>> happy to welcome back to the senate judiciary committee one of my heros, of course, john louis, and one of my other dear, dear friends from so many battles over the years, not with each other, but how we joined together, and i welcome everyone to the important hearing. it's an issue that affects all americans, our rights to vote. the title of the day's hearing, working together to restore the protection of the voting rights act speaks of the effort to

protect our voting rights, and expresses determination to work together to confirm the voting rights act. it's always been a thing to comet. and that tradition is here with john and jim. one is a democrat, one a republican. from different states. both with a shared commitment to voting rights. i look forward to working with both of them as we seek to restore the protections after the shelby county case. historic struggle for individual voting rights reached a turning point on the bridge in selma,

alabama on march 7th,1965. i had just gotten out of law school. i saw a group of peaceful marchers led by a young john louis, brutally attacked by state troopers, caught bloody sunday today in the graphic photographs, a catalyst of the voting rights act. he said later, your vote is precious, almost sacred, the most nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union. to me and millions of others, he's a hero, and i thank you for being here today. in 2006, republicans and democrats and the house of re79ives joined together to pass a reauthorization voting rights act with overwhelming bipartisan support. they were able to do it -- one of the reasons he's able to do

it is a cor courageous chairmanf the house judiciary committee. a true leader, that effort. having been here at this time, being a member watching what went on, i can say that we would not have been able to reauthorize that without his leadership in the house judiciary committee. i was proud to work with him back then, and i thank him for coming here to testify today, and i think he and i and congress louis were happy to see the president sign that in the rose garden, on a gorgeous day, i might add. five justices for the supreme court held the coverage forum was outdated, and even the five justices who struck down the coverage formula in section four have acknowledged discrimination and voting continues to be a problem.

voting discrimination still exists, no one doubts that. that's why we are here today. the supreme court called on congress to come together to update the voting rights act. we have to work together not as republicans and democrats, but as americans. people die in other parts of the world trying to have the right of a free country with a free right to vote. americans should not be denied by just the application of local laws. when they wrote the magnificent words of the constitution and deck declaration of independence, there was a note that every one was app hey, and we look to the children, and i might say in a personal way, our grandchildren, to restore the act to fulfill

this and uphold the constitution. no one's right to vote in any part of the great nation sure suppressed or denied, but yet we see that discriminatory practice today. every one of us, i don't care what our political lines are, we should be totally opposed to suppressing votes. let's work together on that, and senator grassley, i know that congressman louis has -- i'll turn to him. >> okay. it's right for you to hold the meeting, mr. chairman, after the significant decision by the supreme court and decision by which congress has a duty to do it in theecks and balances of government. the voting rights act guarantees the fundamental right to vote for all qualified voters regardless of race or language. the right to vote garn sees

protection of other rights. the law is necessary to address a shameful history. i have voted to reauthorize the act. i appreciate the testimony of the congressional colleague, and i welcome them and point out specifically for representative louis, your participation in the bloody sup help to lead enacting the law to have an enduring place in history. thank you for being here today. we should be pleased that our country has made advances in relations since the act was passed and contributed to the progress, no doubt, though, more progress must be made and should be made, and a hearing such as this will help that dialogue to continue. we last voted to authorize in 2006. much changed since then. the rate was higher last year among registered african-american voters than for

other classes of people. more african-american and his panic candidates than ever win elections. now, i say that because the supreme court found facts to be of constitutional cig cansz. we're here today, largely because congress failed to heed the supreme court's 2009 warning that the preclearance coverage formula raised serious institutional questions. eight justices said so. the ninth would have struck the law down at that time. they could have drafted another formula do address the concerns and have a formula based on realities, not the dramatically different conditions that existed in the 60s and 70s. the court then ruled as it did. many people believe that section two is a heart of the voting rights act unlike section five, prohits voter discrimination

nationwide. this can be used to challenge procedures before they take effect through injunctions. over the years, the precleans process led to objections to oppose the changes. since the reauthorization, only 31 objections have been made. there have been no objections raised to any changes of the 7 of the 16 states covered in whole or in part, and in three of the states that are fully covered. 99.86% of submissions have been approved. additionally, the ratio cap in voter recommendation strags and turnout is lower in the states originally coveredded section five than in the case -- than is the case nationwide. the court gave congress the opportunity to draft a new institution name coverage formula. i disagree with the member of the committee across the aisle who said, quote, as long as

republicans have a majority in the house, democrats don't have 60 votes in the senate, there will be no preclearance. cynicism and defeatism have never before characterized reauthorization in the voting rights act. rather than blaming republicans for blocking a bill that does not exist, the majority should bring forth a proposal for updating the coverage formula in a constitutional way. we should cover the whole country. we could identify jurisdictions engaging in discrimination in the 21st century, and where section two is inadequate. there may be other options. i look forward to seeing what is brought before the committee. i certainly understand why there is no proposal yet, but for any new bill to pass, we must respect the constitution's pronouncements. the court based the ruling, in part, on the 10th amendment. specifically the court said, quote, the constitution provides that all powers, not caecif

federal government, are reserved to the states or citizens thereof, end of quote, and i point out the word "specifically," and this is a formulation of the tenth amendment i've never seen before. it means that congress can only enact laws that fall within the power of the constitution specifically gives it such as the enumerated power of article one and the 15th amendment, the constitutional basis for the voting rights act. the supreme court's ruling requires congress to show greater respect for the limb limitations of the power as against state authority. it's language to be kept in mind if they consider legislation amending the voting rights act, and the court ruled under the constitution's election clause, congress may regulate, quote, how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them, end of quote. those decisions are left to the states. further, any legislative fix should not threaten common sense

measures to ensure the integrity of voting like constitutional voter identification laws. overwhelming majorities support the requirements knowing the right to vote is denied as completely wht vote is canceled is when the voter is blocked, and the supreme court ruled that, quote, it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a state from obtaining information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications, end of quote. this hearing is important, and i commend you, mr. chairman, for holing it as soon as you are after the hearing. i welcome all the witnesses, thank you. >> thank you. i'm at a personal point, and remember it was great to me, the

civil rights award, and the i thought it was one of the culminations of my career in the senate to be introduced by you, and we've seen, especially recently, so many times on television, some of the scenes of the years. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank, mr. ranking member and members of the committee for holing the hearing and inviting me to testify today i ask consent the full statement be included in the record. the congressman is a tireless champion for the voting rights act, and i'm proud and pleased to be with him today, my friend, my brothers.

i said it before and again to you that today sections four and five are the heart and soul of the voting rights act. the day of the supreme court decision broke my heart making me want to cry. i felt like saying, come, come walk in the shoes of people who try to register and vote, but did not live to see the pass of the voting rights act, and i know that each of you knows this history, but i think it's important for the record to note what life was like before the voting rights act in 1965. when i first came to washington drk in 1961, the same year that president barack obama was born, blacks and whites could not sit beside each other on a bus traveling through virginia to

north carolina, to georgia, to mississippi, into new orleans. there was signs that was whites only, colored only. they were denied the register to vote because of the color of their skin. they were forced off farms and plantations. those who tried to assist were beaten, arrested, jailed, or murdered. before the agent, they stood in improvement lines, and o occasion, they were asked or name the amount of jelly beans in a jar. the state of mississippi had a age population of more than 450,000, only about 16,000 registered to vote.

when they were 80% african-american, but not a single one was able to register to vote, not one. selma is located in dallas county dams. in this period, only 2 #% were registered to vote in the country, and you can only attempt to register on the first and third mondays of each month. before the voting rights act, three young men are new. james and nick goodman, and they were working to register african-americans to vote in mississippi in 1964. they were arrested, released from jail to members of the clan in the middle of the night, an they were beaten, shot, and killed.

on march 7 #, 1965, jose william, a staff person to martin king luther, jr., and i attempted to lead a peaceful nonviolence march from selma to month come rihanna. as we marched, more than 500 men, women, and children were chased, beaten, bloodied, and trampled by state troopers, some riding horse back. that day was known as bloody sunday. a little over a week later, president johnson came before the transition of the congress, and he spoke to the nation, he said, i speak tonight for the man and death of the democracy, and he presented the voting rights act to congress. for months, the hard work congress passed the bill, and on august 6th, 1965, they found the

act into law in gaining one of the pens to sign the deal, i remember the spirit, and the struggles were like it was yesterday. to this day, i believe that we are a better country, a better people because of the voting rights act. we made progress, came a great zaps, but the deliberate systematic attempt to make it harder and more difficult for many people to participate in the democratic process still exists to this very day. hours after the decision was announced, before the ink was even dry, states began to put into efforts to suppress people's voting rights, and as i said, and mr. chairman, as you quoted, the vote is precious. it is almost sacred, the most

powerful nonviolent tool we have. it is my belief that the voting rights act is needed now more than ever before. a bipartisan congress and republican president work to reauthorize the law for time. the burden cannot be on those citizens whose rights were or will be violated. it is the duty and responsibility of congress to restore the life and soul of the voting rights act, and we must do it, and we must do it now. we must act, and we must act now. we must do it on our watch at this time. again, thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. thank you so much. >> thank you, i thank you for

the book you signed to be a march 1, and it will be seen by all five of my grandchildren. i mentioned earlier that the congressman is a dear friend, friends for years, and he's a civil rights agents in his own right, but chairman of the house committee in 2006, introdewsed the house of representatives, worked tire leslie to have a strong record indicating the need for reauthorization of section five. i know the hearings, as he knows, came by, and we discussed it many, many times his steadfast leadership, commitment to protecting civil rights for all americans ensured the bill

would become law, i think, is someone from the other body i can say i was in the minority at the time, and you, of course, in the majority r and in the party, i can honestly say we would not have gotten through had not been for the work you put in in the house, so i'll continue to work with him and make this -- keep this a bipartisan issue, a nonpartisan effort, one the few things that definitely should. congressman, go ahead, sir. >> thank you very much, chairman, ranking member grassley, distinguished member of the committee. let me express my appreciation, not only for your statement and senator grassley's statement, but the statements made by my colleague in the house, john louis of georgia. i'm not a civil rights icon. i tried to be a mechanic to put together legislation that will work. i thought we did it in 2006.

we're going to have to repair a few parts this year, and i'm certainly on board to try to put something that will last for a long period of time. i also deeply appreciate comments that mr. louis made because he is truly a civil rights icon for what he did to emphasize the need for voting rights and the voting rights act that congress successfully passed in 1965 in his reauthorized sense. in 2006, i was proud to have served as chairman of the house judiciary committee when the voting rights agent was last reauthorized, including the coverage formula of section five. i thank you for the invitation to participate in the hearing to provide my perspective on the continued importance of the voting rights agent. in 1965, the voting rights act was signed into law, the law

passed at the height of the civil rights movement where citizens as part of the country were fighting each other and sometimes authorities over how skin color impacts upon a person's place in democracy. historic in nature, the voting rights act sought to end decades of racial discrimination prevents minorities from fully exercising their constitutional right to vote. the law ensured that state and local governments do not pass laws or policies that deny american citizens the equal rate to vote based on race. the united states should work to keep voting free, fair, and accessible. that's why the voting rights act is so important. it makes sure that every citizen, regardless of our race, has an equal opportunity to have a say and to participate in the great democracy. in 1982, i was pleased to lead

negotiations to reauthorize the voting rights act then. they cleared the house, and it was signed into law by president reagan. when signing the reauthorization, president reagan stated, quote, there are differences over how to retain the equalitity we seek for all our people, and sometimes in all the overblow and rhetoric, the differences seem bigger than they are, but actions speak louder than words. this legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting rights that also proves that differences can be settled in the spirit of good will and good faith. as i said before, the right to vote is the crown jewel of american liberties, and we will not see its luster diminish, unquote, president reagan.

one of my most cherished keepsakes is one of the pens that president ronald reagan used to sign the 1982 extension. anyone visiting my office notices this pen is proudly displayed. a duty to support the constitution again led me to shephard the 2006 reauthorization of the voting rights act. while chairman of the house judiciary committee. there was dozens of hearings examining the effectiveness of the voting rights act, whether the vra should be extended, and if so, what it should encompass. the committee assembled more than 12,000 pages of testimony, documentary evidence, and appendixes in the exhawsive consideration. in fact, the legislative record is a consideration of the voting rightings act extension in 2006 is among the most extensive in congressional history. the committee's bipartisan

conclusion, while we have made dramatic progress in ensuring no american is denied his or her right to vote based upon the color of his or her skin, whose work remains incomplete. again, in a bipartisan fashion, the house passed a 25-year extension. as we are here today because of the supreme court's ruling in shelby county against holder, which severely weakens the election protections of both republicans and democrats have fought so hard to maintain over the years, the court essentially disregarded years and years of the extensive work of the legislative branch, and substituted their own judgment. in the narrow 5-4 decision, justice the voted to eliminate the laws of the existing formula for existing which places are allowed to make changes to the laws without clearance from the u.s. department of justice. al e though the court left in

place section five a provision that requires states or parts of states to ask permission from the federal government before making changes to their elections, that part of the law has little or no effect without the formula in section four, which was struck down. by striking down the act and gutting section five, congress is presented now with a challenge, and the historic opportunity. we are called together to restore the critical protections of the act designing a new formula to cover jurisdictions with recent and egregious voting records. the constitution guarantees an american citizen cannot be kept from exercising his or her god-given right to vote because of race or color. though the voting rights act has been enormously successful, we know our work is not yet

complete. eight years ago, had 12,000 pages of a record to prove it. discrimination in the electoral process continues to exist and threatened to undermine the progress that's been made over the last 50 years. i am committed to working to pass a constitutional response to the shelby county versus holder decision, and i look forward to working with anybody who wants to approach this effort in good faith. the voting rights act is the most disefl of all of our important civil rights acts that have been passed since the mid-1950 #s in eliminating discrimination. we cannot afford to lose it now, and it is our obligation as senators and representatives to continue it. thank you. >> i thank you, both, very, very

much, and i wanted to hold the hearing before the august break because i wanted to be able to use the break to work the phones a lot and talk to people from vermont, people around the country, but be able to use that as a base to do it, and i hope that the two of you and anybody else in the house can join with us here in the senate when we come back in the fall and see what we can do. i know you both have a tight schedule. you are welcome to stay as long as you'd like, but happy to have the next panel come up if you wanted to leave. >> yeah, we're due for volts pretty soon in the house. >> you can go. it's a long way over there. >> sometimes the difference is between the house and the senate are the difference between hear and the moon. hopefully that o s one.

>> i hope -- in my office, i have an office that's just a couple feet from the so-called dividing line between the house and senate, and i'd like the fact that we can walk back and forth between the line often as the three of us have done in many, many issues, and i hope that both parties will on this issue because if you protect the right to vote for everybody, one of the greatest steps you can take to protect the democracy so i thank you, both, very, very much for being here. >> in a moment, live to the u.s. senate as they return to work this morning. lawmakers expected to continue work on president obama's nominees to head the labor department and environmental protection agency. senate majority leader reid's intention to finish work on the nominations of tom perez to lead

the labor department and mccarthy to head up the epa by the end of the day today. they are scheduled to round out work on executive nominations considering a group up to five nominees to the national labor relations board by the end of next week. a live senate coverage getting underway in a moment here. reminder, an hour from now at 10:30 eastern on c-span3 #, fed chairman ben bernanke in front of the senate committee. that's live for you on c-span3. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate on c-span2. gracious god, thank you for the love you give us each day. great and holy is your name. infuse our lawmakers with the spirit of humility that will empower them to do your will. lord, help them to embrace your

desire to bring healing to our world. challenge the best in them so they will give you their supreme allegiance and love. enable them to fill swift hours with meaningful and faithful deeds, to think clearly, to act kindly, and to make a better world. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our 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., july 18, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable brian schatz,, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 99 which is the transportation appropriations bill. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 99, s. 1243, a bill making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies, and so forth and for other purposes.

mr. reid: mr. president, tpoelg my remarks and -- following my remarks and those of republican leader there will be an hour of morning business with the majority controlling the first half and republicans the final half. following morning business the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of thomas perez to be secretary of labor. we hope to confirm both the perez and mccarthy nominations today. we're ready to move on this whenever my republican colleagues say that they want to , but probably the right thing to do would be to vote on perez this morning and vote on the cloture petition i filed regarding mccarthy and then this afternoon we would vote, after their lunches we would vote on the confirmation of mccarthy.

the republicans, whatever they decide, we'll be happy to work with them in whatever way is convenient. there are three bills at the desk due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: bills: s. 1315, a bill to prohibit the secretary of the treasury from enforcing the patient protection and affordable care act and the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. s. 1316, a bill to repeal the provisions of the patient protection and affordable care act providing for the independent payment advisory board. h.r. 1911, an act to amend the higher education act of 1965 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to all three of these matters proceeding further at this time. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, today as part of this week's agreement to process nominations, the senate will vote on confirmation

of perez to lead the department of labor and will vote on cloture of the nomination of mccarthy to lead the environmental protection agency, gina mccarthy. i hope we can move forward on these matters as quickly as possible. gina mccarthy is an accomplished environmental official who served under several republican governors, including governor romney. she's worked in democratic administrations also. as a top environmental official in massachusetts and connecticut, she's expanded efficiency in renewable energy programs. we had a wonderful event yesterday morning where the e.p.a. building was named after president clinton, and he stood and talked about what he and vice president gore had done to help the environment, and he stressed time and time again that it's important to have a growing, strong economy to make sure we took care of the environment in the process

because those two things are not in conflict. she's now assistant e.p.a. administrator and it has been her job to come with creative new ways. ms. mccarthy -- new ways to keep our air clean and water safe while growing the economy as president clinton said. she was nominated several months ago, and i spoke to her yesterday morning. she was at he event for president clinton. she's anxious to have the vote today. she has a proven track record of public service. there's no question about that. tom perez, the nominee to lead the department of labor is also an experienced public servant. he's from buffalo, new york, son of dominican immigrants. he put himself through college working in a warehouse and as a garbage collector, graduated from brown university, one of the most prestigious universities in america, and in fact the world, as is harvard law school. he went to both of those fine

universities. he served as deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights under janet reno, who was attorney general for our country. he was appointed by governor o'malley in 2007 to serve as secretary of the maryland department of labor where he led the first statewide living wage law. four years ago he was confirmed by the senate with 72 votes to lead the seufg rights division -- civil rights division of the department of justice here in washington. he's helped resolve cases on behalf of families targeted by unfair mortgage lending. he really is qualified with his education and his background. he'll be an excellent secretary of labor. so i look forward to confirming him as soon as we can. mr. president, i'm very hopeful that we can wind up the discussion we had for several weeks now on student loans. there's been wonderful bipartisan discussions in this

regard. again, the legislation has presented to me isn't everything i want, but it's a work of a number of democratic and republican senators working long, long hours -- in fact, they had a meeting the night before last with the president that lasted about an hour and a half. we have to get this done as soon as possible. of course we've made it retroactive. as we know, the student loan rate went up from 3.4 to 6.8 at the first of this month and we need to make sure that legislation gets done before we leave here. but with people processing their applications to go to school this fall, we should get it done as quickly as possible. it's possible we could do it today. i really appreciate -- i hope i don't miss, and i'm confident i

will -- i hope i don't miss senators who worked so hard on this. those who have worked together on this compromise have been senators harkin and durbin and king and manchin on our side. and on the republican side alexander, coburn and burr. and there have been others. and in the process, we have a number of senators who may not be totally pleased with this agreement that is contemplated, but they have worked so hard. jack reed, elizabeth warren, and what i would like to do, and i hope we can do it as quickly as possible, is the compromise that i think has been worked out with the senators i mentioned and whatever senator reed and others want to do, we would have a couple of votes to make sure that everyone had their ability to have a vote on their legislation. i hope we can do it this way.

it would be the right way to go and solve this issue. and if we do this, it's not where we'll be back next year to do it. it will be done. we won't be back two years from now. it will be done. i hope -- i hope very much that we can get this done. i really applaud all these senators who have worked so hard for so long to come up with an agreement. again, i repeat for the third time, even this morning, mr. president, in saying this isn't going to be everything that the presiding officer wants, the republican leader or i want, but hopefully it will be a step forward. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, today the senate will consider the nominations of thomas perez and gina mccarthy to head the department of labor and the e.p.a.. i'll be voting against both of these nominees, and i'd like to explain why. tom perez is someone who has devoted much of his career to causes he believes in. that's certainly admirable. but the duty of advise and

consent is about more than just acertificate taeupbing -- ascertaining whether a nominee has good intentions. it's about how he or she went about pursuing them, about what he or she would do on the job. that is where the perez nomination begins to break down. because based on the evidence, tom perez is more than just some left-wing i had i don't see lodge. -- left wing idealogue. he achieves willing to bend the rules to achieve his end. it's so worrying to me about mr. perez. a few examples from his past paint the picture. media reports indicate that as a member of the county council in maryland, mr. perez tried to get the county to break federal law but unlawfully importing foreign

drugs even after a top f.d.a. official said federal law was very clear, and that there was no question that doing so would be undeniably illegal. when the county executive, a fellow democrat, ultimately decided not to instruct county employees to break the law as mr. perez advocated, which could have subjected those work torres criminal prosecution, he described the executive as so timid. federal law is muddled, mr. perez added, sometimes you have to push the envelope. throughout his career, however, perez has done more than push the envelope. he once pushed through a county policy that encouraged the circumvention of federal immigration law. as the head of the federal government's top voting rights watchdog, he refused to protect the right to vote for americans of all races in violation of the very law he was charged with

enforcing. and he directed the federal government to sue a law-abiding woman who was protesting outside an abortion clinic in florida. the federal judge who threw out this lawsuit said he was at a loss -- at a loss -- as to why the government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place. just as troubling, when mr. perez had been called to account for his failures to follow the law, he's been less than forthright. when he testified that politics played no role in his office's decision not to pursue charges against members of a far-left group that may have prevented others from voting, the department's own watchdog said perez's testimony did not reflect the entire story. and a federal judge said that the evidence both for him appeared to contradict -- appeared to contradict -- perez's testimony. in short, mr. perez made misleading statements in this case under oath to both congress and the u.s. civil rights

commission. taken together, this is reflective not of some passionate left winger who used himself as advocating policies within the bound of the democratic system but as a crusading idealogue whose convictions lead him to believe the law simply doesn't apply to him. as secretary of labor, mr. perez would be handling numerous contentious issues and implementing many politically sensitive laws. americans of all political persuasions have a right to expect the head of such an important federal department, whether appointed by a republican or a democrat, would complement and follow -- would implement and follow the law in a fair and reasonable way. i do not believe they could expect as much from mr. perez, and that's why i'll be voting against him today. as for gina mccarthy, i have no doubt she's a well-meaning public servant. we had some good conversations when she came to visit my office earlier this year. but as the head of e.p.a.'s air division, she's overseeing the

implementation of numerous job-killing regulations. these regulations along with others promulgated by the e.p.a. have had a devastating effect in states like mine. they have helped bring about a depression -- that is depression with a "d" -- in parts of kentucky and parts of central appalachia. there's no reason to expect a course correction if she were to be confirmed as administrator. one assumes she would be expected to care for the president's plan to impose centrally by executive fee at even more disruptive policies, policies similar to those already rejected by democratically controlled congress. as someone sent here to stand up for the people who elected me, i cannot in good conscience support a nominee who would advance more of the same. someone who is not willing to stand up to this administration's war on coal. and, remember, this war talk -- that's not me taking is a; the war on coal is exactly what's

needed. that's what one of the white house's own climate advisors said just the other week. all of us -- republicans, especially -- believe p in being good stiewrdzs of the environment. but washington officials have to be rational an and whole list sk their approach. they cannot simply do whatever they want, do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences for people who don't live or act or think the same way they do. i don't blame ms. mccarthy personally for all of the administration's policies, but i believe the e.p.a. needs an administrator who is ready to step up and challenge the idea that the livelihoods of particular groups of americans can simply be sacrificed in pursuit of some ivory-tower fantasy. that kind of nominee, the kind ofnomic support, is one who's willing to question the status quo and to make kentuckians part of the solution. on another matter, later today

the president is scheduled to deliver a speech on obamacare. he's expected to say that because of obamacare, america can expect checks in the mail. sounds great, doesn't it? free money. but as they say, most things in life that sound too good to be true very often are. and in this case, it's not so much that people will be getting free money; it's that most people will be paying many dollars more for their health care and maybe -- just maybe -- getting a few bucks back. in other words, if you are a family in covington, kentucky, facing a $2,100 freedom increase under obamacare, then really whrald you rather have? a check for $100 or so, or a way a void the $ $2,100 premium increase in the first place? i think the answer is obvious. i think most kentuckians would agree that this is just another sad 25e78 attempt by the

administration to spin them into wanting a law they don't want. even though we expect the president to tout about $500 million worth of these types of refunds, what he won't say is that next year obamacare will impose a new sales tax on the purchase of health insurance that will cost americans about $8 billion. that's a 16:1 ratio. so if the administration is concerned with saving people money on their health care, i've got some advice: work with us to repeal obamacare and start over. work with us to implement commonsense, step-by-step reforms that can actually lower costs for kentuckians, because jacking up our constituents' health care costs is bad enough. but to try to convince them that the opposite is happening, that they'rthey've actually won some publisher's clearinghouse sweepstakes, it is just as absurd as it sounds. i know that kentuckians are not

going to buy it. mr. president, 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 for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided andivided and controllen the two leaders or their designees with the majority leader controlling the first half. the senato senator from colorad. mr. udall: mr. president, i rise today to mark a very somber milestone. nearly one year ago colorado and the nation were shocked by the horrific scene at a an aurora movie theater in my home state. even before the sun rose that friday, we began hearing of a

senseless mass shooting that took the lives of 12 innocent people and injured 70 more. mr. president, today i want to mark the anniversary of this tragedy and to honor the strength that so many coloradans have shown both on that day and in the weeks and months since. the aurora theater shooting shook us, it shocked us, it outraged you but as i said, it does not break us. even today ware seein today we t the legacy is not the horror of that day but rather the courage and resilience of the people who have refused to let this event define their lives cht take, for example, 18-year-old zach who endured weeks of surgery and weeks of recovery so he could continue with his football career. he was named the winner of the

adversity conquered through excellent award. this year he will begin his freshman year at colorado state university. or take marcus weaver who was shot twice but hosts a weekly radio show in denver that spotlights great americans who are making a difference in their communities. marcus also works with his church to help people who've struggled through addiction or incarceration and he now travels the country inspiring others with his story and pushing them to take charge of their lives? mr. president, these are just two of literally countless examples of the perseverance of people who are affected by the aurora shooting. zach and marcus' strength and their actions define us as americans. that's something which we can take great pride in. it's the kind of strength we honor in remembering this tragedy now a year later. particularly, we look back and we remember young men pliek

26-year-old john blunk and 24-year-old alexander tevis, who actual literally sacrificed their lives to protect their friends. they put themselves in between their friends and the shooter. then there was emergency responders who rushed to the scene to stop the shooter before he can injure others sms mr. president, colorado has known too many tragedies these past several years, from the arohr a theater shooting, to the wildfires that have threatened and destroyed entire communities and left hundreds of our friends and neighbors without homes. we've seen that same spirit of sacrifice and resil and resilies firefighters have banded together to fight the fires that have threatened entire communities across colorado this

year. this saturday on this one-year years of the theater shooting, let's take time to remember those who've lost their lives and to honor the resilience of our neighbors who press on with their lives, undaunted by this terrible act. in that spirit, mr. president, i want to read into the "congressional record" the names of the 12 people who lost their lives one year ago. let's never forget these names. matt mcquinn, michaela medic, jessica gowee, gordon cowdon, jesse childress, john larimer, john than blunk,er have ron in a mowser-sullivan, alex sullivan, alexander tevis, rebecca bingo, alexander boick. i hope we can draw strength from

the tragic loss of these 12 wonderful, beautiful people and that it leads us to redouble our efforts to be better people, to be more understanding to our friends and more loving to our families, and aspire to live our lives with the courage that the people of aroug aurora and coloo have shown over the course of this last year. mr. president, i think it could go without saying that i believe that the leaders here in washington could learn from their courage. the victims of aurora haven't let setbacks keep them from achieving great things. they in fact have refused to allow the word "victim" to he dpien them. -- to define them. as i conclude, i want to say, of course we have still work to do to prevent future mass shootings. there are many comments and steps that we can and we must take to reduce senseless gun violence. but today is not a time for

policy debate. today is a day to remember the victims and to honor the here froze that terrible -- & to honor the heroes from that terrible day last year and commit to never forget their memories. i yield back my time. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: is noter from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, let me commend the senator from colorado and his really critical reminder to all of us about how you get up each day and don't know what it brings to you but to remember these people that have so unsensibly lost their lives but the courage and passion they have left for all of us. i thank him for that really important reminder. i want to speak briefly about our vote tied confirm thomas perez as the next secretary of a labor, and i want to touch on a couple separate reasons why this particular confirmation is so important for this body and for our country. first, and something we've talked about for several days here, is providing the president

and his administration with the team that he needs to help our country grow, for ow comirks our comirseconomy, and for our communities. we all rely on the department of labor to do a lot of important things for american workers and american businesses. providing critical workforce development and job-training services, to help get people back to work or into better jobs; making sure we have high workplace safety standards; improving conditions and opportunities for women and helping our servicemen and women find good jobs when they come home. our country and our economy are stronger when the department of labor has a talented, qualified leader at the reins. and that, mr. president -- and, mr. president, that brings me to the second reason why this vote is so important, and that is the tremendous nominee who we have before us today. in thomas perez, the president has nominated someone who will

bring passion and integrity and a lifetime of experience to this very important position. like so many americans, mr. perez comes from very humble beginnings. he is a second-generation american who put himself through college by collecting trash and working in the university dining hall. and since that time, he has spent his career fighting for working families, protecting our important civil rights laws, and turning around troubled agencies. and, mr. president, there is no shortage of examples to demonstrate what an effective leader mr. perez has been throughout his career. he took on office of civil rights at h.h.s. that had been ignored and lifeless and breathed new life into it. he reformed and rebuilt the department of labor in maryland, and he walked into a very troubled civil rights division at d.o.j. and by all credible accounts, he returned

high-performance, professionalism, and integrity to that agency. so, mr. president, in a time when we need to do everything we can to protect and grow our shrinking middle class, mr. perez is exactly the right person for this job. because in tough times, while we are still recovering from recession, we need strong, experienced leadership at the department of labor, and my colleagues here today who support his nomination -- confirmation from both sides of the aisle are not alone. from his time working at the local and state and federal level, organizations from maryland and throughout our country have come out to strongly support him as well. and that includes organizations that represent women, the lgbt community, the hispanic community, and many, many more. and finally, mr. president, throughout his confirmation process, which at times has been very difficult, mr. perez has shown nothing but openness, transparency, respect, and the ability to work together and

solve problems. that is why i will vote to confirm him today, and i urge all of my colleagues to support his confirmation as well. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today to explain nigh vote against gina mccarthy, which we will cast later, either today or the first of the week, to be the administrator o of the environmental protection agency. my fight is not with her. my fight is truly with the agency trvetion th itself, the d the president who nominated her to head the agency. that night is not going to end with the senate's vote on ms. mccarthy's nomination. it won't stop there. the fight will continue until the e.p.a. stops its

overregulately rampage, and until the president comes up with a feasible policy that achieve real energy independence, which is what we all wish for. i don't want anyone to misunderstand me. i have serious disagreements with many of ms. mccarthy's views on energy and the environment. but i will say that i met her a couple of weeks ago. for the first time she came to my office and i found her to be pragmatic and incredibly intelligent. she dedicated her life to public service. she served under democrats and republicans. i appreciate her pragmatism, willingness to serve her country and stellar bipartisan credentials, an extremely rare quality in washington these days as you tphoefplt in -- as you k. it is not hard to imagine this same lady could have been nominated to be the e.p.a.

administrator if mitt romney would have won, by another president from another party. after all, she advised him on khreufp -- climate change when he was governor of massachusetts. my vote goes much deeper than her nomination. her views on energy, the environment or even her job performance for the last four years at the e.p.a.. my vote is the administration's lack of any serious attempt to develop an energy strategy for america's future. we need to adopt every source of american-made energy. coal, we need natural gas, nukes, wind and solar biomass. we need it all. we need to strike a balance between the environment and the economy. it is only common sense to use what you've got.

when we talk about an all in above policy that includes nuclear hydroelectric, biomass renewables, wind solar, fossil fuels including oil, natural gas and coal, i truly believe if we work together and focus on a commonsense approach, we can develop a strong bipartisan energy plan. such a plan would not only break the power of foreign oil countries and speculators, it would also chart a new and promising energy future for this great nation. increasing both our national security and prosperity, think about that. our national security and the prosperity of our country. the president often speaks about an all of the above energy policy, but i've got to tell you, mr. president, his new global climate proposal amounts to a true declaration of war on one of the above. a true declaration of war on coal. in fact, the president plans to use the e.p.a. to regulate the coal industry out of existence. now, mind you, the coal industry

in the united states of america, we burn about one billion tons of coal. there is eight billion tons of coal being burned in the world today. i don't believe that the wind currents or the ocean currents start and stop in north america. and if you stop burning every kind of coal and declare war on an economy, destroy people's lives and their jobs and their ability to take care of themselves, if you do it intentionally knowing there is going to be more coal burned in the world than ever before unregulated, we do it better than everybody else and can do it better if the government will work with us. that's all we're asking for is that partnership. it doesn't matter that much really who's sitting as the administrator of the e.p.a.. in fact, if the president plans to use the e.p.a. to regulate the coal industry out of existence it really doesn't matter. it could be mrs. mccarthy or someone else because it is the president who will be calling all the shots, and the

administration. that's my fight. and it's really a fight that i wish that we could sit down and work together. and it's a fight we cannot lose as the united states of america. there's too much at stake. coal is america's most abundant, most reliable and most affordable source of energy. in fact, coal keeps the lights on, providing nearly 40% of electricity in this country. 40%. almost half of the population of the united states of america depends on coal for their energy. it's really the source of energy that built america. it built factories, defended wars with guns and ships. it built it all. all we're asking is to have a partnership so we can continue to keep the lights on. with all the clean coal technologies we have today and we continue to do so for decades to come, we can use it in a way that strikes a balance between the environment and the economy. there should always be a

balance. it can't be all or nothing, which it seems like the extremes going on in this country today. you're either on the right or on the left. you're either absolutely for or absolutely against. there is never a compromising working: how can we make it work? there is nobody in west virginia that wants to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water. nobody wants to do that. we have a responsibility to do it better. in the last two to three decades we have cleaned up the environment more than ever in the history of this country. every president for the last 40 years has talked about how to end our country's addiction to foreign oil in order to achieve energy independence. we know our dependence on oil has taken us to places in the world and wars on the world that have sacrificed american men and women. the resources of this great country, precious resources of our people and our dollars, fighting wars we shouldn't be in because of our dependence on foreign oil. if we stop demonizing one energy

resource -- and i really do mean demonizing it -- when people say i hate this or i hate that or i can't stand this, you know what? turn the lights off. turn the air conditioning off. turn it all off and see how well you like it or you don't like it. if we start using all our resources, we can once and for all end our dependence on foreign oil. if we end our dependence, we'll be a stronger nation. we'll be a much more secure nation. and we can do that within this generation and keep our country more secure and our economy producing jobs for generations to come. mr. president, all i ask for is common sense, a level playing field. i ask for my government, this beautiful country of ours, to be my partner, to be west virginia's partner and work with us. thank you, mr. president. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr mr. alexander: mr. president? mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thanks, mr. president. later today we will vote in the senate on the question of whether the president's nomination of thomas perez to be

the secretary of labor should be confirmed. i will vote "no." i will vote against the confirmation of mr. perez. i do not believe he's the right man for this job. the secretary of labor has immense influence over the lives of workers and the conduct of business in today's economy. employees, employers, unions must be able to trust that the secretary will faithfully and impartially execute our nation's labor laws. in a time when the official unemployment rate stands at 7.6%, meaning millions of americans are loork for work and can't find it, at a time when there is a growing gap between our workers' skills and needs, we need serious leadership, we need someone who knows how to create an environment in which the largest number of americans can find good, new jobs. we need leadership that is committed to working in the best interest of the country. unfortunately, i don't believe mr. perez meets that standard. mr. perez's life story is one

with many worthy accomplishments, with public service, devotion to representing disadvantaged individuals. i commend him for that. but he has demonstrated throughout his career that he's willing to, in his words, to push the envelope to advance his ideology. i believe there are three significant problems with mr. perez's nomination. enumber one, his record raises troubling questions about his actions while at the department of justice, in my view, and his candor in discussing his actions with the committee. the inspector general recently publish add detailed report that discussed problems in the voting rights section. it talked about a politically charged atmosphere of polar poef polarization. mr. perez has administered that section since 2009. hthe report talked about blatantly partisan political commentary. it specifically criticized the management of the department and

mr. perez's actions while at the department. when questioned about members of our health, education, labor, and pensions committee, mr. perez's answers were vague and nonrespoon sivment number two, reserve a favorite legal theory. mr. perez orchestrate add quid pro quo arrangement between the department of justice and the city of st. paul in which the department agreed to drop two cases in exchange for the city withdrawing a case. the mangor case before the supreme court. his perez's involvement in this whole deal seems to me to be an extraordinary amount of wheeling and dealing outside what should be the normal responsibilities of the assistant attorney general for civil rights. to obtain his desired results, mr. perez reached outside of his civil rights division at the department of justice into the minnesota u.s. attorneys' office and into the department of housing and urban development. this exchange cost american

taxpayers the opportunity potentially to recover millions of dollars, and more importantly violated the trust whistle-blowers place in the federal government. this testimony has been contested by others. in short, it seems to me that mr. perez did not discharge the duty he owed to the government to try to collect the money towed taxpayers. he did not discharge the duty to protect the whistle-blowers who were left hanging in the wind. and at the same time he was manipulating the legal process to real estate move a case from the supreme court in a way that is appropriate for the assistant attorney general of the united states. number three, mr. perez used a private e-mail account to leak nonpublic information, which is troubling to me. federal officials in this administration seem to have a penchant for this, using private e-mails to conduct official business. the federal records act is designed to ensure that the government is held accountable to the american people and to

prevent the opportunity for a shadow government to operate outside of the normal channels of oversight. using personal e-mails robs the nation of the ability to know that the government is behaving appropriately. since mr. perez apparently going to be confirmed, despite my vote, i hope that he will pledge to stop using personal e-mails to conduct official business. for these three reasons, i cannot support mr. perez's confirmation. i will support, have supported the president's right to have an up-and-down vote on his cabinet members. i always have. so i voted for cloture. what we've seen over the last several weeks -- and i believe the reason the senate did not come to a screeching halt this week -- is there's a widespread misunderstanding about what senate republicans have done with respect to president obama's nominees for the cabinet. the reality is, republicans have respected the right of the president to are -- to staff his

cabinet. never in our nation's history has the senate blocked a cabinet official from confirmation by a filibuster. let me say that again. the number of presidential nominees for cabinet in our nation's history who've been denied his or her seat by a filibuster, by a failed cloture vote, is zero. and "the washington post" and the congressional research service have said that president obama's cabinet appointees in the second term are moving through the senate at about the same rate as president george w. bush and president clinton. now, senators on both sides of the aisle have a long history of using the constitutional authority for advise and consent to ask questions. we've done that in the health, education, labor, and pensions committee with mr. perez for the last 120 days.

we have historical right and we've exercised it in a bipartisan way to use our right to ask for 60 votes in order to advance our views. that's a part of the characteristic of the united states senate. but it's important to know that these fairy tales that have been suggested about republicans somehow blocking president obama's nominees are just that. i would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record at the end of my remarks an op-ed i wrote for th "the washington times" yesterday with the details of that. it pointed out that most of this week's nuclear option debate about whether senators should be permitted to filibuster presidential nominees was not about filibusters; it was instead about whether a majority of senators should be able to change the rules of the senate

any time for any purpose. former senator arthur vandenburg once offered the idea, "if a majority of the senate can change the rules at any time, the senate has no rules." in other words, all of this fuss was a power grab. in fact, most of the filibustering that's been done to deny presidents their opportunity to appoint or to nominate has been done by our friends on the other side. some meninged earlier the number of -- some mentioned earlier the number of cabinet members have been denied their seats by a filibuster is zero. the number of district judges who have been denied that i remember seats by filibuster is zero. the number of supreme court justices who've been denied their seats by a filibuster is zero. there is the indent in 1968 when president johnson engineered an opportunity for abe forefoes get a 45-43 vote so he could feel

better about staying on the court after a majority of the senate wasn't going to nominate him -- or confirm him for supreme court. but throughout our history, the right for advise and consent has been exercised by majority vote, even in the most controversial cases. the vote on clarence thomas for supreme court was a majority vote. the vote to deny robert bork an opportunity to go to the supreme court was a majority vote. there's -- while there never has been a supreme court nominee blocked by a filibuster, about a quarter of all the supreme court nominees have been blocked by majority vote. so elections have consequences, and i respect that, whether it is a republican or a democrat. the only exception has been for the categories i mentioned -- supreme court justice, district judge, a cabinet member, and circuit appellate judgesdo judg.

the only exception was in 2003, the about the time came to the senate, the democrats for the first time in history, the first time in history, filibustered 10 of president george w. bush's nominees. that produced republicans who wanted to change the rules of the senate and fortunately cooler heads prevailed. but five republican judges, very meritorious people such as miguel he i estrada, a real tra, were denyinged their seat by a filibuster. so the usual and expected happened. republicans have since denied two democratic seats by filibuster. so my preference is much that presidents have the opportunity to appoint their cabinet members to appoint their supreme court justices and if we don't like them, we can vote against them. there are occasions with subcabinet members where they have been denied their seats. the total number is, i think, seven -- all since 1994, and

there may be more again. and a simple motion to objection by republicans to the majority leader's motion to cut off debate may simply mean that we want more information. it doesn't mean we're entitled to, as in the case of senator hagel, the majority leader sought to cut off debate two days after his nomination came to the floor. we voted, no, we're not ready to vote off debate and then ten days later we voted to confirm senator hagel. so i'm glad this week that the senate regained its equilibrium and stopped this talk of creating the senate as a body where a majority of the senate can change the rules at any time, which would make this a senate without any rules. and i hope we don't hear any more about it, because that's not appropriate. it's not appropriate in this body. john adams, thomas jefferson, george washington, senator reid himself, others have said that

this body is different. it's a place where you have to come to a consensus. we're coming to one, for example, on student loans today. the president made a good recommendation to solve the student loan problem on a permanent basis. the house of representatives passed something much like the president's, and hopefully we can do that later today. so, mr. president, i believe the president deserves an up-or-down vote on his nominee for the secretary of labor and his nominee for any other cabinet member. but in this case, for the reasons i stated, i'm voting "no" on confirmation. i see the senator from georgia is here. i ask consent that the remainder of my remarks be included in the record, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, before tennessee leaves the floor, i want to commend him on his activities over the last

eight days. we came from the brink in a second time in a decade in making a bad mistake in the united states senate. senator alexander proved facts are stubborn things. if you read history in the united states senate you understand there is a purpose for the cloture rule, a purpose for filibuster. but there is also a purpose for being judicious in its use and i commend the senator on his history lesson, his personal experience as going through the process when he was nominated as secretary of education and i appreciate his leadership on the committee of health, education, labor and pensions. i will be brief, but i want to speak about the nomination of thomas perez. you know, the labor department is an important department in the united states of america, and jobs are an important need we have in this country. we need an aggressive leader at the department of labor trying to get workforce investment act pass, get people trained, get wrongs righted, trying to be a leader. we don't need one though throw up stumbling blocks to progress,

jobs and business. thomas perez has a history of using desperate impact to enforce or move towards where he wants to go in terms of the regulation he's had responsibility for in the past, namely, at the department of justice. desperate impact is where you take unrelated facts, pull them together to get a pattern of practice and make a case against somebody that because of those desperate facts you think could draw a conclusion they discriminated, overcharged, redlined or whatever it might be. desperate impact is a very difficult thing to use. it's an even more difficult thing to defend yourself against and it would be the wrong way to run the department of labor. we know from thomas perez's experience in st. paul, minnesota, with the whistle-blower that his use of desperate impact caused him to work with the city of st. paul to deny a whistle-blower what he deserved in terms of his rights and the american people in terms of what they deserve, being respwursed for money -- reimbursed for money lost because of the whistle-blower actions. it is important to understand

the department of labor is a job creator. not intimidator. we have had problems with the fiduciary rule, a rule that if put in place would cause the american saver, small saver and small investor, would deny them investment advice or cause them to pay so much for advice that the cost for that advice would be more than the yield on the investment they had. that would be the wrong thing to do. i fear perez would degenerate the fiduciary rule. going back to desperate impact with the regulation of osha, msha, all the things done by the department of to, begin to use desperate impact as a pattern of practice to enforce mine safety laws, occupational safety lawyers or any other type of laws which are very definitive in the way they should be enforced would be the wrong direction to go. most importantly of all, the nomination of thomas perez demonstrates why it is important to have cloture, why the filibuster used judiciously and timely can be a benefit to the

united states senate. i want to enter into the record and ask unanimous consent from the chair to enter into the record a letter from july 8, 2013, from the chairman of the government operations and oversight committee in the house of representatives, darrell issa. this letter demonstrates that mr. perez as of that date still failed to comply completely with a subpoena issued on april 10, 2013, for information to be considered. i recognize mr. issa is not a member of the united states senate, but he is the head of government oversight and relations in the united states house of representatives. he deserves to be responded to, and we deserve to know the facts. i attended the hearing in st. paul, minnesota, and the whistle-blower there, mr. newell when i went to the house two months ago. i know there are unanswered questions and the american people deserve them. cloture should be used judiciously but this is a time, the reason i voted no on cloture last night is because this is a time we need all the answers. this is an appointee whose record demonstrates he may be

dangerous for the department of labor, not positive. i think it is important when used judiciously we get the answers people need to know so when we vote to approve or deny an appointee it is based on all the facts, not based on intimidation but all the facts the american people deserve. for that reason i will oppose the nomination today of thomas perez to be the secretary of labor for the united states of america, and i yield back my time. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to address two topics. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. barrasso: within the hour president obama is going to be delivering remarks about his health care law. i'd like for all americans to pay close attention to the president's remarks and see if he continues to make promises that he knows that he can't keep. is he going to once again say that if you like what you have, you can keep it? well, if so, we know that that' not true. just ask the unions who recently wrote a letter to majority leader reid and to nancy pelosi about how this law is not allowing them to keep the insurance that they have. is the president going to call it affordable and say again that premiums will decrease an average of $2,500 per family? if so, we know that's not true. just ask the folks in ohio where the average individual market health insurance premium in 2014 is going to cost about 88% more. is the president going to say again that the law is working as it's supposed to work? well, if so, we know that's not true.

just ask the administration why they decided to delay the disastrous employer mandate that's making it harder for employers to hire new workers and for americans to find full-time jobs. is the president going to say this law is good for young americans? if so, we know that's not true. ask the young healthy adults who see insurance rates double or even triple when they look to buy individual coverage starting next year. it's time for the president to level with the american people. this law has been bad for patients. it's been bad for providers and people that take care of those patients -- the nurses and doctors. and it's terrible for taxpayers. we need to repeal this law and replace it with real reforms that help americans get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. mr. president, the second topic i would like to address is the issue of energy and a national energy tax which the president essentially proposed in his june 25 speech. at that time he unveiled what i believe is a national energy tax

that's going to discourage job creation and increase energy bills for american families. this announcement he made about existing power plants -- existing power plants -- came after the administration has already moved forward with excessive red tape that makes it harder and more expensive for america to produce energy. it also came as a complete surprise to members of the senate, especially since gina mccarthy, the president's nominee to lead the environmental protection agency, a nominee who we will be voting on today, since that nominee told congress that it wasn't going to happen. she is currently the assistant administrator of the air and radiation office at the e.p.a.. here's what she told the senate about regulations on existing power plants, the ones the president talked about on june 25. she said -- quote -- "the agency is not currently developing any existing source greenhouse gas

regulations for power plants." none. as a result she said, "we have performed no analysis that would identify specific health benefits from establishing an existing source program." so i would say it's clear with president obama's june 25 announcement on existing power plants that gina mccarthy is either out of the loop or out of control. she either didn't tell the truth to the senate in confirmation hearings in response to questions or she doesn't know what's going on in her own agency. either way, she is not the person to lead the e.p.a.. i would encourage all of my colleagues to oppose mccarthy and her nomination. now, this has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with having an agency that's accountable to elected representatives of the american people. this behavior, i believe, is indicative of the way the e.p.a.

has been run during gina mccarthy reign as the assistant administrator of the e.p.a.. many of my colleagues on the senate environment and public works committee have expressed concerns with the lack of transparency of this specific agency. one of the major areas of concern is the use of the so-called sue-and settle-tactics. this is where environmental activist groups sue the e.p.a. or they sue other federal agencies to make policy. often they find like-minded colleagues and allies in the e.p.a.. here's how it works. if environmental activists want to impose new restrictions on, say, farms, it's easy to sue the government to impose those restrictions. the e.p.a., rather than fight the restrictions, they agree to the, to this and they say, okay, we'll do a court settlement. the e.p.a. doesn't contest the new restrictions because the e.p.a. wanted them in the first place. the agency just didn't want to have to go through a lengthy

rule making progress with public comments in the light of day. the judge signs off on the agreement and in a matter of weeks the law is made. so i asked the nominee until writing, do you believe sue-and-settle agreements are an open and transparent way to make public policy that significantly impacts americans? she stated in her answer -- quote -- "i recognize that this committee has focused many of its questions on e.p.a. settlement practices." she said, "and if confirmed, i commit to learning more, learning more about the agency's practices in settling litigation across its program areas." some of the most egregious sue-and-settle agreements have dealt with the clean air act and she has been in charge of the air office at e.p.a. for almost all of president obama's first term. i find it very difficult to believe, mr. president, that she didn't know what was going on. in fact, in answering my next

question to her, i said, "do you believe that states and communities impacted by sue-and-settle agreements should have a say in court agreements that might severely impact them?" she said "most litigation against e.p.a. arises under the clean air act." of course. so my question is either she knew what was dpg on with regard to the -- going on with regard to the clean air act lawsuits or she doesn't know what's going on in her own department. once again, either way, such a person should not be confirmed to be in charge of the entire e.p.a. now, as most folks know, my home state, wyoming, is a coal state. this administration has actively sought to eliminate this industry from the american economy. it's no surprise to some that many of us coal state colleagues fight vigorously to oppose the president's anticoal policies.

ms. mccarthy has been the president's field general inempt imling these policies, and these policies greatly affect families all across wyoming and across the country. so even though i strongly oppose these policies, i still wanted to meet with the nominee so that i could explain to her just how this administration's policies are hurting real people in my home state and across the country. i believe that if we had a face-to-face meeting, i might be are able to convince her to alter or alleviate the worst impacts of the policies pursued by this administration through the e.p.a. in that personal meeting with me, the nominee was very sympathetic with the concerns that i and others have expressed with regarding the impact of e.p.a. religions on jobs. she also expressed that she would look for flexibility but she was fortunately bound by agency processes and the law. if she's concerned with the impact that e.p.a. religions are having on jobs and communities,

i believe thi that she should he sought the flexibility she needed from congress to help save these communities and jobs sm.in a follow-up, i asked in writing, what regulations would you recommend to protect workers, to protect fathers to protect communities from job losses that might occur as a result of e.p.a. religions? we will, what she stated was, "very sensitive to the state of the economy and to the impacts of e.p.a. regulations on jobs." and then, "if confirmed, i would continue to work had ard to seek opportunities to find more cost-effective approaches to protecting human health in the environment. requestings "this administration has pummeled coal country, power plants, manufacturing, and small businesses for four years, pursuing their preferred version of a clean energy future. since 2509, unemployment has remained stagnant.

nearly 10% of our coal energy capacity is gone. not once has ms. mccarthy approached congress for flexibility in implementing her own rules. i see no reason why that would happen in the future. i would like to commend e.p.w. rank member senator vitter for leading our effort to secure information from the nominee. i signed the letter along with senator vitter and other members of the e.p.w. committee seeking access to the scientific data and the reasoning behind the justification for expensive new rules and regulations that hurt the economy, that cost jobs, seeking true, whole economy modeling on apse clean air act regulations so we can understand the true cost of these rules, and also seeking an assurance that gina mccarthy and this administration honor its commitment to transparency and stop using delay tactics to keep

the true cost of these regulations from the american people. well, senator vitter a was ableo get some information on many our requests. it was not easy. and the nominee was not entirely forthcoming. i can assure the administration that none of us who signed that letter making these requests plan on giving up on securing basic information that should be readily available to the public. mr. president, gina mccarthy is the wrong candidate to head the environmental protection agency. america deserves better. i would ask that my colleagues oppose this nomination, not on the content of this administration's policies but on the actions of this specific nominee with regard to accountability, competence, and transparency. i believe this nominee gets a failing grade on all three counts. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: morning business is disclosed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of labor, thomas edward perez of maryland to be secretary. mr. lee: plap? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i rise today to voice my strong opposition to the nomination of thomas e. perez to be the secretary of the u.s. department of labor. sumly putsimply put, there's noe of reasons why mr. perez should not be confirmed ae as our next labor secretary. several of my colleagues have discussed a number of troubling fablghtfacts about mr. perez's troubling history, one one enough to disqualify him for this nomination. i'd like to discuss just a few that are of significant concern to me. without question, mr. perez has

abused his position as assistant doarng oveattorney general overl rights division at the u.s. department of justice. rather than seek out social injustice, mr. perez has turned the office into his own personal tool of political activism, something that that office was never meant to accomplish. for example, a report you shalled by the department of justice's office of inspector general found that during perez's tenure at the civil rights division, employees harassed colleagues for their religious and their political beliefs and despite having little, if any, evidence of racial discrimination, mr. perez has repeatedly opposed efforts by states to ensure the integrity of elections. under his direction, the i feel sits division has pursued frivolous lawsuits against state voter i.d. laws, has ignored statutes that require states to

purge ineligible voters and has slow-walked attempts to protect the voting rights of our military members, our brave men and women serving in uniform for the united states. while head of the civil rights division, mr. perez's unit used spurious and misleading claims to enforce laws that target certain groups. most troubling is the fact that mr. perez has willfully disregarded a lawful subpoena from the house committee on oversight and government reform to produce certain documents relating to the use of his nonofficial e-mail account for official purposes. according to the chairman of that committee, "mr. perez has not produced a single document responsive to the committee's subpoena and remainsman compliant." at a minimum, this is a basic

violation of the rule of law and impedes a fundamental function that the legislate branch provide oversight. anyone showing this type of ambivalent toward america's principles of representative government should not be considered for a top post in any administration. i therefore, mr. president, strongly advise my colleagues to raise similar objections not to support this nominee and whenever someone comes up as nominated by this president or any president who possesses and displays these characteristic i guess sticks that are so troubling. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? thank you, mr. president. i have eight unanimous requests for committees to meet during

today's session of the senate. blawm blawm they havmr. blumente approval of the minority and majority leaders. i ask that these requested be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am here to speak on behalf of my good friend, gina mccarthy, and her nomination to head the environmental protection agency. but before i do so, i'd like to raise an issue that i raised during a hearing of the armed services committee. i have come directly from that hearing, and i am here really to express my deep dissatisfaction, in fact my outrage at a form of military assistance that will literally waste a total of more than $1 billion in taxpayer

money. in fact, we have just contracted and announced that contract in june for about 30 russian mi-17 helicopters that will cost american taxpayers $550 million to buy from the russian government. those helicopters for the afghan national forces that lack pilots and maintenance personnel to fly and repair and operate those helicopters. they will be sitting on the runways of afghan airfields without any use, rusting, literally wasting american taxpayer funds.

now, don't believe me when i make these statements. these fablghts come from the special inspector general for afghanistan, who completed a report recently stating succinctly, clearly, irrefutably that we are wasting $1 billion in taxpayer buying russian helicopters for afghan national forces that very simply cannot use them. in fact, we've committed to that contract before we even have a status of forces agreement with the afghanistan government when we will be leaving that country in 2014, fortunately. and if we can leave sooner, all the better. but in the meantime, we are buying equipment from the russian export agency that is at the same time selling arms to

assad in syria for the murder and slaughter of his own people, making money from those sales to assad in syria, and from the government that is harboring and providing refuge to edward snow deny. -- edward know shehad edward snowds allegedly violated american law in disdisclosings secrets from our government. last week i visited a national guard helicopter repair facility in connecticut where over 100 technicians, to be precise, 137 technicians, civilian employees at this facility alone have been furloughed. they are furloughed 11 days. it was originally 22, but it's been reduced to 11.

and our helicopter repair functioning in that region and similarly across the country has been hampered and impeded because of the sequester and the impact in requiring furloughs. our military readiness is suffering because of lack of funds on the part of the united states government when we're at the same time buying russian helicopters that will have no use for the afghan government and, in fact, they have no pilots to fly or repairs to maintain. something is wrong with this picture. and yet in the hearing that i have just left, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, maintained to me his view that a waiver should be exercised under the national

defense authorization act providing for the purchase of these russian helicopters. i respectfully disagree. i strongly disagree. and i think that american taxpayers, certainly my fellow residents of connecticut, ought to be equally outraged. wished bwe should be outraged is body when we are wasting that money when precious funding could used for our armed forces. and i ask my colleagues to join me in saying to our united states military leaders that our national security is imperiled not by refusing to sell those helicopters but, in fact, by wasting taxpayer money on those

purchases for an afghan army that can't use them and for purchases from a country that certainly means us no good, and in fact an export agency that is selling arms to a murderous government and harboring an individual who has violated our laws and endanger the our national security. i will not lt this matter rest. i will not let this issue go. i intend to pursue it. i ask my colleagues to join me in making sure that we stop these sales. in fact, senator ayotte and i have a bill which is called no contracting with the enemy, to expand very useful contracting tools that now apply in

afghanistan where we have found our aid and assistance finding its way to enemy hands. and i can't think of a more blatant example of contracting with the enemy than handing over our taxpayer money to a company that is at the very same time selling sp*-300 air -- selling s-300 air defense systems to the syrian government for use against its own people and violating international sanctions by helping iran with that missile equipment. i want to turn, phr*, -- i want to turn, mr. president, now to the reason i came to the floor, having just left that armed services hearing, to speak on behalf of my very good friend, gina mccarthy. i worked with gina mccarthy over a number of years when she was in fact not only a fellow state official -- i was then state attorney general -- but

also a client, because i was her lawyer. and i came to know her in a way that i think is very rare for any public official to know another. seeing her in times of crisis and public policy opportunity. the ups and the downs of public service. and i came to know her as a pragmatic person of consummate intelligence and integrity, really an environmental protector for all seasons. not a partisan by any stretch of the imagination. there may be individuals who are more aggressive in the enforcement of environmental laws. there may be people who are more solicitous of economic progress and job creation, but i don't know -- and i certainly know no

one who strikes the balance and seeks both goals of job creation along with economic growth and environmental protection with such zeal and passion and great good humor. i've said before on this floor, and i will say it again, gina mccarthy knows how to bring people together. she knows how to work for a common goal. we should seize this moment as a body to expand and enhance the bipartisan spirit of this past week and approve gina mccarthy overwhelmingly because she epitomizes the kind of bipartisan spirit that we should seek to grow and attract in our federal government; in fact, in all levels of government. let me give you just a few khapl

skpapl pels. -- a few examples. senator murphy last night spoke about a few of her accomplishments but there are many more, and maybe most importantly which i don't think has been given enough attention on the floor, her work in designing, building and implementing the northeast pioneering cap-and-trade program known as the regional greenhouse gas initiative, rggi. nine states currently participate in rggi: connecticut, delaware, maine, massachusetts, new york, rhode island and vermont. it's a highly innovative program. it's a model for the nation and the world. a report issued in 2012 estimates that rggi investments will offset the need for more than 27 million megawatt-hours of electricity generation and 26.7 million british thermal

units of energy generation. these savings will help avoid the emission of 12 million short tons of carbon dioxide pollution and amount equivalent to taking two million passenger vehicles off the road for one year. the numbers fail to tell the whole story about the environmental impact, but also about gina mccarthy's role in bringing together republican and democrat governors for a common good, what she will do in this country for environmental protection, what she has already done in her role at the e.p.a.. under her guidance, the state of connecticut settled a clean air act suit against ohio edison on july 11, 2005; again, requiring pollution reduction consistent with business needs and goals. she settled a citizen suit

against american electric power on december 13, 2007, dramatic reduction in nitrogen oxide and tons of sulfur dioxide. these clean air act suits, which i assisted her in bringing to conclusion, i think embody her goal of reducing air contamination and pollution consistent with the business community's concern for its bottom line. and she's sensitive to both. she is remarkable for her professionalism, for her zeal and passion as an environmental protector, but also for her willingness to listen. her willingness to hear and really listen to people sitting

across the table that may come into the room with different and sometimes conflicting views, and come to a common coon -- common conclusion. she knows how to get to yes, and she does it as a tough, fair, balanced environmental law enforcer. so i hope that my colleagues will join me in my enthusiasm, because the president couldn't have picked a more qualified person. gina mccarthy is as good as it gets in public service. she is as good as it gets for integrity and intellect and dedication to the public good. and i hope that we will move forward today as united as possible, carrying forward the great bipartisan spirit that has

characterized these last few days here in our consideration of the president's nominees. and i hope will be enhanced and continue as we move forward today. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, in a few minutes president obama is scheduled to give a major speech highlighting what he believes are the achievements of his signature health care law, the affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare. i can understand why he's feeling a little defensive and why he feels like he needs to frame the discussion, because after all, obamacare has disappointed some of its most ardent reformer supporters. for example, back in 2009 and 2010, american labor unions were among the biggest supporters of

the president's health care plan. now, along with many of my friends across the aisle, they're having second thoughts and in some cases buyer's remorse. last month james hof iffa, joseh hanson and donald sterling sent a letter to senator reid and former speaker pelosi. here's what they -- part of what they wrote. they said when you and the president sought our support for the affordable care act, you pledged if we like the health plans we have now, we could keep them. sadly, that promise is under threat. picking up on this chart, they went on to say, "right now, unless you and the obama administration enact an

equitable fix, the a.c.a., affordable care act, will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class." they went on to say, "the unintended consequences of the affordable care act are severe. perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios. the law as it stands will hurt millions of americans." mr. president, obamacare has been controversial since its passage in 2010. some members of congress voted for it. obviously the democratic majority voted for it. some people voted against it, people like me in the republican minority. but whether you supported the law with the hopes and aspirations that it would

somehow be the panacea or answer to our health care needs in this country or whether you were a skeptic like me who believed that this could not possibly work, the fact of the matter seems to be as these labor leaders have said that it *6 --t has not met expectation and created many problems that need to be addressed. this same letter went on to detail some of the nightmare scenarios that these labor leaders have concerns about. it pointed out that many businesses are cutting full-time employment back to part-time in order to avoid the employer mandate. as i mentioned yesterday, the number of people working part time for economic reasons has jumped from 7.6 million to 8.2 million, just between march and june. in fact, last month alone that number increased 322,000. and a new survey reports that in

response to obamacare, nearly three out of every four small businesses are going to reduce hiring, reduce worker hours or replace full-time employees with part-time employees. we know the president has unilaterally decided to delay the imposition of the employer mandate until 2015, but that doesn't really change a lot. these businesses have to plan for the future, and small businesses still have the same perverse incentives to limit the hiring of full-time workers, as these labor leaders point out. the employer mandate is just one reason why obamacare needs to be repealed entirely and replaced with something better, as these leaders say in their letter, the law as it stands will hurt millions of americans. we've already seen its effect on job creation not just with the employer mandate, but also with the medical device tax that has

prompted many companies, including those in texas, to simply grow their businesses in places like costa rica where they can avoid that medical device tax rather than in my state or other states that have medical device companies. it's also caused these companies to close factories and cancel plans for new ones here in the united states. and we've also seen as these leaders point out that obamacare will disrupt americans' existing health care arrangements. as they point out in their letter, one of the promises that the president made was that if you like what you have, you can keep it. but in fact, that's not proven to be true. indeed, my constituents are already giving their letters from health care providers and informing them their current policies are no longer going to be available because of the implementation of obamacare. millions of people will

eventually have that same experience according to the congressional budget office. and why have we made this huge shift in one-sixth of our economy? what was the goal of the proponents of this piece of legislation? well, what we were told is that it was universal coverage, there were too many people who didn't have health care coverage. but as for this promise of universal coverage, i'm afraid that's another broken promise as well. according to the congressional budget office, even if obamacare is fully implemented on schedule, there will still be 31 million people in america without health insurance by the year 2023. so even though the proponents of obamacare said we need to do this, as expensive as it is, as disruptive as it is to the existing health care arrangements, we need to do this because everybody will be covered. that promise is not going to be

kept either. let me just repeat, 13 years after the passage of obamacare, america will still have 31 million uninsured. many of the newly insured under obamacare will be covered by medicaid, a dysfunctional program that is already failing its intended beneficiaries. now i perhaps unwisely decide during the markup of the affordable care act in the senate finance committee to offer an amendment that said members of congress will henceforth be put on medicaid. and i told my colleagues that i knew that if congress was covered by medicaid, that we would do our dead-level best to fix it, because as it exists now it is a dysfunctional program. it is dysfunctional for this reason: giving people coverage is not the same thing as access. many medicaid recipients have a very hard time finding doctors

who will accept medicaid coverage because the program reimburses providers at such low rates. in my state it is about 50 cents on the dollar as compared to private coverage. in my state of texas, fewer than one-third of physicians will accept a new medicaid patient, and many of them are simply accepting no new medicaid patients. most texas physicians believe that medicaid is broken and should not be used as a mechanism to expand coverage, certainly if it is not fixed an reford, which it needs to be. by relying on medicaid as one of the primary vehicles for reducing the number of uninsured? eric in, the affordable care act will make the program even more fragile and weaker and less effective at securing dependable health care for the poor and the disabled, the very people i.t. designed to protect.

we also have good reason to fear that obamacare's medicaid expansion will reduce labor force participation. a new national bureau of economic research paper argues that obamacare may cause substantial declines in aggregate employment. rather than expand and damage an already broken system, the federal government should give each state more flexibility to manage the medicare dollars that come from washington so they can provide better value for recipients and taxpayers. right now state policy-makers can't manage medicaid without first going through a complicated waver process and obtaining federal approval. too many strings attached. ideally, washington would give each state a lump sum, a block grant, full, as well as freedom to devise programs that work best in their states and for the population covered. meanwhile, we should adopt

health care reforms that would make health care more affordable and accessible to everyone. for example, equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance for employers and individuals, expanding access to tax-free health savings accounts so people can save their money and if they don't use it on health care, they can use it for other purposes, like retirement. we should let people in businesses form risk pools in the individual market, including across state lines. we should improve price and quality transparency. one of the most amazing forces in economics is consumer choice and transparency and competition. it's called the free enterprise system, and we see it at play in the medicare part-d program, for example, one of the most successful government health care programs devised. now, we made a mistake when we passed medicaipassed medicare pe

it was not paid for. it enjoys great satisfaction among its beneficiaries -- seniors -- who have access to prescription drugs, some of them for the first time. but the reason why it has come in 40% under cost is because companies have to compete nor that business and what they do is they compete, as they always do in the marketplace, by competing on price and quality of service. and we get the benefit of that market discipline. we also need to address frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, something wye my state has done at the state level, which has made medical malpractice insurance more affordable and which has caused many, many doctors to move to texas who otherwise might not have come there, providing greater access to health care. as i said, we also need to allow the interstate -- intrastate

sale of health insurance policies. there is no reason i shouldn't be able to buy a health insurance policy in virginia if it seats my needs better than one available in texas. why would we not allow that? and again why would we not want the best of the competition and the benefits to the consumer. we also need to boost support for state high-risk pools to protect americans with preexisting conditions. now, this is one of the reasons why the president and other proponents of obamacare said we have to have obamacare, because we need to deal with preexisting conditions. and we do. but we can do it a lot cheaper and a lot more efficiently by using federal support for existing state preexisting condition high-risk pools. we don't have to take the whole 2,700-page piece of legislation that cost us several trillion dollars many we can do it much cheaper and efficiently. and finally, mr. president, we need to save medicaid by

expanding patient choice and provider competition. these policies would allow us to expand quality insurance coverage and improve access to quality health care, without disrupting people's existing health care arrangements, without discouraging work and job creation, and without raising taxes on medical innovation, and without weakening medicare and medicaid. mr. president, the chairman of the senate finance committee, one of the principal senate architects for the affordable care act, famously described the implementation of obamacare as a train wreck. these three leaders of american labor would agree, and they also have warned us that unless we fix it, it would destroy the very health and well-being of millions of hardworking americans.

so, mr. president, it is time for us to rack knowledg acknowly that whether you were a proponent and voted for obamacare, or whether you were a skeptic that it would actually work, i think we need to deal with the harsh reality and the facts that exist. so it's time for democrats, including the president, to work with us to replace obamacare with better alternatives. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. wemr. kaine: 40 years ago this week the senate passed the war powers resolution of 1973. the resolution was passed in a time of great controversy during the waning days of the vietnam war. the purpose of the resolution was to formalize a regular

consultaive process between congress and the president on the most momentous decision made by our nation's government:twhoaj engage in military action. the question of executive and legislative powers regarding war power date back to the constitution of 1787. article 1, section 8, of the constitution provides that congress shall have the power to declare war. article 2, section 2, of the constitution provides that the president is the commander in chief of the nation's armed forces. in the 226 years since the constitution was adopted, the powers of the respective branches in matters of war have been hotly debated. in a letter between two virginians in 1798, james madison explained to thomas jefferson, "the constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most

interested in war and most prone to it. it is accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature." madison's definitive statement notwithstanding the intervening history has been anything but definitive. academics and public officials have advanced differing interpretations of the constitutional division of power. there's no clear historical precedent in which all agree that the legislative and executive branches have exercised those powers in a consistent and accepted way, and the courts have not provided clear guidance to settle war powers questions. some facts, however, are very clear. the united states congress has only formally declare war five times. in many othe other instances, congress has taken steps to authorize support or fund military action or presidents

have initiated military action without prior approval from congress. congress supposed 40 years ago that the war powers resolution of 1973 would resolve many of these questions and establish a formal process of constitution n on the decision to initiate military action. but this was not the case. president nixon vetoed the resolution and while congress overrode the veto, no administration has accepted the constitutionality of the resolution. most recently, president obama initiated american involvement in a civil war in libya without congressional approval. the house of representatives rebuked the president for that action in 2011. but the seine sewer rang somewhat hallow because most scholars accept that it is an violation of the separation of doctrines. so what does this matter?

we are in the 12th year of war. the attack on our country by terrorists on september 11, 2001 was followed one week later by the passage of an authorization for use of military force that is still in force today. the authorization is broadly worded and both the bush and obama administrations have given it an even broader interpretation. in recent hearings before the senate armed services committee, administration officials expressed the opinion that the authorization of accep septembe, 2001, might justify military action for another 25-30 years in regions spread across the globe against individuals not yet born or organizations not yet formed on 9/11. this was likely not contemplated by congress or the american public in 2001.

congress is currently grappling with the status of the authorization and whether it should be continued, repealed, or revised. we face immediate decisions about the reduction of american troops in afghanistan and the size of a residual presence we'll leave in that country to support the afghan national security forces. we're wrestling with the scope of national security programs that were adopted in furtherance of the authorization, and we're engaged in serious discussion about new challenges from the rebellion in syria to growing nuclear threats in iran and north korea. all of these issues are very hard. mr. president, i recently returned from a trir trip to the middle east, a mosquito dell sponsored by senator cornyn and accompanying us were senators mccain and graham. in turkey and jordan we heard about the atrocities committed

by the assad regime in syria and the flood of refugees pouring into those neighboring countries. in afghanistan, we met with our troops and heard about the slow transition from nato forces to after gang security. in the united arab emirates, we discussed the growing threat of iran throughout the region. and we stopped at a medical center in germany to visit -- mr. reid: mr. president? i'm going to ask through you to my friend from virginia if i could interrupt his speech for purposes of doing a consent agreement. we have an agreement as to when we plod with votes. and if that would be okay with him, i would do that. i would ask if in fact he agrees to that, the senator from virginia, if he agrees to that, what i would ask is that his statement not appear interrupted in the record. kennebunkpormr. k aivment ne: n.

mr. reid: i ask that the vote on perez for secretary of labor occur at 2:15 p.m. today. the motion be laid on the table, no further motions be in order, any reemented statements be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. further, following disposition of the perez nomination, the time until 2:30 today equally divided in the usual form prior to the cloture vote on the mccarthy nomination. i would ask -- that's my consent agreement. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, while i'm -- while i have the floor, i want the record to reflect how fortunate the state of virginia should be for the work done by this good man. we have really a good situation

with our delegation from virginia, two governors, former governors. they're both such outstanding human beings and really wonderful senators. 's a and as i've told my friend, this person that i just interrupted, personally i spread this on the record here, there is no one that i know in the senate that is able to deliver the substance of what he says so well as the senator from virginia. he does such a good job of explaining things, and we all have an idea of what we want to say, but sometimes we don't explain it very well. and he does an excellent job. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i want to thank my colleague, the majority leader, for those kind words. mr. president, i was describing the recent trip i took to the middle east and afghanistan with

senators cornyn, cochran, sessions, boozman, fischer, and in afghanistan with senators mccain and graham. in turkey and jordan, we heard about the atrocities committed by the assad regime in syria and the flood of refugees pouring into those neighboring countries. in afghanistan, we met with our troops and heard about the slow transition from nato forces to afghan security. in the united arab emirates, we discussed the growing threat of iran throughout the region. and we made a meaningful stop at the regional medical center in germany to visit recently wounded americans and nato partners who sacrificed so much in this long war against terrorism. in the voices of our troops and our diplomats and our allies and our wounded warriors, we heard over and over again a basic question: what will america do? answering this question isn't easy but i believe that finding

answers is made more difficult because we do not have any agreed-upon consultative process between the president and congress. mr. kaine: the american public needs to hear a clear dialogue between the two branches justifying decisions about war. when congress and the president communicate openly and reach consensus, the american public is informed and more likely to support decisions about military action. but when there's no clear process for reaching decision, public opinion with respect to military action may be divided to the detriment of the troops who fight and making it less likely that government will responsibly budget for the costs of war. i believe many more lawmakers, for example, would have thought twice about letting sequestration cuts take effect if there had been a clear consensus between the president and congress about our current military posture and mission. so at this 40th anniversary, i think it's time to admit that the 1973 resolution is a failure

and we need to begin work to create a practical process for constitutionalitiation between the -- for consultation between the president and congress regarding military action. in 2007, the miller center at the university of virginia impaneled a bipartisan national war powers commission under the leadership of former secretaries of state james baker and warren christopher. the commission included legislative, administrative, diplomatic, military, and academic leadership. the commission issued a unanimous report to the president and congress urging the repeal of the war powers resolution and its replacement by a new provision designed to promote transparent dialogue and decision making. the commission even proposed a draft statute preserving the constitutional powers of each branch while establishing a straightforward consultative process to reach decision in a way that would gain support from the american public. the house and senate foreign

relation committees held hearings on the report in 2008, but the time was not yet right for change. i believe the time for change is upon us. we struggle today with urgent military decisions that demand better communication between the president, congress, and our citizens. president obama has discussed this very need during his 2013 state of the union address and also during his recent speech at the national defense university. as we reach the 40th anniversary of the failed war powers resolution, senator john mccain has agreed to work with notice form a group -- work with me to form a group of senators committed to finding a better way. senator mccain and i serve together on both the armed services and foreign relations committees. i have profound admiration for his services to this country, both as a military veteran and a veteran senator. i'm a newcomer but veterans and

newcomers alike have an interest in finding a more effective process for making the most important decision that our government ever makes: whether to initiate military action. mr. kaine: we can craft a process that is practical, constitutional and effective in protecting our nation. we owe this to those who fight and we owe this to the american public. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak for up to 12 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. just a few moments ago, i heard the president speaking from the white house regarding obamacare. he was lamenting, he was saying that why are we still litigating old news around here? let's move on to other things. this issue has been finished with. well, mr. president, the reason why this issue is still being talked about is because obamacare is a disaster. now, look, i think it's important to remember when we talk about health insurance that most americans do have health insurance that they're happy with, but no one would dispute that we have a health insurance problem in this country. now, for many who have insurance, the cost of their insurance is getting unaffordable, and for many others, they have no access to insurance at all. they have a job perhaps that

doesn't provide it or they are chronically ill and so insurance is impossible for them to find or they are young and they are healthy and they never go to a doctor so they figure why do they need it. yes, for millions of people, the cost and availability of insurance is a real problem, and we should do something about that. the problem is that obamacare as a solution is really a massive government takeover of health insurance in america, and it doesn't fix the problem. it only makes it worse, mr. president, and that's why we're still talking about it. it makes it worse for a number of reasons, and tomorrow i am going to visit a business in florida where the reality of this is growing every single day. tomorrow, i will visit gatorland. gatorland is in central florida. it's a tourist destination where many floridians and tourists have taken their kids to see alligators and to enjoy florida's unique wildlife. but for about 135 orlando area residents, gatorland, it's their workplace, it's their livelihood. it's how they feed their family.

it's how they pay their mortgage. it's how they get ahead in life. and the reason why we're still litigating this, mr. president, is like -- because like hundreds of thousands of other businesses around the country, obamacare is threatening to unravel all of these things. it is threatening to unravel the livelihood of 135 floridians who work at gatorland, to shatter their financial security for them and their families. let me describe to you the problem. gatorland is 135 full-time employees. gatorland currently pays 80% of the insurance costs for these employees. okay? but now under obamacare, evidently what they are doing is not going to be enough. obamacare, first of all, requires them not just to provide insurance but to provide for them a certain type of insurance, a type of insurance that the government has decided is enough. and second, because of obamacare, gatorland's cost of insurance that they want to provide for their employees is going to go up. that is, if they want to

continue to pay 80% of the insurance costs for 135 floridians who washing -- work there, it's going to cost them a lot more money. those are two problems. one, they have to offer a certain type of insurance, according to the government. number two, because of all these changes going on in obamacare, it's going to cost gatorland more money to provide 80% of the cost of the insurance. so what does this mean in the real world? it means as gatorland looks into next year and the future, they now have a new cost on their books. as they look at their business plan for the coming year, all of a sudden, they see that on the cost side of it, it's gotten more expensive. so if they want to stay in business, they're going to have to figure out a way to come up with that extra money. so what are their options to come up with this extra money? well, option number one is they can raise their prices. option number two is they can cut back on expenses like employees and benefits and hours. option number three is just not to comply at all with obamacare and pay a fine.

basically, don't offer insurance to these employees, let them go out and find it in so-called exchanges, and pay a fine to the i.r.s. so i ask you, mr. president, and i ask the people of this country and i ask my colleagues here which one of these three options is good for our country? which one of these three options is good for america? and which one of these three options is good for the 135 people who feed their families by working at gatorland. if they raise their prices, that means the cost of going to gatorland goes up. now, i understand our economy is not doing very well these days. millions of people are underemployed and unemployed, and they are working twice as hard and making half as much, and you're going to make it more expensive for them to go on vacation. i would argue to you that raising their prices is probably not an option available to them anyway. gatorland is not walt disney world and it's not universal and it's not one of these big tourist destinations. it's a small place who has to compete. and if you raise prices, there comes a point where people just won't go. so not only is raising prices

bad for our economy and for people that visit florida and want to take their families there, it might not even be feasible. so that's certainly not a good option. it may not even be an option at all. the second option is well, we have to cut down on expenses with our employees. that means they can lay some people off, find the money by instead of having 135 employees try to get by with 125 employees. that could mean not laying people off, but as people retire or quit, just not replacing them. or that could mean moving some of these people that are working full time to part time so they can get around the obamacare mandates and they can lower their costs. how is that good for our economy? how is that good for 135 people that work at gatorland? how is that good for florida? how is that good for us? the third option is they could pay the fine, but it's going to cost at least 135 people in my state an insurance that they're happy with. and i want you, mr. president, to remember what you said, in fact what you repeated today just a moment ago in your

statements at the white house. you said if you're happy with your insurance, you can keep it. well, for 135 people working at gatorland in central florida, that may not be true, mr. president. they could lose their insurance that's working well for them, that they're happy with because of this experiment. so that's why we keep revisiting this issue. interestingly enough, by the way, that's not just me saying that. this week, some prominent labor unions, labor unions who are actually in favor of this law, lead among them was the teamsters head, jimmy hoffa, wrote a letter to the president attacking this very point. they said this new law is breaking that promise that was made that if you're happy with your coverage, you're not going to lose it. now, i -- i signaled gatorland because that's the real world. that's where i'm going tomorrow and that happens to be in my state. but there are house of businesses like this that are facing these decisions. it's not one. there are hundreds of thousands of businesses that are facing this dilemma who have these same concerns. by the way, this is not the only

problem with obamacare. there are many others. the president keeps saying there are people in town that want this plan to fail. they keep bringing up obamacare because they want it to fail. mr. president, the plan is already failing. it's failing by your own admission. you have just had to cancel, you have just had to suspend one of the critical components of this bill because it's not doable. this plan is already failing on its own. and, by the way, if you're going to accuse us of wanting obamacare to fail you better accuse the teamsters of it because they have the same criticisms on this point that i've raised here today. i think we've reached the point when no matter how we voted on obamacare -- i wasn't here but no matter how you may have voted on obamacare if you were, no matter who you voted for for president, a republican or democrat or independent, this is bigger than politics. this is about people.