lekked. at the same time, again, the elusive iranian moderate, we need to maintain the pressure that we're maintaining on the regime and make it very clear to them what our objectives are, number one, that they not develop a nuclear weapon. >> okay, thank you. turning now to cyber, both of you have testified that you believe that cyber is a growing threat and a serious concern for our military and for our national security and for our economy. we've been working on a bipartisan basis on a bill called the cyber warrior act, senator vitter and senator blunt are leading the charge for the republican side, in order to create a national guard unit that is dedicated solely to cyber defense of our nation as a way to get some of our best and bravest from the private sector who are dedicated to the military and to the rest of this country to be able to use their talents more fibtly in a -- efficiently in a more cost effective manner as well. can i have your opinion of what the impact of creating these units would be with their dual

status and whether that would be, in the end, better for our defense and for growing this talent in-house? .. by the way you say it's a growing concern. it's here right now so there is urgency to do this and i think you understand that. we have to understand what the cyberrole would be for a guardsman and there really would be no role or title to authority. there is no title to authority for cyber, so it's really --

>> it's been an interesting idea and we are looking at it and committed to looking at it. we are growing our force and it's probably the only part of our force is going to grow under current budget conditions. we need this new force to do a number things for us principally to help us defend their own networks inside the department of defense to help defend the nation against cyberattacks. obviously law enforcement and homeland security has believed that we play a role in assisting them and then there is the offensive cyberoperations and support of a combatant commander if we end up finding ourselves in a war. where the national guard fits into those niches is up to study and a we are short of money. it's going to cost a lot to develop this capability. it's not there for us all the time that you make a fair point that there is expertise out there. i just think we need to look very closely and very soberly at whether this makes sense financially. >> i would like to work with you

both on this issue. we have obviously been spending a lot of time on sexual assault on a military something that everyone feels deeply about solving. one thing i want to get your thoughts on obviously the military has had a change in position on this article xvi that we can actually take article lx authority outside of the chain of command and still maintain the discipline and still maintain command climate control. why do you think removing the article is different in any way because i would imagine a second legal decision would not have a different impact than removing article lx. >> article lx, we had put in place over time in our judicial system other mechanisms, military judges and prosecutors and an appeal process that allowed us to consider changing the authorities of a convenient authority to change our ruling after-the-fact. but that is different than it

seems to us, different than taking the actual offense out of the ucmj. do you have anything to do that? >> the most important thing to me is to make sure there is an active deterrent out there that somebody who is contemplating sexual assault knows that they are going to be caught, that they are going to be prosecuted and if they are prosecuted they are going to be punished. it's the same thing that has worked in the drug world for us and the like so as you you knows our strong view that the commanders responsible for that. >> i would argue that the commanders still responsible for that because keeping in a number of the articles like article cxxxiv and other articles that are general crimes you are still fundamentally responsible for command climate, good order and discipline in any type of infraction of any part of what the commanders responsible for so you have to set the climate where this assault and rape is not going to happen and they cannot be retaliated against and where

they will report. the only difference is the legal judgment that weighing of evidence and facts will now be done by a trained objective military prosecutor. >> i would like to give you some some -- a couple of numbers on what the army has discovered in peeling back the numbers on the so-called objective observer might end up with. the army has looked back over the last two years and found 35 cases where a civilian district attorney refused to take a sexual assault case, refuse to take the case in the chain of command in the military insisted that the case be taken inside the military chain of command. of those 35 cases therere 14 out there thatre still in the court system. of the remainder, of the 25, the 35 i'm sorry, there were actually 49. 25 resulting in a court-martial conviction. that's a 71% conviction rate which is about the civilian rate

is 18 to 22% so of those 71% that were convicted 25 or 24 to 25.punitive discharges and they are doing prison time. if the army hadn't taken those 49 cases and the 35 that were convicted those people would be walking the street right now. the victims would not have had the resolution that they deserve from this case. this was done inside the chain of command. the chain of command insisting a prosecution be pursued and it was pursued successfully. i worry if we turn a sort of somebody else whether it's a civilian d.a. or nonentity in the military that they will make the same decisions that those civilian prosecutors made so i worry that we will have fewer prosecutions. >> we want prosecutions that result in a guilty verdict in weighing this kind have been evidence is difficult.

moreover, you may have helped a handful of victims. we are still having 23,000 victims that don't feel the system is strong enough objective enough and transparent enough to even report so if we are going to address the 23 thousand cases as opposed to a handful where judgment of command might have helped we need to change the system. my time has expired. >> by the way thanks, senator. i hope you know we actually embrace this discussion. >> thank you for your service and thoughts on this. >> thank you senator gillibrand. senator ayotte. >> i want to thank both of you for being here and your families for your distinguished service to our country in general dempsey at want to thank you for your recent visit to new hampshire. it really meant a lot to our men and women in uniform and they said to me after that it really said so much about your leadership to go hear from those on the ground and also our

shipyard and civilian workforce that deeply appreciated it so thank you. i wanted to ask you yesterday, i was deeply troubled by a report that came out from gao about the p.o.w. in my accounting command in that report actually said that unfortunately the leadership weaknesses and fragmented organizational structure is undermined in the important function of jay pack and of course with more than 83,000 of our country's heroes remaining missing or unaccounted for from past conflicts including 49 from new hampshire or vietnam and korea. i believe we have a moral obligation to those we have left behind in this follows up a recent ap report that found an internal study done at dod found that this effort jpac was so inept and mismanaged and wasteful that it risked descending from dysfunction to total failure and there were

allegations that this internal study had been suppressed by dod so i would like to ask you general dempsey what are we going to do about this and how are we going to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility to those who have served their country and have been left behind so that they understand that they are not forgotten? >> first sanitary thanks for your hospitality last week weekend i assure you i always get more than i give him those visits to soldiers sailors airmen marine and coast guard manned. this is a new report to us as well. i can tell you though that the secretary of defense while on travel called me up to make sure that i had been made aware and to tell me that when he got back and when i completed this process of hearings and office calls that he wants to get to the bottom of it. i mean it's so new but it's so discouraging and moving rapidly towards disgraceful. i assure you we will get at it.

we have a new commander out there and i can also tell you that he is seized with this as well. >> i have asked the chairman and i hope we could have weathered the committee or the full committee hearing on this because i believe it's that important to get to the bottom of some of the issues that have been raised by this gao report and the internal report. i would like to ask you chairman , the chairman and the ranking member of this committee wrote to secretary hagel on may 2 of 2013 and we have heard testimony both in the readiness subcommittee and every subcommittee within this committee about the impacts of sequestration and in that letter the chairman asked you to produce or the department of defense to produce a package of reductions for fiscal year 2014 defense budget that would be the most workable approach for meeting a $52 billion in

reductions required by sequestration under the budget control act. we did receive a response recently from secretary hagel but it doesn't really answer a question on the specifics. as he put together a contingency plan for the $52 billion in reductions required by sequestration in the year 14? >> the services having received their fiscal guidance about two weeks ago are preparing that contingency right now and it will be a contingency that addresses both the president's budget and also the sequestration. >> we have asked for this in july and i'm hoping -- can you give me a commitment as to when will this be produced to us, this committee so we can understand the impacts of sequestration and also share it with our colleagues about what it really means in terms of the impact and the readiness of our forces? >> it's a very fair question. the answer that came back was the first cut and the first

contours of fy14 executions under those conditions. it's important for us to kind of keep in mind that there are about five things the service budget planners are having to go there right now. they're going through what 14 is going to look like under the conditions asked for in a letter. they are finalizing what 14 execution would look like under the president's budget. they are also helping to develop two or three different scenarios for the fy15 to 19 budgets of these people are furloughed one day a week. it's a little tough to produce fine detail that quickly but the services have been given the task and i believe they will have an execution plan before the first of october and you will have it. >> we need a center and let me just say you can do all the planning you want for the presidents budget but it's pie-in-the-sky right now. the reality is that was the sequestration until the american people understand that everyone here understands what the real impact of that is, that's why i

am hoping you will make that the priority. i know i don't have that much time but i want to ask you chairman and vice chairman about russia and in particular i saw a recent report that russia is in violation of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. is that true? >> that is something that we can't address in a classified hearing but i'd be happy to get into a discussion with you in a more classified setting to go through. the point being that we have good verification methods in place. we watch this very closely. we believe that they are in compliance with the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and i need to leave it at that. >> okay i will follow up because i'm not asking about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and the reason i'm asking this is because here is where we are with russia. a postmortem conviction of survey of human rights who was of course tortured and killed for bringing out corruption within the government to put in

your face with united states have not ruled out granting asylum to edward snowden and just today there was a port that one of putin's chief informant a candidate for the mayor of moscow was convicted and it really reeks of using the judicial system for putin to punish his opponents. when i look at that context one thing that concerns me is that our posture with russia they are in violation of the treaty applications. one final question admiral. the president recently announced that he would be considering further reductions to our nuclear arsenal. do you believe that we should do that unilaterally? >> senator the advice we have given to the president is that we not do that and are laterally and we do it as part of a negotiated package of reductions. >> if they're going to be unilateral reductions would you oppose those reductions? >> i would not give that advice to the president. >> so you would advise

unilateral reductions in our nuclear deterrent? >> we are to have. >> i appreciate that. >> than the three negotiations preserve the triad and butter knife the stock pile. >> my time is is up at a thing given the behavior of russia i think it is at best naïve to think that we are going to be able to negotiate any kind of further reductions which i would oppose. i don't think that's the right direction for the protection of this country but in light of what i just described and obviously we can't discuss it in a setting that if we find out they are in violation of other treaty applications coupled with their other behavior i don't see how we can expect good faith negotiations from the russians that they moment. >> thank you senator ayotte. senator reed. >> thank you very much and thank you gentlemen for your service to the nation and your family service. we know you can't do this alone. general dempsey one of the duties is to provide your

military advice on the strategic environment in military needed to address that environment through the chairman's risk assessment and given the current world environment which seems to be changing minute by minute, senator ayotte just detailed what has happened in the last 24 hours with respect to russia. what changes would you make today to your risk assessment from a pro? >> thanks, senator. the first thing i think you have probably noticed is we have changed -- which previously had been a combination of combatant commander. by the way to senator inhofe's comments earlier since i've been chairman of the requirements the combatant commanders have submitted have actually increased the centcom and africom notably so to the point about increasing risk and declining readiness and we changed it to try to align what

we are doing with national security interest on prioritize because that is not our responsibility to prioritize them and we took, we made an estimate of what we are doing across the globe that is being placed at risk and we also looked inside the services at how the health of the force is evolving. in that document i made mention of the fact that this document didn't account for sequestration and that once that became a reality that i would have to revise my risk assessment. i will have to do so to align with the submission that senator ayotte just described. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. admiral winnefeld my colleagues in particular senator gillibrand have done an extraordinary service to the nation and the military by pointing out that despite years of effort we have a significant sexual abuse problem in the military and we

have to, as you both clearly indicated, we have to not rhetorically but fundamentally respond to this. one aspect we have focused on has been the judicial system but some in my experience suggests their other levels -- levers that are critical to the climate and the command structure in the performance of the military and they include it valuation, emotion and retention and if we do not focus on those areas also then we will never have the kind of force that we need and the trust that we need among the men and women who served on that force. can you comment on that? i know you and your colleagues have taken a role in dealing with this issues. >> in terms of promotion? >> how do we make this so that everyday someone thinks about their responsibilities, do you know there is a judicial process out there but this is what is

expected of me to stay in the force to succeed in the force and have the 460. >> there are a lot of, and enormous number of aspects for that answer but i will touch on a few. the most important thing and senator gillibrand attested to this we hold commanders responsible for establishing that makes the likelihood of a sexual assault drop down hopefully 20 and there are all number of aspects. it's about teaching people what a heinous crime this is and it's about reporting it if you see it it's about intervening if you see it about to happen, a whole host of measures that the commanders what must make to establish the commanders and we need to hold commanders accountable and we intend to. that is one of the reasons the command climate survey will be seen which i normally have it done by the next echelon in the

chain of command. if they echelon detects a problem that the climate is not where it needs to be that action can be taken and used in someone's evaluation a sitdown strike if you will. so keeping with a prevention in the advocacy, investigation, accountability and assessment pieces of what we are trying to do to take on this pernicious issue it's absolutely vital that the climate come to the forefront and we hold commanders responsible for that. >> thank you very much. general dempsey, can you comment on the current level of cooperation between the government of kabul and nato isaf command? every day we seem to be another example of friction rather than harmony. >> their relationship with notably the president of

afghanistan is scratchy, i think it's probably as good a word as i can describe it. he is addressing what he describes as issues of sovereignty and we are trying to close the gap on what an enduring president's commitment might look like. >> thank you. admiral winnefeld, in terms of the recent discovery of contraband coming out of cuba to north korea, do you have kind of a rough assessment at this juncture? was that the cubans trying simply to rehabilitate their equipment or were they trying to to -- [inaudible] >> is a little hard to tell at this point where the intelligence community is still evaluating that. it would be easy to come to the conclusion that under the guise of returning equipment to north korea for repair that in fact

these are jet engines and missiles that would be going to north korea to replenish their stocks or what have you. >> in either case it clearly exposes north koreans willing to finance of the international community and the united nations council resolutions and the like. we are very glad that panamanians discovered this so we can once more exposed to the world the cynical behavior of the north korean regime. >> thank you. >> thank you senator reed. senator graham. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you both for your service. chairman dempsey, the russian president said i think a couple of days ago that if he thought herding u.s. relationships, u.s.-russian relationships would be a consequence of granting snowden asylum he would do it. what would your advice be to the russian president about bringing snowden asylum? >> i think that there would be

consequences across all of our relationships. >> it would be damaging wouldn't it be? >> i think it would be ,-com,-com ma sir. >> okay, thank you very much. the prime minister of israel was on national television on face the nation sunday and said the following things about iran. there is a new new president in iran and he believes he is criticizing his predecessor for being a wolves in wolves closing and his strategy is to be a wolf in sheep's clothing smile and build a bond. admiral winnefeld do you agree with that analysis? >> as i mentioned earlier i certainly would agree -- >> is there any doubt in your mind that this guy is actually a moderate? >> we are looking for the elusive iranian moderate. >> this will determine how i vote for you. do you believe the current president of iran is a moderate? >> he doesn't have a history of being a moderate. >> i will take that as no.

the united states should ratchet up sanctions and if sanctions don't work they have to know that you will be prepared, us the united states, to take military action. that's the only thing that will get their attention. do you agree with the israeli prime minister about the threat of military force against the iranian nuclear program may be the only thing to get the attention admiral -- general dempsey? >> that has been our approach all along. >> great, so we are all on the same sheet of paper there. if they don't believe we are going to hit them they are going to move. here's what he said about all the problems and it may be summed up this way. all the problems that we have however important will be dwarfed by this medicine is apocalyptic extreme regime that would have an atomic tom and would make a terrible in catastrophic change to the world and for the united states. do you agree with his assessment of how important it is not to

allow the array needs to get a nuclear weapon and? >> i do. >> great. all right, as to afghanistan, the current commander suggested that a 12,000 member force, two-thirds being u.s. and the other 4000 e. nato not counting american special forces troops, soft capability, would be a reasonable number to leave behind in terms of a follow-up force? does that make sense to you? is he in the ballpark? >> he is and we have said so at nato. >> thank you very much. do you agree with me that it would yield wise investment to keep the afghan army at 352,000 at least for a few more years rather than drawing down to 332? >> i do. >> thank you. syria is assad winning?

>> currently the tide seems to have shifted in his favor. >> do you agree with that admiral winnefeld? >> i? >> i was a specific delay the tide is shifting in the western and central part of the country. >> is he winning overall are not? >> if i were to have to pick who is winning it would be the regime but not right is right now. >> all right so the regime is winning but not by much. could they be winning without russia's help? >> i think the most important help they are giving is iranian hezbollah so i don't know whether russia's help is vital but is certainly helping them. >> general dempsey how would you evaluate this significant of russia's help to assad's? >> through their military sales they are arming them. >> lets put it this way of the russian said we want you gone tomorrow would it matter to assad? the absolu. >> it would be a gaman net admi?

>> assad is going to fight to the death by thing. >> do you agree with me that if russia said to assad we no longer support you it would be the ultimate game-changer? >> it would be a very important game-changer absolutely. >> do you see russia doing that? >> yes, sir. >> if he stays versus him going, what is the most catastrophic outcome for us? if he wins over time and he does not leave versus having to deal with the fact that we kicked him out because we said he had to go , what is worse for us, him staying or going? >> well we have said it's the nation's policy that assad must go. >> so that means it's worse for us for him to stay and we would not be able to achieve our policy. do you agree with that? >> that is my interpretation.

>> will be -- he'd be in power next year if nothing changes? just where we are at iran is helping him and helping assad. do you agree that hezbollah is helping assad? do you believe that russia's helping assad? at nothing changes and if we don't change our game will he be in power a year from now? >> i think likely so. >> what would that mean for -- >> i have met with him and he is concerned that the demographics demographics -- >> you are dead right. he told me he didn't think he would be there for another year. >> that is his concern. >> what would that mean for the region and of his the king of jordan has gone a year from now and assad is in power? would that be a good thing or bad thing? >> he is a strong ally.

it would be bedlam. >> it would be a horrible thing. if this war in syria keeps going on and assad is still in power what effect would that have on iraq's? >> astarte destabilizing. >> iraq would begin to fall apart at a faster rate and destabilizing the country? >> that would certainly be of possible scenario. >> from israelis want to be the likelihood of hezbollah getting russian-made advanced weapons if he is still in power a year from now does that go up or down? >> from the israeli standpoint, i'll. >> from israel's standpoint one of the worst nightmares short of an iranian nuclear weapon would be hezbollah getting advanced weapons sold to assad by russia and that likelihood would go up if he is still in power a year from now? >> yes. >> okay. we will talk the second roundabout sequestration. thank you both for your answers.

>> if we could finish the first round by noon at least there would be a brief second round. that is my current intention which i have shared with a ranking member. senator mccaskill. >> thank you mr. chairman. just when i think we have made progress on wartime contracting something happens and i realize that we have still miles to go before we really have a handle on this. the latest incident that has come to my attention is the 34 million-dollar military base in leatherneck in afghanistan. the marines on the ground found out this was going to be built ,-com,-com ma they sent the word up they don't need it, don't want it and that was in may of 2010. in february of 2011 contracts were issued and the building was built. and now we know it's never going to be occupied. probably going to be demolished because it was done according to u.s. wiring standards so for the

afghanistan army to take it over for the national forces there to take it over it would be quite an investment for them to convert the building for their use. i understand an investigation is ongoing and i question mr. jen men about this the other day that i need to hear from you general dempsey that you are committed to getting to the bottom of this because if we don't fix accountability in this instance whoever pulled the trigger on that expenditure really needs to be disciplined and my opinion is they should fight it because without sending a signal that the people are saying don't build it, it's a waste of money that it doesn't get built. are you aware of the the situation in? >> absolutely senator you have my commitment that we will get to the bottom of it and if i could share a bit of good news. we have obligate so this one was

not caught but we have the obligated $1.3 billion in contracting for u.s. forces in afghanistan and probably twice that amount for the afghan security forces. >> that is good. there has been discussion around military sexual assault that are allies have gone to a different system and the reason that this was talked about within the context that canada and europe had gone to a different system in order to provide more protection for victims. we have a chance now to take a really close look at those countries and what happened and it's my understanding those changes in their system resulted from a concern that there was not adequate due process protections for perpetrators. is that your understanding as well? >> that is correct and based on our last hearing on the subject, we have done a lot of research

into why the five other nations went that path and it's not just because they wanted to protect the accused but they were also mandated to do it by human rights course in the european union. >> via the argument that is being made about leaving us at the hands of prosecutors civilian and/or -- this would increase reporting. i haven't had an opportunity to look at the numbers in canada. we actually have 176 in 2007 and 166 in 208,166 and 2009, 186 in 2010. u.k. has gone down from 54 to 40 to 50. in australia they have been stable at 82, it 86 and 84 over the last several years. and israel there been a fact

about reporting going up when they changed the part of their system when it was a related to lesser sexual offenses a few years ago. there was testimony about the reporting going up 80%. if you look at the numbers there were 26, these are sex-related offenses totaled the military so everybody gets an understanding the difference of the enormity of the challenges and our military and what they're looking at in israel. 26 and 2009, 20 in 2010, 14 in 2010 and 272,012 so yes there is an 86% increase when they changed it between 11 and 12 12 but they only got back to the numbers they had a few years previously before the change was made. are you all aware of the research you have done that changing the system has resulted in an increase reporting anywhere in the world? >> there is no analytical evidence nor anecdotal evidence that it has increased reporting.

furthermore what my counterparts have told me as it has slowed the system down. >> you mentioned admiral winnefeld in your testimony earlier that you all have taken a look at prosecutors decisions in isolation and i have some knowledge of this. there was discipline needed out in my office when i found out the prosecutors at our intake desk were getting lobbied by some of the trial prosecutors on their decisions because they didn't want any losers. they didn't want them to take cases that were going to reflect poorly on their won loss record because when you are prosecutor there is a won loss record. if you take a case to trial you either win or you lose so more status among your peers and in some instances your upward mobility in your job could depend on just her conviction rate. so when you isolate them with

this decision then there certainly could be instances where you would have a prosecutor that did not want to take a close one that didn't want a to he said she said. do you have additional information that you can share with this committee in terms of numbers of the number of times that civilian prosecutors have said no, military prosecutors have said no but there are victims out there today that it had justice because the commander said yes? >> i do and i will give you a couple of examples. the marine corps has had 28 cases. they looked back to 2010 where civilian prosecutors declined to take a case and of those 16 of them the marine corps was able to contain a conviction by court-martial. those are 16 perpetrators that are no longer walking the streets and 16 victims to receive justice who would not

have received otherwise. more startling numbers are from the army and i will repeat them. the army has looked at 49 cases in the last two years. 35 of them or 14 of them are still in process and we don't know what's going to happen with those cases. 35 of them have been completed. 25 of those or 71% resulted in a conviction in a court-martial. two additional ones were plea-bargained to a punitive discharge. that takes the number 277% of these cases in civilian prosecutors would not take that resulted in some serious action taken against a perpetrator. there are some that were acquitted understandably. most of the ones who are found guilty have done hard time and are doing hard time and have been given a punitive discharge by the military. these were all done inside the chain of command. i would add senator mccaskill because some of these are very heinous cases. one of them was a 10-year-old autistic girl who was sexually

assaulted. we took the case. the commander insisted on it and a conviction was obtained. >> well i, this is hard. we all have the same goal but i do want to say as i close this questioning that anything that characterizes me as someone who is protecting the pentagon, that somehow i am in cahoots with the pentagon trying to hurt sexual assault victims, with all due respect to you guys i think you are terrific but there is nobody who will be further in line to kick you until you are senseless if we don't get this problem under control. this is not victims versus -- and anyone who is characterizing that is doing a disservice to victims and doing it disservice to the military and doing a disservicdisservic e to the members of this committee who have spent hours trying to find the right way to make sure that

we prosecute more cases effectively within the military and i thank you very much. >> chairman if i could take 10 seconds to reinforce what general dempsey said a moment ago. we are actually very grateful for the attention that the entire committee is given to us. it's been very helpful and i also want to say that i look forward to your next chance to have you and other people with prosecutorial experience over to the pentagon and get your thoughts. show you what we are doing and get your expertise. >> you don't meet -- need to worry about me being invited. as you know i've called them. i am not reaching out. you guys are calling plays on this. i was infuriated at the article that was written that somehow you guys are pulling strings over here telling us what to do.

nothing could be further from the truth and i appreciate those of you and your commitment to this but believe me were not going anywhere. >> general dempsey sent a letter to mccain and levin outlining the costs of establishing a no-fly zone to protect syrian rebels. his letter noted that such an operation would require hundreds of u.s. aircraft at a cost of a billion dollars a month. without ensuring a positive outcome in that country's civil war. this morning president obama's two nominees for the national labor relations board will testify at a senate confirmation hearing. a hearing is part of the filibuster rules agreement in the senate. republicans have agreed to allow votes before the august recess on the new nominations. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> i think interestingly the korean war in a sense has helped south korean -- the communists came down they were real and a lot of the south koreans have turned against the communists in the north and that really solidified i think their sense of national cohesion and identity but i think having waited it's very possible that the south probably would have, it's possible that is possible that it would have disintegrated on its own.

house minority leader nancy pelosi addressed bolland tears from the organizing for action group monday. the nonprofit group organizes and advocates for the president's agenda. her remarks or 15 minutes. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you very much. thank you for your kind words of introduction for the wonderful invitation to be here. as i look out across this crowd i see the organizational manifestation of the slogan we all lived by here, don't agonize, organize. i. [applause] organize. it is to organize for a purpose, to honor the of our founders for a more perfect union and i will

talk about some of that in a moment. what an honor it is to be here with the president of the united states barack obama at this very podium. more on him later. to be here with harry reid. when you watch him -- he is absolutely remarkable. to hear him talk about the senate is really a master class in government in our country. we are very blessed by his leadership and we want him to have more democratic senators in the senate. to be here with cecile richards -- we can hear it for harry reid again. [applause] cecile richards, doesn't she make us so very very proud? [applause] we are fortunate indeed. [applause] and i want to commend jim messina the leader of osa for

his great leadership in so many areas. jim messina. [applause] but here's the thing. why you are so essential to the success of our country and i'm not talking about politics now. i'm talking about america. i'm talking about honoring the bows of our founders life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. they sacrificed everything for that, to form this great nation. but we have plenty of work to do to honor their vows. all along the way president lincoln gave us good advice. he said public sentiment is everything. so here you are. here you are, those investors that will reach out to the public to make sure they understand what is at stake and how we can change minds in the

public and therefore in the congress because nothing is more eloquent to a member of congress than the voice of his or her own constituents. so when you reach out to them again, know the power that you are. if we are going to succeed walter luther said and i'm not here to talk politics, just to say that walter luther said you cannot separate the ballot box from the bread box. what happens in an election has an impact on the policy in that country and what happened in the election last year's where 70% of hispanics voted democratic not just for president but for congress. all of a sudden an epiphany ascended on the republican senate that we should have comprehensive immigration reform. that is a very good thing. that is what this is about. not about winning elections that winning hearts and minds of the public and getting those votes because we don't want to wait

until a year and a half until the next election to get some of the things that we must get done what are we doing in the house? that i want you to know and enlist your help out there across the country? understand no good thing happens in the congress no matter how clever we may be in our inside maneuvering and the intellectual resources you all are to us in writing legislation, nothing great happens with inside maneuvering with outside -- without outside mobilization. [applause] so here is what we have to do. we must restore confidence in government. i mentioned lincoln. go all the way back to president washington. when president washington was leading government he cautioned against political parties that were at war with their own

government. does that sound familiar? does that sound familiar? so, we want to again counter that anti-government ideology. that is what bill clinton calls it, anti-government ideology and restore bipartisanship. if i had to put one word on the ballot this year it would be bipartisanship and you can put it -- next to that and that would save democratic party because we have always been bipartisan. we have confidence in our ideas. we believe in the positions that we hold that we know that we have to collaborate and incorporate and we did throughout her history. so for us to see a republican party whose attitude toward our great president obama is than nothing. that's our agenda. does that work for you? never, that is our timing

mr. president. does that work for you? nothing and never, that is their attitude. you heard the speaker say over the weekend it's not the bills we pass its the bills we repeal that are important. do nothing. to them, that his success, to do nothing. the american people sent us here to get results, to do the job, to create solutions to the challenges we face and they expect us to do it in a bipartisan way. they expect us to get the job done. we can find a common ground and we have a responsibility to seek it. we have to stand their ground but we have to get the job done. so we have to get the job done to restore confidence, confidence in who we are as a nation. by and large we are a nation of immigrants.

very respectful of our brothers and sisters in the native american community we are an immigrant nation and we must pass comprehensive immigration reform. [applause] this year, this year. every immigrant, every immigrant who comes to our country whether two or three years ago or two months ago that comes to our country with their hopes, their dreams and aspirations and hope for the future, isn't that what america is all about? every immigrant who comes with those attitudes makes america more american so we must pass that legislation. [applause] we have to build confidence in the safety of our schools and our homes and neighborhoods and their communities and that is why we must pass gun violence prevention legislation for example in the form of

background checks. [applause] it would do so much. a couple of days ago we observed the one-year anniversary of the aura. not that long ago i stood with harry when we observe the six-month anniversary of newtown. how much more convincing will it take to those who oppose this kind of legislation? this is what the american people want and we have to keep the heat on. we must make these issues, immigration, background checks on guns, climate. i see that is one of your issues here. when i became speaker in my issue with climate and energy independence. it's a job competitiveness issue for america and internationally. it's a health issue, the air we breathe and our children breathe. it's a moral issue.

if you believe as i and evangelical community that helps us this planet is god's creation we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of it and if you don't believe it you will believe we have a obligation to pass it on to future generations in a responsible way. we must get back to doing that but right now the attitude in the house of representatives is there can be no consideration in legislation must exclude any consideration of climate. is that -- well anyway we have work to do. we have to build confidence in our economy. we have a moral obligation to create jobs, to use the public cruel and private -- public-private partnerships to create jobs, good-paying jobs to grow the economy with good-paying jobs again protecting the environment. just the other day the house democratic women on the 165th

anniversary which was friday of the seneca falls convention. imagine those women 165 years ago. rosie delauro was our champion on these issues and on that day it was 90 degrees in seneca falls. no air-conditioning, no nothing but lots of determination. it was the first time there was a convention on women's rights. all men and all women are created equally is echoed in our decoration of independence. in any event when we talk about jobs we have to talk because it's the right thing to do, about rewarding the work of women in the workplace. we must have pay equity. [applause] we must have it. and we must have paid sick leave. in another few days we will be observing the 20th anniversary of the implementation of family

medical leave. did you know 100 million americans have availed themselves of the family medical leave but it's unpaid. we need to take it to the next step. i think crucial to the success of our country because our theme is when women succeed america succeeds, is to have quality affordable childcare. [applause] this is really important. we must do this. the american police -- people believe in it. as i said your mother, your sister, your daughter, your wife you don't believe they should be treated equally in the workplace? when we do we will have a stronger economy, a stronger national security stronger academic world, every subject will be well served by increased empowerment ends during thinning

women in the workplace. and when we talk about that and getting back to our founders life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nothing that we have done does more to advance healthy life, the liberty to pursue your happiness than the affordable care act. [applause] but we have to get out there. live a healthier life. not to be job locks but to follow your passion. you can start your business. you can be self-employed. you can change jobs. you will follow your passion, not your policy. just because a child might have bipolar or a preexisting medical condition and under that legislation no longer will being a woman be a preexisting medical condition. [applause] so it's all connected. the last thing i will say is

that we have confidence in our democracy. it's absolutely totally necessary for us to change the political state. walter luther the ballot box and the breadbox are connected and we will not have policies that are for america's working families as long as we allow special interest secret undisclosed huge amounts of money to dominate the campaigns in our country. [applause] we must do this. i have issued a dare. i have issued a pair. disclose. where's this money coming from? a amend the constitution to overturn citizens united. [applause] reform. pass passed legislation that empowers small donors. it's very very important and empower. look at what they are doing in the human rights act. shameful, shameful, shameful but

we cannot let them do that and we must try. we cannot win unless you fight. we must fight. this is hard because nothing less is at stake than our democracy and i always say nothing less is at stake as civilization as we know it today because our civilization depends on the flowering of all people in our society not just the control of money and power. [applause] so democrats as you know we have to fight on those scores. none of that is particularly political except if you want to say they don't want to do the campaign reform. it's all about strengthening families in america. that is what president obama when he goes on his tours with his speeches, americans will hear reinforcement of that great leadership. and again they offer him no

cooperation. i have never seen anything like it and i have been here a long time. so what we want to do is change the minds of the people to change the minds of the elected. isn't it necessary, it's about getting better policy. democrats believe and our theme has always been that we are reigniting the american dream. building ladders of opportunity for people who work hard and play by the rules and take responsibility, that they will have opportunities to climb ladders of success. that means we have to have immigration. we have to have education. we have have to have health care. we have to have fairness in terms of women. i mention some of them and the list goes on but we can't do any of this unless we own the ground so again, know your power. [applause] none of you is aggravated

because you just want to go out and do something. you are motivated by your passion on certain certain issues or all of the issues of fairness in our country. and so when you convey that enthusiasm, that passion for a better future for america to other people it goes on and the echo chamber goes across america. just think of the legacy of president obama will have if he has more cooperation in the congress of the united states. cooperation, collaboration, bipartisanship, not obstruction and never nothing which is their agenda. i want to thank you for everything you have done and thank you for all that you will do, for the energy and the busiest him and the passion and stamina and the rest that you bring to all of this at osa and in august it's going to be

really important if we are going to get the job done on all the issues we are talking about, you will make the difference. i look forward to working with you in that regard and i bring you greetings from the members, the democratic members of the house of representatives for the appreciation for what you have done and what you will do and we look forward to august action. thank you. [applause] [applause]

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, retired add mir barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. chap lane. -- chaplain. the chaplain: let us pray. o god our creator and redeemer, we are accompanied by your blessings.

may these blessings motivate our senators to rededicate themselves to your service, striving to keep america strong. make their hearts reservoirs of love, purity, and honesty. keep them calm in temper, clear in mind, and sound in heart, as you inspire them to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with you. may the tyranny of partisanship and expediency never bend their conscience to low aims which betray high principles. we pray in your holy name.

amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: the senator from nevada. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 99, which is the transportation appropriations bill. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 99, s. 1243, a bill making appropriations for the department of transportation and housing and urban development and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled. at noon there will be a cloture

vote on the motion to proceed to s. 1243. if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time will be yielded back and we'll vote on the adoption of the moaghts motion to proceed. -- on the adoption of the motion to proceed. we hope that will be a voice vote and we can begin consideration of the bill immediately following the vote at noon. the senate will recess until 12:30 -- recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today for our weekly caucus meetings. i ask unanimous consent that the senator chiesa be recognized for up to 15 minutes at 2:15 today to deliver his maiden speech. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, so happy to see the presiding officer. you could have presided before, but i haven't been able to witness that. so i'm very happy to have you here. we're so fortunate to have you here with your wide-ranging experience as a member of congress. my time in the house was some of the most pleasant times of my

career. i just so admire and respect the house of representatives. and for the presiding officer to have spent almost four decades there indicates the people of massachusetts will have someone here to hit the ground runedding, and -- to hit the ground running, and we're very happy to have you here. you have your committee assignments, committees that you wanted. and the experience that you've had, the areas of your choice, will be a great benefit to massachusetts and our country. mr. president, today the senate will begin work on the transportation and housing appropriations bill, a bipartisan measure that received six republican votes coming out of the full committee. this legislation will strengthen our economy by investing in roadways, railways, airports, bridges, and others. i applaud the full committee chair, barbara mikulski, for her good work and being so excited about doing the appropriations bills and longtime member of the

appropriations committee, chairwoman, patty murray, chair of the subcommittee that will be work for the next few days. i appreciate their diligence, and bipartisan work on this measure. transportation, housing appropriations bill has always been a bipartisan bill. mr. president, as we speak, we have 70,000 bridges in this country in need of major repairs. we have bridges in america today where school buses unload their children before going over the bridge. we have bridges that are in need of extensive repair and some that need to be replaused completely -- replaced completely. one of every five miles of american roads are not up to safety standards, so it's easy to see why this bipartisan effort to upgreat america's crumbling -- upgrade amecrumblio

important. our deficient roads, bridges, railways, runways are a drag on our economy. but for this crisis, it's also an opportunity, an opportunity to create jobs by rebuilding america, which really needs replenishing and restoring and rebuilding. this bill will make traveling safer, more efficient pho -- moe efficient for america's families and businesses. we get so upset when we're on a freeway that's jammed. mr. president, think so inconvenient it is for one of those trucks carrying products to be sold and delivered, how much it is costing each of us in our individual vehicles. it is costing us more every minute that truck is stopped in a road because of heavy traffic. it's more expensive to virtually everything that we do in america. we've got to do a better job on

our crumbling infrastructure. this bill will make traveling safer, i indicate, and more efficient. the senate bill also makes crucial investments in affordable housing programs that assist low-income families in need. this legislation takes important steps towards eliminating homelessness, especially among america's veterans. by contrast, the very partisan companion bill from the house that they passed puts affordable housing out of reach for most everyone. many of these people who are out of reach and getting help -- of getting help are elderly or disabled. the house bill also slashes investments on new roads and bridges, makes deep cuts to the federal aviation administration efforts to modernize our air traffic control system. the senate bill is a bipartisan blueprint for investing in

modern infrastructure and creating new jobs while maintaining a vital social safety net. the house republicans obviously have a totally different version. they are jamming things through there on a totally partisan basis. on sunday, john boehner, speaker of the house, said congress should not be judged by how many bills it passes but by how many laws it repeals. if that's true, mr. president, house republicans are failing even by their own metric. they've replaced virtually nothing. so by the speaker's own admission, they're not getting anything passed and by his own analysis, they're getting nothing repealed. so they're doing nothing, and we've known that but it's unusual because the speaker acknowledged that on the sunday shows. my republican colleagues are looking for a a law to repeal, i takwould suggest they take a lok

at the downspiritted law. these meat ax cuts threaten senate security. on the news today, there is a briefing by the secretary of defense that talks about how senseless it cuts our -- the cuts are to the defense department. they're done with a meat ax, just like i said. so we need to roll back these arbitrary cuts, not only in the military but all government. unless democrats and republicans work out a bipartisan solution that replaces the sequester, crucial investments in everything from early childhood education to medical research to military readiness will be in jeopardy. it's also in jeopardy. mr. president, it's been 122 days since the senate passed this budget. but senate republicans still refuse to let democrats, led by

chair patty murray, to negotiate a compromise with our house republican colleagues. senator murray and others have been to the floor numerous times. we've had -- we've had, mr. president, republicans come here to the floor and say how foolish it is mott to be able to go to -- it is not to be able to go to cnches. w-- to go to conference. we have not gifte give up and ww that democrats and republicans will never find common ground if we never start negotiating. that's what senator murray has said many, many times. sequester will cost us investments in education and helps keep america competitive. it will cause millions of seniors, children, and needly families the safety net that keeps them from descending into poverty. because of drastic cuts to national institutes of health, the sequester could also cut into the cure for aids,

parkinson's, or alzheimer's. all they need to do is work with us. we can't do it alone. we need republicans' help. and the cost of reducing the deficit with a meat ax today is missing out on the next polio vaccine tomorrow and the price is simply way too high. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i, too, want to welcome the new senator from massachusetts to the senate. you will find presiding over the senate an enlightening experience, and if tradition is followed, you'll get to do it a lot. mr. president, there are many overused expressions huer in washington -- game changer comes to mind. but i think the worst may be the so-called pivot. i say this not just because it's used too much to really mean

anything but also because it is a troubling frame of mind. i mean, the idea that the white house can simply pivot to jobs for day or two, then abandon it for a few weeks or months, anden this pivot back for a couple of days really epitomizes the attitude that turns people off from politics. it's the notion that job excretiocreation is somehow mort scoring points at convenient moments than just doing what's mess to get americans back to work. -- what's necessary to get americans back to work. this is the kind of thing that really angers folks in kentucky and across the country. but it seems to be the only thing that administration and its allies in congress are ever interested in. because here's the thing: not only should we be focused on jobs day in and day out around here, as senate republicans have been all along, but it's also not like we don't noi the kinds of -- know the kinds of things needed to get our economy back on track. it's not like we don't know how to get the private sector moving

again and creating jobs. we don't need to pivot. we need do the things that have been staring us in the face for the past four and a half years. and if washington democrats are really serious about turning the economy around, ted they'd be e working with republicans to do that instead of sitting on the sidelines waned waiting t waitir cues from the president whenever he feels like changing the topic. there are things we need to be spending our time around here, things like implementing a revenue-neutral reform of our tax code to make it fairer, flatter and more couldn't you don'tive to the -- and more conducive. things like reimagining a regulatory state that was designed in the 20th century so that the american companies

and workers can remain competitive in the 21st. the regulatory state we have now is entirely geared to the past, not the present and the future. things like developing and refining more energy at home instead of importing it from overseas. but washington democrats really haven't worked with us to do any of that. they've mostly given us higher taxes, an endless stream of religions and an unwilling -- regulations and an unwilling process -- they've given us a stimulus that ballooned the debt, maddeningly complex financial regulations that fail to solve too big to fail, and made bailouts the official law of the land and they gave us a 2,700-page health care law that almost no one read with a tower of at least 20,000 pages of accompanying regulations that almost no one can understand.

it is no wonder so many americans remain out of work with 54 months of unemployment at or above 7.5% in. kentucky, the rarity is regretfully -- the rate is regretfully even higher. washington democrats have been pivoting back and forth. they pivot so much that they often don't seem to know what to do with themselves when there is an absolutely policy issue to be solved. an issue where you would assume many democrats and republicans would normally agree. just take the student loan issue. right now the unemployment rate for 20-24 year olds is about 14.5%. for teens it is even worse, about 24%. the youth of our country are struggling. and yet with that backdrop, senate democrats still continue to fight with each other over the student loan bill 23 days past the deadlines they themselves warned us about. congressional republicans and president obama have actually been more or less on the same

page on this issue from the very start. we've agreed on the need to pursue permanent reform for all students -- all students, not just a short-term political fix for some. and still democrats focused on a showbet that seemed more will politics than policy. wasting pressure tiesm the july 1 deadline blowing past, they started bickering among themselves about the way forward. they need to stop. democrats need to finally awe lot bipartisan student loan reform proposal to come to a vote this week so we can pass it and ensure there's one less washington-created problem for young people to worry about in this economy. because it's tough enough out there for them already. the obama economy has not been kind to the youth of our nation. so i hope the white house and senate democrats will help us

change that because this persistently high unemployment is su simply not acceptable and neither is pretending that it can be changed by simply executing another pivot or delivering another campaign-style speech. or just spending more taxpayer money, because washington democrats have tried all that before over and over and over, and in fact it's just not working. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. sanders: mr. president, i rise this morning in strong opposition to the legislation which i assume is coming to the floor today, which, if passed, would be a disaster for the young people of our country who

are looking forward to going to college and for their parents who are helping them pay their bills. our job is to improve the dismal situation in terms of college affordability and the indebtedness of young people in this country to improve that situation, to make it better, not to make it worse, and that's exactly what this proposed legislation would do. mr. president, i ask for support from my colleagues for an amendment which i have offered, which would provide a two-year sunset to this bill, an approach which would prevent student interest rates from soaring and allow us the time, through the reauthorization of the higher education act, to deal with this problem in a constructive long-term solution. this issue is too important to

be rushed through this body without hearings, without listening to the people who will be affected by this bill, the millions of young people who wish to go to college who don't want to leave school in deep debt and their parents as well. we should be listening to them, not rushing this bill through today. and i want to thank senators leahy, whitehouse, gillibrand, and shats for thei shats schatzr cosponsorship of this legislation. mr. president, let's be honest about something that we don't talk about enough, and that is that in many, many ways our government is selling out the young people of our country, and when we do that, when we ignore the needs of the young people of our country, in many ways we are selling out the future of the united states of america because the young people are the future.

and if we don't turn this around, i fear very much that we will continue on the downward spiral that we have seen for the last several decades, a spiral in which the rich get richer, wall street and the multinational corporations continue to enjoy record-breaking profits, while the middle class continues to disappear and poverty remains catastrophically high. if we pass the legislation on the floor today without improving it, we will simply be taking one more step in the wrong direction. before i get into the gist of what this legislation is about and what my amendment will do, let me say just a very few words about where we are today with regard to the young people in our country. at this moment, the united states has by far the highest

rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth, almost 22%, and in many parts of this country, we are seeing a lack of social mobility where people who are poor, who grow up poor stay poor. that is not what this country is supposed to be about. at this moment, the childcare situation in this country is beyond disgraceful. millions of working families are unable to find affordable quality childcare, and many of our young people in the kindergarten and first grade years behind where they should be both intellectually and emotionally. at this moment, the unemployment rate for high school graduates is close to 20%. unemployment for high school graduates close to 20%, and that's the official rate. the real rate, including those who are working part time and those who have given up looking for work is actually much higher. and if you can believe this, --

and this is a statistic that should frighten us all, should make us all ashamed -- the official unemployment rate for black youth age 16-19 is 43.6%. now, i share the concerns that many people have recently expressed about the tragic death in florida of trayvon martin, but let's not forget there are tens of thousands of other young african-american kids all over this country worried about where they are going to go with their lives. as the bureau of justice statistics informs us, one out of three african-american men can expect to go to prison during their lifetime. what a horrible, horrible waste of human potential. our goal must be -- this must be to see that these young people are ending up in college or in decent jobs, not in jail, not

dying from drug overdoses, not involved in petty crime or self-destructive activities. and this legislation will simply make it harder for those kids and for all kids to get the higher education they need in order to succeed in life right now, today -- succeed in life. right now, today, hundreds of thousands of these young people in high school who have the ability to go to college are looking at the cost of college, the indebtedness that they will incur, and they are saying no, i will not go to college. what does that say about the future of this country? and this legislation which over a period of years will drive interest rates even higher than they are today will make it harder for the average kid, the working class kid to get to college. mr. president, all of us know that we live in a very competitive global economy. if we are going to succeed as a nation in this competitive economy, we need the

best-educated work force in the world. unfortunately, compared to the rest of the world, we are doing virtually nothing to make that happen. in june, the oecd, the organization for economic cooperation and development, released its annual snapshot on the state of education in developed nations. the report showed the united states is losing ground to other countries that have made sustained commitments in funding higher education opportunities. we are losing ground, and the legislation on the floor today, again over a period of years, raising interest rates extremely high, will make that bad situation even worse. mr. president, the united states once led the world in college graduates, and as a result, interestingly enough, older americans, those between age 55- 64, still lead their peers in

other nations around the world in the percentage with college degrees, which is 41%. but according to a very thoughtful report from cnn, this number over the years has flat lined. in 2008, -- and this is a very sad story indeed -- the same percentage of americans aged 25- 34 and aged 55-64 were college graduates. in other words, in that 30-year period, we made no progress at all. and during that period, as we all know, with the explosion of technology, what we have said to our young people is you desperately need a college education, and yet we are in terms of percentage of our people with college degrees exactly where we were 30 years ago. meanwhile, other countries all over the world have significantly surpassed us.

in terms of the number of people in those countries who are college graduates. in fact, right now, when once we were first in the world in terms of the percentage of our people who were college graduates, today we are 15th in the world, 15th in the world. mr. president, many people do not understand that today the united states government is making huge profits off of higher education and the loans that we are providing to our young people and to their parents. in fact, the estimate is that we will make about $184 billion in profits over the next ten years. to my mind, making huge profits off of young people and their families who want nothing more than to fulfill the american dream of being able to go to

college or graduate school and get out and earn a decent wage and make it into the middle class is obscene. we should not be profiteering off working families who are trying to send their kids to college. and yet, with the current legislation that will be on the floor over a ten-year period, we will be making $184 billion in profit. now, some people say well, we have a deficit. we need to go forward with deficit reduction. this will help us to the fortune of $184 billion in a ten-year period, and i say if you want to do deficit reduction, don't take it out on working families, low-income families who are struggling to send their kids to college when one out of four major corporations in this country, many of whom make billions of dollars a year in profit, are paying zero in taxes. you want to do deficit reduction, ask those

multinational corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes, not working families who are struggling. mr. president, let us be clear about what this legislation that i expect will be on the floor shortly will do. it provides a variable interest rate, and let's look at what the c.b.o. is telling us about where we may be going with interest rates in the coming years. what the c.b.o. tells us is that in 2013, a ten-year treasury note on which this formula is based is 1.81%. in 2014, it will be 2.57%. 2015, 3.35%. 2016, 4.24%.

2017, 4.9%. those are c.b.o. projections. based on the formula in this bill, here is what americans will be paying for student loans. the good news is that because interest rates are low now, in 2013, it will be 3.86% for subsidized stafford undergraduate loans. 2014, 4.62%. 2015, 5.4%. 2016, 6.29%. 2017, 7%, according to go. according to c.b.o. those are the subsidized stafford loans. under the graduate stafford loans, we're going to go from 5.4%, 6.1%, 6.9%, 2016 will be at 7.8%, 2017, 8.55%. all below the cap, by the way, in the bill.

now, what about the parents who are helping their students, the plus loan program? 2013, it starts at 6.3%, 2014, 7%, 2015, 7.8%, 2016, 8.7%, 2017, 9.4%. in other words, people will get up here and say well, interest rates initially will be low because interest rates are low, but they're not telling you that in years to come, interest rates are going to go up to unsustainable levels. now, what my amendment does is say okay, interest rates are low today. let's take advantage of that fact and let us sunset this bill in two years where we can then have interest rates that are reasonably low. not as low as i would like them but interest rates that will not be prohibitive. and then through the reauthorization of the higher education act, let us sit down

and deal with two issues. number one, how we on a long-term basis provide affordable loans and scholarships and grants to the people of this country who need to advance their education, and second of all, how we deal with the entire issue of college affordability. college in the united states costs much, much more in virtually every other country on earth. so, mr. president, where we are today is that we have over $1 trillion in debt in terms of college loans. college loans have tripled since 2004. young people are graduating college $27,000 in debt -- that's average; some more. i talked to dentists to went to deny it will school. over $200,000 in debt from their deny it will school bills. -- from their dental school

bills. so we have a criers righ a crisw and it is ait not only affects the families, it impacts our whole nation economically in terms of whether we will have a well-educated workforce to compete in the global economy. the legislation that is on the floor today only makes a bad situation worse. the result of it will be more student debt than we currently have. the result of that legislation will be more young people who look out and say, no, you know what? i don't want to get out of college $50 now in debt. i'm not going to go to college. and i guess i'm never going to make it into the middle class. and i guess i'm never going to be able to contribute in way that i thought possible to the country that i love. so we have got to do better than this legislation. the last point i would make, mr. president, is kind of a political point, if i might. that is, elections matter.

you recently ran for office. i ran for office in november. president obama ran for office. and we tell the american people what we believe, what we are going to fight for. well, the end result of those elections is that barack obama won, a decisive victory. he is president of the united states. and what he campaigned on is i'm going to stand up for the middle class. the other guys aren't. i'm going to do t and what i ran on and many other people ran on, is we're going to stand up for the middle class. the election results came in. barack obama won, a democrat president. united states senate today has 54 democrats. so my question is, why with a democratic president, why with a strong democratic majority in the house, are we looking at legislation which is virtually the same as the legislation passed by an extremely conservative republican house of representatives? how does that happen? what are we telling our constituents who voted for us? we said we're going to stand for

the middle class. if you're going to stand for the middle class, you're standing for the foormt of college, the middle-class kids to be able to go to college. you're talking to african-american kids saying you are there are alternatives to jail and crime. you, too can go to college. those are the people we are supposed to be talking to and yet i fear very much that the legislation that is coming to the floor today will not do that. in fact, it will make people say, what's the difference? wheywhat's the difference betwen the house and the senate? so i ask for support of my amendment. it will give us the time to come up with a long-term solution to a very, very serious problem. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the gentleman from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: i ask for consent to call off the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sanders: and i set the time equally divided in quorum

calls. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: .

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i ask the call of the quorum be vaishted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise as the full chair of the appropriations committee in support of fiscal year 2014 transportation, housing, and urban development appropriations bill. at noon we will be voting on the motion to proceed. i am here to say in the strongest, most affirmative way, that i urge my colleagues to please vote "yes" so we can get on with this very important bill that was fashioned with bipartisan participation to literally get america moving again.

the transportation, h.u.d. appropriations bill nor 2014 isen outstanding -- is an outstanding effort. it shows what bipartisan effort is and focuses on two things. . america's infrastructure in transportation and meeting compelling human need in housing and urban development, both of which contribute to creating jobs in the united states of america. this isn't a bill where jobs will be on a slow boat to china or a fast track to mexico. it puts america on the right track to meet these needs in transportation. there's a very good reason that we need this bill. the americans civil engineers society says the need for

physical infrastructure wears out. buildings need to be repaired and maintained. it is not politics. it's physics. we have to make investments today so that our nation can grow. we still have an unemployment rate of over 7%, so how do we get america moving? public investments that create private-sector jobs. that's what we like about transportation. this bill, under the leadership of murray and collins, includes federal aviation. that's a -- that's for airports. the federal highway administration in which we need to build and repair. amtrak and also the national transportation safety board, when there is an accident, they are on the job finding out what the problems are. this bill keeps america moving on land, sea, and in the air,

but most of all it's about bread and butter issues. it meets real needs and real times for our community. building roads and building community. this is why also i'm a strong supporter of the housing and urban development aspects in this bill. the presiding officer knows of my social work background. i know of his as a county executive, working hand in hand with the people and the needs of the people of the delmarva peninsula, and we know there's prosperity and pockets of poverty. this bill, through the community development block grant, helps meet these compelling needs. again, local needs decided by local leaders in real time today. and it also meets our needs for the elderly and for the disabled. the senate bill provides an allocation under my leadership of $54 billion in discretionary

spending. the house bill provides $10 billion less than the senate. the house allocation fails to provide those resources in transportation. senators murray and collins will go into that in more detail. but what i wanted to be able to say is that under my leadership as the full committee chair, my subcommittee marked up at the budget agreement -- budget bill passed under senator murray's leadership chairing the budget committee, where we marked up at a top line of $1.058 trillion. $600 goes to defense. $400 billion goes to domestic needs. if ever there was domestic needs, it goes to our infrastructure meeting the at that

tattered worn infrastructure of our community. there is much discussion going on now because of the trayvon-zimmerman situation. a debate has gone on under our president's encouragement in race, ethnicity, other aspects here. what we need to be able to do is take stock of ourselves. take stock of ourselves, how we treat one another, how we view one another. do we view one another as enemies consistently and do we view them on street corners or in communities or do we begin to look at how we build community in our neighborhood, starting with housing for the elderly, making sure the disabled are taken care of, respect for one another, passing an education bill, dealing with the student loans. this bill here will put americans to work, and it will also meet our compelling needs. and we can do it in a way that shows that we can do smart spending to accomplish national

goals. i too want to reduce the public debt of the united states, but i want to lower our unemployment rate. i want to lower the rate of danger in our physical infrastructure. and i really want the motion to proceed to pass. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to thank the very able committee chairwoman of the senate appropriations committee for her direction to our committee, full committee, to move forward on our appropriations bills. and i'm very proud that the transportation and housing bill will be the first of hopefully many bills to move through here. but i really want to thank her for her tremendous leadership, encouraging myself and my ranking member, senator collins, to move forward with our bill to the floor today. we will both be giving our opening statements. i know that the ranking member on the full appropriations committee will be here as well. the chairman of the finance committee has asked for some time to speak before senator

collins and i move forward on our discussion of this bill today. so i will yield to him and then we will speak after he does. mr. baucus: thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: thank you, mr. president. i thank my friend from maine for her indulgence. i will be as short as i possibly can. in fact, i will not read my statement in deference to the senators but deeply appreciate their indulgence. mr. president, i'm here basically to say i believe we must very aggressively reform our tax code. it's not been updated since 1986. since that date, it's built up barnacles, loopholes, deductions, credits, 15,000 changes to a tax code since 1986 and they have been additions and not been subtractions. our code is out of date.

other countries have kept their tax codes up to date. they have ensured that their companies are more competitive with changes in their tax codes. we've not done so. our american companies are losing out. they're losing out to other companies worldwide because our code has not kept up to date. in -- in fact, mr. president, there was a recent study survey by harvard business school. harvard business school surveyed over 10,000 of its graduates. over a short period of time. the conclusion of that survey, of those responded, are that america is starting to lose its competitiveness. we're losing out. why? many reasons. one that bubbled up the most, the one that was most telling is our tax code. two reasons -- one, they said is the high rates. our tax code top rate, 35% for

corporations, is much higher than is the rate for other companies worldwide. other countries have lowered their top corporate rate. we have not lowered ours. as a consequence, whenever there is a merger, the consequences of the headquarters ends up in another country, very simply, because the tax rate of that country is lower than it is in the united states and the inbev merger was one of many, many examples. the second reason they give with respect to the code and why the code is causing -- u.s. tax code has caused the united states to be less competitive is not only because our rates are higher, but also our code is so much more complex. it is very difficult for people doing business in the united states, for americans doing business in the united states, for people in other countries working with the u.s. tax code to deal with our tax code because it is so complex. in addition, mr. president, our code needs to be updated because it's so complex not just from an

international perspective but from a domestic perspective. americans as individuals are -- just don't trust the code. it's just complex. can't figure out their own returns. i might say myself, mr. president, it wasn't too many years ago, i was sitting at the kitchen table, trying to figure out my own tax return, and i'm not a wealthy man. i finally had to give up. i couldn't figure it out. i couldn't do it. i felt un-american that i can't figure out my own taxes, especially as somebody who went to college and with law school and the senate and i still can't do my own tax code. something is not quite right there. many americans believe as a consequence that somebody else is getting some deductions or credits, hire a fancy lawyer, if they are getting credits or deductions that they're not getting. and after that, small businesses. small businesses have a devil of a time keeping up with rules and regulations, let alone tax provisions. they spend much more of their

dollars on regulations and including tax returns hiring c.p.a.'s to figure out the return than big business does. it's easier for big business to deal with the complexities of the code. it's much, much more difficult for a small business person. the complexity of the code is hurting our country because it's also hurting small business in america. i might say, mr. president, too, as a couple of examples of the complexity, there are 42 different definitions of small business -- of a small business. 42 different definitions in the code of a small business. i have forgotten, it's either three or four definitions of a child. my lord, you would think we all know what a child is, but there are three or four different definitions of what constitutes a child. there are many -- i think it's -- i have forgotten the exact number. it's many different provisions in the code with respect to the education deduction, the education credit.

mr. president, my hand -- in my hand is a 90-page document explaining the education deductions alone. 90-page document. you would think the american family, the american student has the patience to go through a 90-page document that explains which deductions are available and which not? no way. that's got to be simplified. so let's simplify the code and get rid of a lot of junk in it, frankly. and i believe that the approach that we are taking in the finance committee is the correct approach. we have had over 50 hearings in the finance committee, over 50. we have many sessions in the committee about what's next, as the occupant of the chair knows. the approach we're taking is this. it's very simple. we're starting with a clean slate. we gave all the deductions, all the credits. we have told about $1.2 trillion annually. we're getting rid of them all. $12 trillion over ten years.

get rid of them all. get rid of them all. then start to build up which ones seem to make the most sense. senator hatch and i are working together on a bipartisan bill. the ranking member of the finance committee. he and i are together on this approach. we have asked our colleagues on the committee, off the committee, everyone, all senators, both sides of the aisle, give us your submissions. what do you want added back from a clean slate? do you want anything added back? if you want something added back, how do you change it, how do you tailor it? i'm not going to stand here and mention lots of different ways it can be changed, but senators know what they are. by working through the senators, it's more likely to be a better, more solid, productive product. i urge all of my colleagues send us your submissions. send us your submissions. there are a couple of senators on the floor. i hope they have sent in their submissions. they have indicated they have. that's good. i just urge my colleagues to do so because we're hearing directly from constituents. we have a web site that is

taxreform.org. over 10,000 submissions from around the country, people telling us what they want. i just submit, mr. president, our constituents are telling us how they want the tax code changed, we at least as senators should also indicate that we would like to see the tax code changed and be on the ground floor, rather than having to come out on the floor and offer amendments, add something back in and have to be paid for that was added back in. it's not something i think that senators want to do. we will mark up the tax bill this fall. we will mark up the bill. there will be a markup. i'm guessing -- i don't like to predict dates because sometimes they exchange, but sometime this fall, september, october, november, there, we're going to mark up a tax bill. i just urge senators to be ready. this is bipartisan, mr. president. i have gone overboard. i am meeting with every senator, every single senator about tax reform personally. just at lunch today, for

example, chairman camp and i, we meet weekly. at lunch today, we're meeting with 10 house members, 10 senators, a total of ten. we call it burgers and beer every two weeks over at the irish times. it's symbolic because that's where the last tax bill in 1986 was in many respects put together. and the more we get to know each other, get to know house members, i must confess there are a couple of house members who i didn't know who they were and they didn't know who i was. we talk about kids, talk about tax reform. just, it's a bonding process where we get to understand -- get to know each other better. dave camp andary going around the country. we went to the twin cities a couple weeks ago. we met with 3m, the management, the employees. we met with small bakeries. we're going to philadelphia this next monday. i think we're going over to delaware, i'm not sure. anyway, we will be up -- into

new jersey. i apologize to the presiding officer, i think it's new jersey. to philadelphia and new jersey for another session. there will be others, traveling around the country. we want to talk to people, see if they want to say -- what they want to say. i think this is a way to crack some of this partisan gridlock around here, partisan deadlock around here. how? by working together, low key, build from the top up with these sessions, these meetings, these discussions, just keep talking, because we all know that the tax code needs to be reformed. it is way dated. it's out of date. a small example is all the tax-exempt provisions of 501-c-4's and 3's and so forth. they haven't been addressed in 50 years. all the money since citizen united has gone to the tax exempts trying to find a safe home, that is where there is no disclosure of either donors or

amounts. that's got to be -- may be addressed as well. that's just one example in addition to all the complexity. my main point, mr. president, is just to -- is to thank -- is first to indicate we're going to -- there will be a markup opportunity for senators to send their submissions in. the deadline is the end of this week. and i urge all my colleagues to do so. and finally, i'm very grateful for my friends from maine and washington for allowing me to take this time. thanks so very much. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, we spend far too much time here in the senate scrambling to address short-term crises and far too little time, really, to tackle the serious long-term challenges facing our nation, and that's why i am very pleased that the senate will soon be considering the fiscal year 2014

transportation, housing and urban development appropriations bill. this transportation and housing bill received strong bipartisan support as it moved through the appropriations committee. it was reported out of subcommittee unanimously, and on june 27, the members of the full committee voted 22-8 to report this bill here to the senate. this bill received this strong bipartisan support because it helps families and communities, it gets workers back on the job, it is fiscally responsible, and it lays down a strong foundation for long-term and broad-based economic growth. our transportation and housing bill is very different from the one that is moving through the house of representatives right now, which passed out of their committee on a strict party-line vote. the senate bill funds the highly successful tiger program to ensure support for transportation projects of national or regional significance. the house bill zeros that funding out and even takes away

tiger funding provided for this current year. the senate bill provides $500 million to make necessary repairs to our nation's bridges. when one in four bridges today across the country is classified as deficient. the house bill does not provide that critical funding. our bipartisan senate bill fully funds the essential air service program. the house bill kicks communities out of the program and then shortchanges the program. on this side, our bill protects investments in our aviation infrastructure while the house bill cuts spending we need to maintain and modernize the air traffic system by more than half a billion dollars, to the lowest level since fiscal year 2000, more than a decade ago now. the senate bill maintains funding for the cdbg and home programs, while the house bill proposes to cut both to their

lowest levels ever. it preserves the federal commitment to the most -- to the mostly elderly and disabled tenants of public housing and section 8 project based housing while the intentional funding of programs in the house bill would ultimately lead to their demise. the house bill falls short in these and many other areas because its investment level is simply unsustainable. it is even lower than sequestering levels, and without adequate resources to fund core transportation and housing programs, it cuts deeply and broadly, and very few programs escape the ax. mr. president, the approach taken by the house should concern all of us, because this isn't about politics. it is about our country. investing in our infrastructure is something that brings together the u.s. chamber of commerce, major labor groups

like the afl-cio, and economists and policy experts across the entire political spectrum, because as any business owner will tell you, no matter how challenging the current environment is, you never want to cut the investments that allow you to compete and prosper once that crisis ends. there are plenty of independent assessments showing that right now as a country, we are not investing enough in our aging infrastructure, and none, none suggesting we invest too much. the fact is that if we slash our investments in infrastructure, we aren't really saving any money at all. we're just making things worse. we are weakening our basis for private investment and economic growth. we are putting public safety at risk, and we are allowing congestion to continue taxing families with painfully long commutes, long waits at airports and health-threatening pollution.

roads are going to be needed to be fixed eventually. bridges are going to be needed to be strengthened at some point before they collapse. the air traffic control system will have to be modernized before air travel becomes too unreliable, and waiting will only make it -- the work more expensive when we eventually do it. it is shortsighted and doesn't make any sense. that is why the bipartisan senate bill supports critical investments in our nation's infrastructure that are necessary to support and grow our economy. the investments included in our bill make it possible for people to get to work and products to get to market, and because other countries are investing in their infrastructure as quickly as they can, investments here in america are a key factor in making sure our country can compete and win in the 21st century global economy. mr. president, our bipartisan bill also supports our local community's efforts to promote

economic development, support small businesses and create affordable housing. these investments help create jobs and are necessary to ensure our nation's economic competitiveness into the futures a critical piece of the safety net, housing assistance and homeless shelters for millions of families that are one step from the street. it moves us closer to finally eliminating homelessness among our nation's veterans. the need for these investments far exceeds the resources in this bill but here in the senate we have been able to keep our commitment to our states and our communities and ensure the agencies and the bill can meet their statutory responsibilities. the house's bill builds untenable investment level and commitment to sequestration make those commitments impossible to keep. mr. president, the senate bill also works to improve the programs funded including reforms that address concerns

that members raised the last time the transportation and housing bill came to the senate floor. our bipartisan bill includes important section 8 reforms to reduce costs and create efficiency. it contains reforms to improve the oversight of public housing agencies and boards, ensure accountability for property owners that don't maintain the quality of their assisted housing and increases accountability in the cdbg program. the house bill doesn't include any of those reforms. our bill also continues to require oversight by the offices of the inspectors general and g.a.o. and incorporate their finding into the bill's guidance to agencies. mr. president, in short, our bill is a good bill, and together with senator collins, i encourage members to bring their amendments to the floor and to work with us to make this bill even better. mr. president, this bill has broad bipartisan support because it takes a practical approach to

addressing the real needs we find in the transportation and housing sectors. investments it makes, create jobs and helps the middle class now. it helps lay down a strong foundation for long term and broad-based economic growth and helps position our country and economy to compete and win in the 21st century global economy. the approach taken by our house colleagues on their transportation and housing bill would cut investments in a way that may make our short-term budget deficit look better on paper but that would hurt our families, cost us far more in the long run and hollow out our long-term investments and potential for economic growth. so, mr. president, i urge all of our colleagues to help support our bipartisan bill and move us rapidly to final passage. mr. president, again before i yield, i want to thank chairman mikulski who was here a few minutes ago for her tremendous support and leadership.

she was the former chair of the v.a.-h.u.d. subcommittee and appreciates the importance of the investments this bill makes. this bill does include priorities of members on both sides of the aisle reflecting the appropriations committee's bipartisan tradition. so i want to especially thank my entire committee for their work and i want to take a moment to especially express my appreciation and thanks to my ranking member, senator collins, for all of her hard work and cooperation throughout this process. i'm very proud that together we have written a bill that works for families and communities. investing in our families and our communities and long-term economic growth shouldn't be a partisan issue and i think the bipartisan work that went into this bill and the strong support that it received in committee proves it doesn't have to be. so, mr. president, i look forward to moving to this vote at noon today to allow us to get on the bill and encourage all of our members to bring their amendments to us. my ranking member, senator collins, and i will work our way

through it as sufficiently as -- efficiently as we can so we can bring this bill to conclusion. i again want to thank senator collins for her tremendous work on this and in-depth understanding of the issues of this bill and thank her for working with us at this time. ms. collins: thank you. thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i'm pleased to join chairman murray as we begin floor consideration of the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill for the departments of transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies. mr. president, this return to regular order in which appropriations bills are considered individually with the opportunity for full debate, for members to come to the floor and

offer their amendments is welcome indeed. and like senator murray, i want to commend the two leaders of our appropriations committee: senator mikulski, the chair; and senator shelby, the ranking member, for their commitment to returning to regular order. we simply must stop the irresponsible practice of waiting until the 11th hour and then producing a bundled bill totaling thousands of pages with little or no opportunity for truly careful deliberation and debate. i want to thank our subcommittee chairman for working re -- working very closely with me to craft this bipartisan bill. she has been a tremendous leader

of our subcommittee and has operated in a way that has been completely bipartisan. this bill makes responsible investments in transportation and economic development and includes input and priorities from members from both sides of the aisle. we listened to the concerns of our members and the bill was approved by a bipartisan vote of 22-8 in committee. the fact is, mr. president, the transportation and housing appropriations bill has a long tradition of bipartisan support. every senator has unmet transportation and housing needs in his or her home state, from crumbling roads and bridges to

economic development needs to a growing population of low-income families, elderly and disabled individuals who need our help. according to the american society of civil engineers, the condition of our nation's infrastructure remains poor. our roads, airports, and transit systems received a grade of "d" while our bridges, ports, and rail systems received only a "c." in fact, in my state of maine, the roads and bridges are among the worst in the nation's world transportation network. and this matters, mr. president, because we need efficient and safe transportation networks to

move our people around the country and to move our products to market. the bill before us does not begin to solve all of our nation's transportation and housing woes. we simply do not have the money to do that. after all, we cannot ignore the size of our unsustainable $17 trillion national debt. we also cannot ignore the need for investments that will help the private sector create jobs, allow our people and products to travel safely and efficiently and our most vulnerable citizens to receive decent housing. now i understand that some members are very concerned about

supporting any funding bill that has an allocation that is higher than the house counterpart. i certainly agree that it is important that we adhere to current law which limits spending to $967 billion. but, mr. president, it is our responsibility to consider the merits of each of the senate funding bills and produce bills based on our best judgments. then we negotiate with our house counterparts in conference. that is the way the process is supposed to work. that's how we produce compromises.

that's how we produce appropriations bills. the senate should not be a rubber stamp for the house, nor should the house be a rubber stamp for the senate. each body should come forth with its individual appropriations bills, and then we should meet in conference, negotiate, and produce bills that could have the support of both bodies. the fact is that the fiscal year 2014, house, transportation and h.u.d. allocation of $44.1 billion is, in my judgment, insufficient to meet the true needs of both transportation and housing. in fact, the house allocation was $51.6 billion just last

fiscal year, so this year's house allocation reflects a dramatic cut. now could there be further cuts in our bill? absolutely. i'm sure there will be some worthwhile amendments offered on the senate floor. and more important, i believe that when we negotiate with our house counterparts that we'll produce a bill that is most likely somewhere in between the two allocations. our bill is by no means a perfect bill, but the house bill includes policy choices that i believe most senators would find problematic if they take a close look at the house provisions. let me just give you one example. our bill provides nearly $3.2

billion for the community development block grant program. the cdbg program supports economic development leading to job creation across the country. now i want to point out that the president's budget cut that program. it proposed $2.8 billion which would be the lowest funding level since 1976, when president gerald ford was in office. the cdbg program is one of the most popular federal programs because of the flexibility it gives communities and states to tailor their economic development projects. and yet, the house bill would

cut the program even beyond the president's budget by reducing this important program by more than $1.1 billion below the 1976 levels. that's when the program was first created in a republican administration, which recognized that states and communities are best able to use the flexibility of the community development block grant program to meet the needs of their citizens, to spur downtown development, to create incentives for businesses to locate, and to produce good jobs. our bill also continues funding for the tiger grant program

which supports transportation infrastructure projects that have a significant impact on our nation of region or metropolitan area. the house bill not only eliminates this program, but also rescinds funding for the current fiscal year by 50%. that means that a round of grants that are just about to be funded could not go through. for aviation programs, our bill provides sufficient funding to ensure that the next giant modernization efforts will continue to improve the efficiency, safety and capacity of our aviation system. with the lower funding levels as proposed by the house, here's the irony: we would simply end

up paying more in the long term than we would now by providing the funding when it is needed. so this program isn't a matter of whether or not we need it. it's when are we going to fund it. and funding it now, as we have been doing it year after year in an incremental way, allows the nextgen program for aviation to stay on track and it will end up costing less than if we cut the funding and stretch it out over many more years. our bill also includes $1.4 billion for amtrak. well, the house bill provides -- while the house bill provides only $950 million.

but in no way is the senate funding extravagant. in fact, it is nearly $1.2 billion less than the administration's request for amtrak, and it avoids gimmicks that the obama administration used in this account. well, the needs for amtrak infrastructure far exceed what we were able to provide. our bill is a step in the right direction. under the house proposal, amtrak would be forced to consider cutting service which could affect millions of passengers diverting them to our already congested highways and busy airports. mr. president, in reality, the overall resources provided in this bill are well below the

level of investment that our nation's infrastructure requires as the subcommittee chairman so correctly pointed out. nevertheless, it would spur the creation by the private sector of good jobs now when they are needed most, and it would establish the foundations for future economic growth. just as important to our economic future, however, is reining in federal spending, getting our federal debt under control must be a priority governmentwide. in setting priorities for the coming year, this bill strikes the right balance between thoughtful investment and fiscal restraint. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to present this important bill to our chamber, to our colleagues. as we debate this bill, i urge

our colleagues to support the motion to proceed, the compromises that our committee worked so hard to achieve, and most of all to come forward with suggestions for improvements through amendments. and let me end by emphasizing that point. i have the assurance of the subcommittee chairman that republicans will be allowed to offer amendments, so i would say to my colleagues, even if you don't like this bill, there is no reason to oppose the motion to proceed on the bill. you will be given an opportunity to offer amendments, to change the numbers in this bill, to cut programs if you wish, but let's get on this bill so that we can

return to the normal process of full and fair debate on individual appropriations bills rather than waiting until the 11th hour, bundling them together with little review, with insufficient care, deliberation and debate, or relying on continuing resolutions, stop-gap measures, which wreak havoc on the ability of programs to be carried out in a cost-effective manner. thank you, mr. president. i see that our ranking member of the full committee is on the floor, and i would yield to him. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, i thank the chairwoman of the appropriations committee, senator mikulski, for moving ahead to complete action on this, the transportation, housing and urban development appropriations bill.

this is the first bill reported by the appropriations committee to be considered by the senate on the floor here. it's important that congress, i believe, mr. president, exercises constitutional authority over the funding of government. if we do not pass appropriations bills, the undesirable outcome is a government shutdown, which none of us want. i believe, however, that the senate is still on a precarious path. the majority is pursuing a top-line discretionary spending level of $1.058 trillion for the fiscal year 2014. this exceeds the budget control act level by over $90 billion, mr. president. the budget control act is a law that establishes and enforces through sequestration limits on discretionary spending. in the fiscal year 2013, most

discretionary programs were forced to take arbitrary across-the-board cuts. we did not have to go in that direction for 2014, but over a month ago, all republican members of the appropriations committee signed a letter to chairwoman mikulski, calling for a top-line number of $967 billion that complies with the law. there could have been an alternative to sequestration. the appropriations committee could have written spending bills that adhered to the budget constraints of the law. this would have allowed congress not an indistrim gnat formula to make spending cuts of its choosing and to establish priorities which we ultimately will have to do. this level would have also given senate and house appropriators a

better chance to conference individual bills. instead, several of the appropriations bills between the two chambers are so far apart that aligning them would be difficult if not impossible. regrettably, mr. president, because of this disagreement, the end game will probably be a continuing resolution. every year that we have a continuing resolution or a series of them is another year that we drift further away from the regular order. in addition, mr. president, even a continuing resolution for 2014 based on this year's discretionary spending would require another sequester under the budget control act. given that direction we're headed, i will vote against all appropriation bills that adhere to a total of $1.058 trillion.

it's not because the bills are entirely unworthy of support. that's not true. it's because they will ultimately lead us to a statutory dead end and erode the ability of congress to control how the government is funded, as we've done before. therefore, i intend to oppose the motion to proceed, not because i don't think the bill has merit, as i said, but because in many ways it does. i will oppose the motion to proceed because it will inevitably lead us once again to an impasse that will result in further continuing resolutions and take us further away from any semblance of regular order. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? i have 14 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the

majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, shortly the senate will move to a vote on the motion to proceed to the transportation and housing bill. this is the first appropriation bill to come before the senate. we have worked very hard in a bipartisan way to have a bill that invests in the projects that are important to this country to move us forward and to help secure a strong future for this country. it is a bill that was tough to write. our allocation is much slower than those of us who are working on these issues would like to see it, but we have tried to be pragmatic and practical and move forward. madam president, i know that there are those members of the senate who make the argument that our allocation is higher than the house and would vote against these bills. i would remind all of our colleagues, i have been out on this floor innumerable times urging our colleagues to let us go to conference on the budget so we can work out this disagreement and be able to have

the allocations be the same from the house and the senate. but we have been unable to do that because a small group of senators have objected on the other side to us going to that conference, so we are at the place now where we have got to move these appropriation bills forward. it does mean that eventually we'll have to get to a conference, and as my ranking member pointed out, we'll have to work out an agreement. but until we can go to conference and work out an overall number, we have to move forward on these bills. otherwise, we are going to face a crisis come the end of september in terms of funding our government and giving certainty to people across this country about where we will be allocating funds for them to be able to move forward on their budgets at the local and state levels. so, madam president, i urge our colleagues to vote yes, allow us to move to this bill, and as my ranking member has said, bring your amendments to the floor. if you have an objection to something in the bill or you want to change something or you want a discussion about something, we will be here, ready to take amendments and

look at them and have the will of the senate move forward. so, madam president, in a few short minutes, we will move to that vote, and i urge our colleagues to vote yes. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 99, s. 1249, a bill making appropriations for the department of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. gn