, we've been on oppose sides on -- we've been on opposite sides on his amendment and i don't like that very much. when we do work together, we win big. when we don't, it doesn't work out well for either of us. i'm sorry to say that my friend's two amendments i'm going to have to oppose. i want to lay on the record in a little more time than a minute why. we do something really important

in t new infrastructure deauthorization commission to review the backlog of corps projects and develop a list of projects that will be deauthorized unless congress passes a joint resolution opposing the commission's recommendation. it's kind of like the base closure commission where the base closure commission comes forward and says these are the bases that will be closed. it is a very cumbersome process to overturn the commission. and we did that on purpose, because we know that politics plays a part in a lot of these things. we want the commission to have power. now, my friend, i'm sure that he's grateful that we have set up this commission, because what he's trying to do is cut even more projects out. i just want to make the case that when we did this in the committee, we really developed a careful balance and we give the infrastructure deauthorization

committee a lot of authority here. but this amendment removes the bill's limitations on what projects can be deauthorized. so this is in our bill. this is what we say to the commission. we give guidance to the commission. we say projects authorized -- these are the projects that can be deauthorized. in other words, stopped. because i share my friend's view. we don't want to keep projects going that are really doomed and not going anywhere. it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. and, frankly, it gives people -- it makes it very confusing for people back home, because they don't understand a project that started in 1996 or something is still alive. what we do here is projects authorized or reauthorized after the enactment of the water resources development act of 1996, projects currently undergoing review by the corps, projects that have received appropriations in the last ten years, projects that are more than 50% complete, projects that

have a viable nonfederal sponsor, they cannot be deauthorized. they would not be deauthorized. let me say it again. projects that would not be deauthorized are projects authorized after 1996, projects currently undergoing review by the corps, projects that have received appropriations in the last ten years, projects that are more than 50% complete, projects that have a viable nonfederal sponsor. so we do give guidance to the commission. we say other than that, go for it and deauthorize. the provision senator coburn wants to strike was included to focus the attention of the commission on the old or truly inactive projects. that's really what we're about. the coburn amendment would give unlimited discretion to the commission to deauthorize a project even if it's in the middle of construction or it has an active nonfederal sponsor. i mean, imagine you have a city or a county or even a

private-sector participant who is involved, and all of a sudden everything they've done is for naught. and i just think what it does, it creates havoc. i know my friend has the best of intentions, and his point that we can overturn the commission, it's a valid point. but let's be clear here. how many bills actually become a law around here these days? it's hard to even pass a resolution saying happy mother's day. so we have a hard time. so to say that the congress could actually overturn a commission, we've never done it in a base closure commission. we wouldn't do it here. now states and local communities have invested millions of dollars in local cost shares for project feasibility studies. it isn't fair to these communities that have committed significant resources to deauthorize a project that remains active and is moving forward. so, in essence, this amendment would disrupt the new

deauthorization process created in wrda 202013 -- wrda 2013 and i urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from the national construction alliance. it reads, "the national construction alliance strongly opposes the coburn amendment. communities can't afford to have the rug pulled out from beneath them." i think it's important to note that they don't in any way chastise the committee for our work. we also have opposition from the road builders. in my concluding moments, i want to say we also will have a coburn amendment on -- striking section 2030 on beach nourishment extension. i think it's very important that this be defeated because many of these existing projects provide critical storm damage protection for coastal communities which require periodic nourishment to maintain this protection. there are dozens of important

shoreline protection projects around the country that have benefits that exceed the costs. hurricane sandy demonstrated that federal shoreline protection projects fared better against the storm surge than other areas protected by the storm. and we have seen this. where there was beach nourishment they had a lot less damage and people were spared. so in our work on wrda, the e.p.w. committee held hearings on the course flood and storm damage reduction projects. we received testimony from local communities such as ocean city, maryland, which highlighted the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages avoided by these projects. section 2030 in wrda 2013 does not provide a blanket extension of all beach nourishment shore protections. the section allows the corps to study projects and to make a recommendation to congress. and i don't know why we would want to stop this, since we know after sandy that some of these projects really had a cost benefit for the people, for the

taxpayers. before receiving an extension, a project has to go through a feasibility analysis to demonstrate it is still in the national interest, has to have a positive cost-benefit ratio, is technically feasible, is environmentally acceptable. so the provision senator coburn is attempting to strike doesn't guarantee an extension. it just tells the corps to study the issue and come back with a recommendation. and i honestly believe that blocking federal investment in these projects will harm coastal communities. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this coburn amendment, and i know i speak for many, including senator lautenberg who actually brought this issue to my attention years ago. i would yield and note that the time has come to debate the coburn amendment, one minute aside. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of senate 601, which the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 601, a bill to provide for the conservation

andvestmenanddevelopment of watd resources and so forth and for other purposes. mr. coburn: i call up amendment 8 a 15. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. coburn proposes amendment 15. mr. coburn: i set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 816. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. coburn proposes amendment number 816. mr. coburn: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. officethe presiding officer: wit objection. mr. coburn: i have a question for the chairman through the chair, if i might. the question on the deauthorization commission would be, why would they not take into consideration all of the things that you just mentioned before they would recommend deauthorizing a program if, in fact, the only reason they wouldn't deauthorize it was it's spending money that is not going

to have a positive purpose? so my question is you trust the deauthorizing committee for all these other arks but yo areas, t trust their judgment for areas that have a private -- why would we think they wouldn't make a positive decision in the best interests of the country? mrs. boxer: i would answer my friend in this way: this is a new commission. we set it up in the bill. we don't know how it will work. we thought for starters, let's go after the older projects, see how it works and any day we could come back and add more authority. but we think, if there are active projects, it sends a very confusing signal to the folks back home, and we think i this s the way to start it. it's smart. we've never had this commission before. i'm very proud that we have it in here i know my friend support the commission. i think we start this way. and if it looks like we can give them more authority, we can.

any day of the week, congress could deauthorize as well. mr. coburn: the point i'd make is the following: the big problem with wrda bills is they become parochial in nature. what we have excluded is everything from 1996 forward, which includes the present members of congress in terms of projects, their parochial wishes. you ma may not be required or capable of dee of defunding or deauthorizing something else, but if it is new, you don't have the opportunity to do that. so what we're doing is we're protecting others. i yield back. mrs. boxer: i really respect my friend and i know his intention is the best. but i do have to say, there is not one earmark in this bill. he should be so proud of both sides of the aisle here in this committee. not one earmark. the and we don't tell the commission what -- and we don't tell the commission what they can and cannot do but we do set some parameters, because we do believe, as we start this

deauthorization commission, it ought to go after the older projects, but projects that are active, let them get a chance to move forward. and there's no earmarks in this bill. i kind of resent it in, in a nice way. i am not angry about it. but believe me, there is a he no intention to protect earmarks here at all. so i hope we'll vote "no." i think we're starting something new, something good. it is a huge reform. we have a deauthorization commission. but let's start them with the ordinarily projects. let's track it. if we feel we should move forward with more reform, i'm open to t and i would yield back and hope for a "no" vote on this amendment. mr. coburn: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. is there a cuffed second? -- is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 43, the nays 53. the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior it a vote in relation to the amendment to

number 816 offered by the to prosecutor oklahoma, mr. coburn. the senate will be in order. botch box madam president? ferraro the senator from califo. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. box i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session. they have been approved by the majority and majority leaders. i -- by the minority and majority leaders. i ask these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: are there any objections? the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment 816. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? mrs. boxer: madam president? under the rules, i believe there is two minutes equally divided. could i ask my friend if he wishes to make a statement on this? mr. coburn: i was going to go on -- mrs. boxer: i think colleagues should hear the debate.

mr. coburn: okay. mrs. boxer: i think so. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. coburn amendment 816 expands the review commission so that in fact it can look at everything we've given in responsibility -- mrs. boxer: madam president, the senate is not in order. this is an important amendment and both sides need to be heard. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. coburn: what the bill does is a great first step but it protects earmarks from 1996 forward. we're not going to look at any of those and not going to allow the review commission, the deauthorizing commission to make good recommendations on everything. we're going to select out what they can look at. if we trust them to look at other things, we ought to trust them to look at all of it and we have an opportunity to turn them down if they're trying to deauthorize something congress thinks shouldn't be deauthorized. mrs. boxer: madam president, i urge a "no" vote. colleagues, please hear me out.

this amendment would expand the authority of a newly created infrastructure deauthorization commission and allow projects in your state to be stopped mid-stream, active projects, projects that have local funds flowing into them, private funds flowing into them. this is a bridge too far. i am very proud of the work senator vitter and i have done in setting up this commission. we have very clear rules about what the commission could look at, and we protect projects that are active, and we say to them, go after the inactive projects and stop them and save taxpayer dollars. please, let's have a good "no" vote on this one. mr. coburn: i asker to the 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: any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 35. the nays are 61. and the amendment is not agreed to. the senate will come to order. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the amendment number 822 offered by the senator from arkansas, mr. boozman. the senate will be in order. mrs. boxer: the senator deserves to be heard. if we can have order, please. the presiding officer: senators, please take your conversations out of the well, out of the chambers. mrs. boxer: madam president, before i turn to my colleague from arkansas, i support his amendment and i believe that he will be happy to have a voice vote.

i hope that would be okay with everyone. i think it's a very good amendment, and i would ask him to explain it, if we could have order for him, please. mr. boozman: thank you, madam chair. this is a commonsense amendment. all it does is it allows the corps of engineers to participate in the interagency america the beautiful pass program. it allows military programs to participate in the same way that they already do with the national park service, the bureau of land management, the fish and wildlife service, the forest service and the bureau of reclamation. i'd like to call up my amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arkansas, mr. boozman, proposes an amendment numbered 822. mr. boozman: thank you, again. ditto. again, this is a very commonsense thing that i think we would all agree to. the presiding officer: who

yields time in opposition? mrs. boxer: all of our time, and we ask for a voice vote. the presiding officer: without objection. if there is no further debate, the question is on amendment 822. all those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. boxer: move to reconsider and lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 866 offered by the senator from oregon, mr. merkley. mrs. boxer: madam president, may we have order, please? we are moving along but it just takes extra time. if we could just give our colleagues the respect they deserve. every one of them deserves it.

madam president, i support the merkley amendment. i hope we'll have an overwhelming vote on it. and i would ask my colleague to take the remaining time. mr. merkley: thank you. i call up amendment 866. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from oregon mr. merkley proposes an amendment numbered 866. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. we have long recognized the principle that when taxpayers are paying for public infrastructure projects, it makes sense for american business, for the american economy, for our workers to do as much of the work as possible, create that supply chain here in america. the buy america rules we already have on the books that provided the foundation for millions of miles of roads, bridges, light rails and subways and millions of good-paying jobs. this amendment extends that concept with appropriate waivers for cost, for supply-chain inadequacies or for public interest. with that, i turn this over to my colleague. this is a bipartisan amendment, and i ask for your support. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i also strongly support the amendment. this is a commonsense -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. vitter: this is a commonsense buy america provision which is completely consistent with what we did on the recent highway bill in a bipartisan way which created no controversy, no debate at conference. i support it. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. who yields time in opposition? the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i speak in opposition to this amendment. while i understand the concerns underlying it, i also have significant concerns with what this would do. in some circumstances this could increase the cost of materials in some federal projects by close to 25%. if we're talking about $1 billion worth of materials, we're talking about almost $250 million of increased costs for certain materials this could bring about.

thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on amendment number 866. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 60, the nays are 36, and the amendment is agreed to. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: madam president, my amendment would sunset the so-called project acceleration provisions in five years. these provisions are untested. they were not subject of any hearings of our committee. they were added at the last minute before the markup and they change what i think is the

bedrock national environmental policy act. they set arbitrary deadlines, rush decisions, lead to delays later and mistakes and litigation. and haste makes waste, both for taxpayer dollars and for natural resources. the administration doesn't want these changes. yesterday the chairwoman heeded our call and changed the in ten years. and i believe, madam chair, this is a step in the right direction. but make no mistake, these provisions are still a very risky move and if this gets worse, these provisions could risk a presidential veto. so, madam chair, i know that you've committed to me that we could have a hearing on the provisions that are in the law, the map 21 provisions that e.p.a. -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mrs. boxer: 30 seconds more. mr. udall: i would ask for 30 seconds more. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. udall: madam chair, that you've committed that the relevant federal resource agencies, map 21, which has similar provisions here, they're in the law, the resource agencies can come before our committee, we can have questioning, you'll be there, we can have the c.e.q. or whoever be a part of that. and i very much appreciate with you -- appreciate you working with me on this. and because you're working with me on this, i'm not going to -- to move forward. i'm not going to off ther the amendment at this time. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent that i have a minute and a half. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you so much. i want to thank my colleague for withdrawing -- for not offering his amendment and i -- he and i see this very, very differently. but first i want to say that i have committed to a hearing. i told my colleague he can get as much time as he wants. but i have to correct the reco record. and if i could have some order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mrs. boxer: my colleague that

said this project delivery reform was a last-minute addition. project delivery reform was in the bill as it was voted out of committee without a dissenting vote. let me reiterate, this is not a last-minute issue. project delivery reform was in the bill when it got voted out, and here's why. two reasons. one is projects are being delayed. environmental projects, flood-control projects, they're being delayed. and some delay is necessary when there's new information and they could still have a delay. but what we do in this bill -- and it has been changed for the better; i think my colleague's right on that -- is we sunset the provision in ten years. if i could have order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mrs. boxer: thanks. so here's the deal. we sunset these provisions in ten years, number one.

number two, for the first time in history, the resource agencies that my friend cares so much about and i care so much about -- fish and wildlife, e.p.a., all the rest -- will be in the room with the corps setting the deadlines. so it's very important that we get our job done. and bureaucratic agencies have to get the work done. and i think this reform is one we'll be proud of. i look forward to those hearings. i want to thank my colleague and we will get on with this and make sure this reform works the way we anticipate it will. i thank you. i thank my colleague. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 909, offered by the senator from north dakota, mr. hoeven. mr. hoeven: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i understand my amendment is already pending, so i would just point out that i have a modification at the desk.

this is a very simple amendment. it simply provides that the corps of engineers cannot charge a state or a tribe or municipality -- mrs. boxer: i would say the senate is not in order. i believe this is our last amendment, and this is an important amendment to my friend. it's hugely important to many states, and it would be nice if we could just give him the courtesy. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank my colleague from california and i'd like to thank both senator boxer and senator vitter for their work on this amendment. i appreciate it very much. it's a very simple amendment. it says the corps of engineers cannot charge a state for water, cannot charge fees for water when it violates the state's water rights that affects municipalities and tribes as well. we have made sure that it does not score under the cob rules. we have strong bipartisan

support. senator thune, senator heitkamp, senator caucus, senator johnson, and this does not affect the master manual on the missouri river or any of the authorized uses. i want to emphasize that. again, a very simple amendment. itnsures that states' rights are properly protected, and i encourage a yes vote. thank you. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment has been modified. mrs. boxer: madam president, if i could be heard? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i am supporting this amendment. i think it is very important to the states affected, and there are several states. the fact is we don't want to see the corps start a water war, and the chair has discussed this with me and i'm very grateful to her and to senator hoeven for really explaining this. the tribes are involved in this. we don't want to see them get in trouble with this. and i think the corps has to respect the fact that there are these water rights in place. so i will be supporting this amendment.

the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, if i could just ask unanimous consent for ten seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: i also strongly support this amendment. i think it's a very reasonable, commonsense amendment. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the -- a senator: i ask for a voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment as modified. all those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment as modified is agreed to. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. and i would again like to thank both managers of this bill. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the cloture motion is withdrawn and the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 44,

s. 601, a bill to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and so forth and for other purposes. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, if i could be heard. the presiding officer: can we ha order. mrs. boxer: if i could be heard for just less than a minute. i want to thank every single senator here. we have literally worked, i think, with every one of you on this bill. senator vitter and i have, we have our differences in a number of areas, but when it comes to the infrastructure of our country, we work very well together, as did i with senator inhofe. the committee voted this bill out unanimously, and i can say we made it better on this floor. we added amendments that you came to us with that made this a better bill. and i also want to note that our staffs are unbelievable. and i'm not going to name names now, but i will put them in the record. my chief of staff and her team, senator vitter's chief and his

team worked seamlessly together in the most wonderful, cooperative fashion. and i want erye to kno this bill is about 500,000 thousas of businesses, critical flood control, environmental restoration projects, harbor maintenance, inland waterways, and we have adopted dozens and dozens of amendments. we're very excited about this vote. we hope you will all vote aye. it would be really a wonderful signal. and then to the house, that they would get on with this as well. thank you very much. i would yield to my friend. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i join in all of the comments of the distinguished chairman of the committee, and i strongly support this bill as well. it's a jobs bill. it's a water maritime infrastructure bill that's good for the economy, and it does that in a way that doesn't increase the deficit a penny. that contains no earmarks, that institutes important reforms to deauthorize projects that are

not moving forward so that it should even be authorization net neutral. it provides reforms in terms of the corps of engineers which are needed, so this is a very strong bipartisan bill, and i hope it's also some little suggestion of how we can move forward in this body, work in a bipartisan way and have real debate and amendments and votes on the floor. i think that's another whole aspect of this experience that has been very, very positive. i urge a yes vote. the presiding officer: the question now occurs on s. 601 as amended. the clerk will call the roll. a senator: the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: