comply. >> other questions? no one else in the room? twitter? i'm -- the only one i have is the challenges of the aca, and i think that's probably what we've been talking about for the be entire be time. how, i guess i have a selfish question this terms of august. how hot is it going to get? i should tell you i'm so well organized and prepared that i sent my husband out to buy the school supplies yesterday. [laughter] i'll go get the right ones next week. [laughter] >> seriously, shakes your confidence. ..

so we have been to the parking lot and talked for hours. i don't know that it will be that level particularly in texas. they will be mad about the irs and inflation and any number of things. this will probably be fairly low down on the list. there is no question there will be some discussion about this and we will likely absorb criticism for not enthusiastically abrasive -- embracing the affordable care act. it has been well advertised i have been a skeptic from day one. the other thing that will come up that i will hear about in texas is the old issue of funding. the end of the fiscal year so -- changes start the next day.

there's a nexus that will be pretty important and we have incredible budget battles before the end of the year with the federal debt limit and how that is going to interplay in this. do i trust the federal government to do everything they say they're going to do? absolutely not. what if i start this medicaid expansion and there is no partner with me at the end of the year and i am standing on my own? the funding questions are going to be the more heated ones like you are in the house and control the purse strings and shut this thing down and that will be the question i will get. >> one other quick question and check with the audience again. we got a bunch of them. is s g i happening this year? >> we will pass the full committee next wednesday and at some point likely be wrapped up

in bigger budget battles. the important thing was it was an inclusive process. we got input from providers and patients for year-and-a-half or two years. republicans, democrats worked well into the night for months on this. the important thing was to get a policy right and the good news is we were able to coalesce around policy. when i ran for congress the sgr was one of the issues. was in soluble, no one could fix it. >> question for california. what pieces -- when you do this campaign what is the hard thing for ordinary people to grasp? paraphrasing the question. >> the complexity of the law, the opportunity and obligation makes it hard for all of us.

we have talked about everybody evaluating this from their own current circumstances will i be better off for not better off when this goes forward? the issue you might hope would mobilize the people that has been absent is to what extent of we all in this together? i have an obligation to participate not because of short-term benefits but for broader reasons? >> as these people campaign, everywhere you choose, something that when you hear people talking about it does not connect with the audience? >> i like to come back to something that happened, the importance of collaboration and communication among different agencies between the fed's in this state and between the states and the private sector and that is happening successfully in places but could

be better and is going to need to work well going forward. >> back to that point about individuals signing up, the issue of we are all in this together is one reason to get insurance. in does take you back up from the level of what does this mean for me personally to the level of what are we as a society in doing about health care. unchallenged is there are different views. most americans want to be in this together in terms of making sure everyone gets the coverage they need which is not mean all americans can afford this version of doing it and making this a philosophical issue is going to be a challenge in this environment and that gets back to whether there are number of people who for very rational reasons would say i would like to get coverage but don't have that much income. this looks expensive. i used to have a policy that was

cheaper for whatever reason, less generous, young and healthy and so forth and not deciding and the big question, how much the individual mandate fee will play out in all of this but i can see a lot of people deciding they are going to wait through this first period to see what happens. >> do you think the participation, some people tell me they think premiums may be high the first year because insurers are by definition conservative. they don't want to lose their money. they may be high on the first year and some are holding back to see what happens. do you think judging it the first year not just in enrollment but pricing may be a hard investment. >> hard to say. the more you can convey certainty what the policies are and how this will work the more competitive price you are going

to get and that worked very well ended price came down since then. for this program it does vary across the. some states have done well with this process. for many insurers especially when they don't know how many are signing of this is an educated guess this year and it may look different from state to state in 2015 based on experiences that differ. >> that could be up for down. a lot like an initial stock offering, priced at something and goes in one direction or another. >> transparency has been a problem and withholding of rules like essential health benefit and to after election day people remembered that. they will be reluctant about this. >> we have another minute or two. yes?

mike? >> we are going to have an interesting time because as the congressman pointed out the sgr may not be short term but may be permanent. and interesting confluence of the debt ceiling limit actually being hit. sgr coming in to play and the discussion the affordable care act may be part of the debt ceiling debate, really gearing up for a fiscal cliff type of scenario like we had last year. not quite as big but the drama whether the government will be shut down and that debate occurring in november. >> the timing of the aca is of little, i thought that would be sept. now leave looks -- the actual time line is after enrollment because of economic conditions. we will have a long, hot december. has a timing of it may interact aca fferently.ny steen sa-- the

>> will they seek more funding and how will that work? >> the eligible to apply for establishment grants through august of 2014 particularly for states that may elect to run state based exchanges or take on certain functions but after that year they have to be fully self sustaining and they all have different models that they are working on for self sustainability including fees on the plans that are part of the marketplace, some just in the exchange, some on the broader market place, looking at other creative sources such as advertising and sponsorship so they need to provide value, they

need to -- to their customers and need to be self sustaining so they will not be funding the exchange. >> the federal fall that will be fees on the insurer's. >> that is the current plan so in a bad come from the treasury. it is 9:10, a time to wrap up our conversation. thank you for joining us. lively, interesting time. thank you to cvs caremart for making this possible and 54 attending an thank you to all of you watching live stream. have a great day and we will see you the next time we gather for a political breakfast conversation. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> more live coverage to tell you about at 11:00 eastern, c-span3 will have a confirmation for president obama's nominee for a homeland security secretary who currently serves as head of u.s. citizenship and immigration services, likely to be questions about his role helping the company obtain international investor visa, that is live at 11:00 eastern today. also live on c-span3 the subcommittee on water and power ears a hearing on the water infrastructure, municipal water systems and the like. that gets underway at 2:30 on c-span3. [inaudible conversations] >> live coverage will continue at 9:30 when the senate needs to continue work on federal spending next budget year which

begins oct. first. then it is a debating funds for transportation, housing and community development programs. number of amendments will be considered. yesterday senators took time out to talk about president obama's ceres of speeches on jobs and the economy as congress works on federal spending. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to come to the floor to follow the remarks of our republican leader on the president's to the to the economy. over the last two years the obama administration gave us the greatest experiment in history, increasing the federal debt by $6.1 trillion, raised taxes by $1.7 trillion and imposed $518 billion worth of new

regulations. the president when he came to office, had a democratic senate and a democratic house. his party controlled all branches of the legislative and executive branch. he got virtually everything he wanted. he got a trillion dollars stimulus package, he wanted a government takeover of america's health care system and that is what he got. he wanted extensive new regulations for the financial industry and he got that too. he wanted to impose through the environmental protection agency radical environmental regulations and that is what he got as well. from 2009 until 2010 until the voters spoke in november of 2010 our friend on the other side controlled the white house, the house of representatives, under nancy pelosi and the united

states senate and they got virtually everything they wanted and that was their great experiment, see whether a growing and interested and extending federal government was the answer to our economic challenges and high unemployment. we now know what the results have been. america's unemployment rate hit 10% for the the early 1980s. it stayed above 8% for 43 straight months. meanwhile, many americans have simply given up working -- looking forward. the bureau of labor statistics published the labour participation rate. we know the percentage of people in the workforce is lowest it has been for 40 years. that is a tragedy. had it all locked and we are experiencing the weakest economic recovery and the

longest period of high unemployment since the great depression in the 1930s. by the president's own standards, his economic record has been a huge disappointment. his repetitive pivot stevie economy time and time again particular leak when his administration is having to answer a lot of hard questions about various scandals. with john boehner i say welcome, mr. president, let's talk about the economy, let's talk about what works and those not work and we know what does not work which is another government program that raises taxes and create uncertainty on the part of job creators to put people back to work. as washington post correspondent noted last week the president

promised 1 million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016 but factory unemployment has fallen last four months to only 13,000 jobs toward that goal. there is some good news. i was on the floor yesterday admitted the bragging the little about the economic growth in my state, texas. one of the reasons is we are taking advantage of the innovation and technology boom in the energy production business and we are seeing a huge movement back on shore to the united states of a lot of manufacturing because of the low price of natural gas. unfortunately the president does not seem to recognize the benefits of producing our own domestic natural energy and what that would mean in terms of bringing jobs back on shore and creating more manufacturing jobs. the president promised increase take-home pay and expand the

middle class. you may recall on the health care bill he said it would reduce health care premiums by $2,500 for a family of four. unfortunately he proved to be wrong to because the cost has actually gone up $2,400 for family of four, not down. we know from labor department statistics that median earnings for american families have fallen by 4% since the recession ended. even its most ardent advocates now are coming to the realization that obamacare is not working out the way they had hoped. i was on the floor a few days ago with a letter from three union leaders who said basically it is turning out to be a disaster. it is hurting their own members. these are people who were for obamacare saint is not turning

out the way we had hoped. the administration itself has implicitly acknowledged this by saying the employer mandate, that is the requirement for people who employ 50 people or more, that that is stifling job creation and prompting many companies to take full time jobs and turning them into part-time jobs. between march and june the number of americans working part-time jumped from 7.6 million to eight.two million. i think the administration sought that number and it scared them all little bit as it should. it delayed the employer mandate for another year unilaterally and a new survey finds in response to obamacare 70% of small businesses are going to reduce hiring, reduce worker hours, replace full-time

employees with part-time employees. i am not suggesting those of us who did not vote for obamacare should be rejoicing. i think it is a sad moment. even its most ardent advocates are finding out their hopes and dreams and wishes for this government takeovers not turning out the way it should. again, this is not of time for anyone to spike the ball or rejoice in the failure of this program. this is a time for us to work together to say okay, there are people who oppose obamacare, they ended up being right in their predictions, there were those who supported obamacare and unfortunately for the country it did not work out the way they had hoped. now is the perfect time for us to come together and say what do we do next to prevent the failure of this health care takeover by the federal government from hurting the people was supposed to help.

this is an opportunity for us to work together to do that. we need to do something different. someone said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. it is not going to happen. we need to do something different. we need to do something different in terms of delivering a quality access to health care. instead of more tax increases we need fundamental tax reform. this is something republicans and democrats all agree on. the president himself said he believed we need to do revenue neutral corporate tax reform that lowers the rate, broaden the base and give us a revenue system more conducive to strong economic growth. instead of picking winners and losers in the economy, and what parts of the law to waive or

enforce we need to dismantle what is left of obamacare and replace it with haitian center alternatives that will lower costs and improve access to quality and not interfere with that important dr./patient relationship. the senator wrote of wyoming has spoken many times eloquently about that. is that of letting the in july and -- environmental protection agency regulate our energy economy, we need to expand domestic energy production by eliminating misguided federal regulations. instead of adopting energy policies that hampered job creation we need to adopt policies that help promote jobs such as approving of the iraqis don't pipeline from canada and not trying to overregulate something subject to state regulation like fracking. in washington people act like fracking process is something

new. we have been doing it in texas for 60 years and it has unregulated by the oil and gas regulator in our states and protected the water supply. for those of us who were wrong about their predictions to say it didn't work out the way we planned and none of us are relishing in the failure of these policies but we need to work together and get outside our ideological converts zone and address the problem of chronic high unemployment, the fact that young people are graduating from college and can't find jobs, they know they are going to be burdened by the debt we continue to rack up and our economy is bouncing along the bottom. i am afraid if we continue with the policies of the last four years we will create a lost

generation of young americans who cannot find good full-time jobs. none of us, republicans, democrats alike, none of us want that to happen but it is time we did something about it. i yield before. >> senator from wyoming is recognized. >> mr. president, later today president obama is scheduled to give the first in a series of speeches on the economy. he is pivot in one more time to turn his attention to the millions of americans who are still struggling four years after the recession ended. i say one more time because as one of those reporters wrote this morning this is the tenth time the president has pivoted to the economy. a white house adviser said the president will be speaking about, quote, what it means to be middle class in america.

i hope president obama will talk about how his own policies have harmed and continue to harm the middle class in america. the harm that health care law has done to health care families. and start talking about these things because the american people have been talking about them for a long time now. i hear it every time i go home to wyoming every weekend whether i am in fremont county, part county, wherever i am i continue to hear about this. now we are hearing it from the union leaders who are among the law's biggest supporters, the heads of three labor unions that out a letter that warned of the damage to the health care law, doing to the middle class. they wrote that the unintended consequences of the aca are

severe, servers incentives are already creating a nightmare scenarios. perverse incentives creating a nightmare scenario. that is what the law's supporters are saying. they wrote that the health care law, quote, will shatter not only our hard earned health benefits but destroyed, destroyed the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the american middle class. if the president wants to talk about what it means to be middle-class in america he needs to explain why his policies are destroying the backbone of the middle-class. that is what the union leaders are saying. they are seeing that the job numbers, just like the rest of us, are not good for america. in june the number of people working part time when they want to work full time soared by

322,000. there are more than 8.2 million americans working part-time jobs because their hours were either cut back or because they can't find the full time work that they seek. lighthouse has conceded that the law has a problem for employers when it says they needed relief from the logistical mess that the law created. that is why the obama administration decided to delay the employer mandates. that was one of the signature parts of the president's health care law. under the law every employer with more than 50 people working 30 hours a week or more, going to have to offer extensive government mandated health insurance. now we have a 1-year delay on this unpopular damaging washington mandates. if the law is so bad for businesses they can't handle that in 2014 it will still be bad for them in 2015. that was one regulation. the president's health care law

created 20,000 pages of new regulations. those regulations concern middle-class families that i hear from in wyoming but not just wyoming. this morning the washington post front page health laws's running to the impact on for full timers, front-page washington post today. for kevin pace, the president's health care law could have meant a better health insurance. instead it produced a pay cut. like many of his colleagues this music professor in northern virginia community college managed to assemble a healthy course load despite his official status as a part-time employee. for his employer, the state of virginia, his employer, not some co. but the state of virginia cut his hours this spring to

avoid a january 1st requirement that all full-time workers, requirements and the health care law, for large employers be offered health insurance. the law defines full time as 30 hours a week or more. this isn't a business worried about a bottom line. this is the state of virginia. va's situation provides a good ones on why. the state is 30,000 part-time hourly wage employees with as many as 10,000 of those part-time people working more than 30 hours a week. 30 hours is the key number. offering coverage to those workers who include nurses, an important part of our economy, important part of the needs of this country, park rangers, adjunct professors would have been prohibitively expensive. state officials say costing as much as $110 million a year.

it was all about the money, said sarah redding wilson, director of the state of virginia department of human resource management. health laws and intended impact on part-timers, hurting the middle class. another thing middle class americans are worried about his health insurance premiums and they have a right to worry. the mcclatchy news service ran this headline saying, quote, america -- obama quotes health care savings that costs likely to rise for many. the article went on to say experts predict the premiums on individual plants will increase in most states because of the new consumer protections, on a sweeping legislation requires. consumer protections is the white house's way of saying more red tape. >> debate from the senate floor yesterday. live now to the senate as lawmakers continued deliberations on the

transportation, housing and urban developers appropriations bill, a vote on final passage that happen to the. live to the u.s. senate on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father, be with ou with with our senators not only in great moments but also in the repetitive and common task of life. make them children of faith and

heirs of peace. may they tackle even mundane responsibilities with integrity and faithfulness, cheerfulness and kindness, optimism and civility. lord, give them wisdom to be patient with others, ever lenient to their faults and ever prompt to praise their virtues. may they bear one another's burdens and so fulfill your law. keep them ever mindful of the brevity of life and of the importance of being faithful in little things. we pray in your merciful name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., july 25, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable brian schatz, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks

and those of senator mcconnell, there will be a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with the first 30 minutes controlled by the majority and the second 30 by the republicans. following that morning business, senate will resume consideration of s. 1243, which is the transportation appropriations bill. senator murray will continue to work through the amendments with susan collins, the ranking member from maine. we hope to vote on confirmation of the west nomination today to be associate attorney general. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. mr. president, about 80 years ago when president franklin roosevelt first proposed social security as an insurance against poverty in oldagers the idea was controversial. it was new, never been done before, nothing like it. but in 1935, 97 republicans joined democrats in congress to

create one of the most successful social programs in history, if not "the most" successful social program in our country and the history of the world. two decades later, president dwight eisenhower proposed the nation's first interstate highway system. why did dwight eisenhower do this? as a young major in the army, he was directed to bring a convoy of troops and equipment across the country, and he determined at that time something had to be done. the roads were nonexistent and those that existed were not in very good shape. so when he became president, after having been such a successful leader of our efforts in world war ii, he asked congress to invest $50 billion -- under present-day dollars, mr. president, that would be about $500 billion.

now, that meant almost 50,000 miles of new highways. there are still ideas out there we should do. eisenhower, along with roosevelt, did some things that were new and uniqu unique, but k back at what good they did. look at the good of social security. look at the good of our interstate highway system. now, with the highway bill back in 1956, the bipartisan vote wasn't even close. thereon this. it passed the senate 89-1. and it was approved in the house of representatives by a voice vote. forty years later -- fo about 40 years after president roosevelt decided we should do something about taking care of people in

their golden years here in america, president harry truman envision add program that would protect every senior citizen from illness and need. well, 83 republicans helped lyndon johnson and democrats in congress to create medicare. democratic president, roosevelt, preen presidentrepublican presi, eisenhower, democratic presidents truman and johnson were the reason we have medicare. since the law was enacted in 1965, poverty among seniors in this country has decreased and life expectancicy has increased every ten years because of medicare. on each of these owe cautions that i've talked about and countless others throughout the course of american history, lawmakers divided by political party have united to pass important groundbreaking legislation. on the issues that matter most, when lives are at stake, when the country is at stake, and the economy of the country is at

stake is whe, and when american competitiveness is at stake, lawmakers have been drawn together by shared priorities. it is time to renew that tradition. over the last five years this nation has dug itself out of a whole created by the great recession. i quo g could go into reasons we great recession happened. but let's drop that for now. it havmentd we have an opportunity now to come together. as democrats and republicans came together in those instances i gave in the past, they did it to ensure the health and dignity of our nation's seniors. as democrats and republicans came together to pave the way for a mobile and competitive economy, so democrats and republicans today must come together -- today -- to build a future where hard work is all it takes to turn opportunity into prosperity.

yesterday president obama laid how the a road map to restore that program for every american. took him an hour -- the speech took an hour, but every minute was upon. he laid a vision to encourage responsible homeownership and to create jobs for building eisenhower-era roads and bridges. every day i'm impressed by president obama's focus on restoring a vibrant economy and every dame a encouraged by his optimism -- and every day i'm encouraged by his optimism and with a little help of a few reasonable republicans, we can do it. i look forward to hearing more defrails the president on his proposals in the coming days and weeks. president eisenhower understood that lawmakers -- republican or democrat -- should be drawn together by shared priorities.

we should all play on the same team. this is what he said, an i quote, "i have one yardstick by which i test every majority problem, and that yardstick is, is it good for america?" that's what general eisenhower said. and he was right and he's right today. throughout our nation's history, congress has used that same measure, but over the last five years something has changed. my republican counterpart said his number-one goal was to defeat president obama, the words "at any cost" were implied. since 2009, republicans have refused to join democrats in the important job of legislating. let's work. they've refused to join us in leading preferring to stake out ideological territory or try to score political points. republicans have balked at new ideas but they have also balked at old ideas solely is because

those ideas are now favored by president obama. this kind of opposition for opposition's sake is the result of the gridlock and i'm sorry to say, mr. president, dysfunction it has resulted in bitter partisanship and hostage-take and standoffs. i was on ain't view on public broadcasting yesterday. they said, what about the numbers of congress being so low. i said, i haven't gotten a call from any of those pollsters but if i had, i would have agreed with this number. congress has become dysfunctional. that is unfair to the american people. and it's made it almost impossible for congress to advance the big ideas, to achieve the big things, to realize the big dreams it once could. but i.t. not too late for reasonable -- but it's not too late for reasonable people from reasonable parties on both sides of the capitol to change that. it is not too late for lawmakers to unite to pass important legislation.

like president obama, i'm an optimist. i remain hopeful. i am hopeful that my republican colleagues are using the same yardstick as i am. and i know they're asking themselves, as i am, is it good for america? mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: like the president, ippreciate i apprecd literary context.

a good writer can sum up a vision and inspire people. when douglas macarthur bid farewell to west point, he warned that "only the dead have seen the end of war." and the biblical references in j.f.k.'s famous inaugural represent another classic use of the well-placed quote. but i think a lot of people are still scratching their heads about president obama's promise yesterday -- his promise yesterday to bring americans an ocean of tomorrows. frankly, i don't even think that carl sandberg fans out there would get it. and i really wonder, does he? because the president himself said his speech probably won't change any minds. even the advisors who endlessly hyped this thing more or less conceded that there wouldn't be any "there" there, no

groundbreaking proposals, no tack to the center, no promise to finally start working collaboratively with congress. well, they were right. so really, you have to ask, what was the point? look, this president is a terrific campaigner. we all recognize that. he's got a way with words, too. but at some point campaign speeches have to end and the working with others season has to begin. at some point you have to start promising an ocean of tomorrows and start working with the representatives of the people, because let's be perfectly clear, americans aren't worried about how many tomorrows there are to come; they're worried about what those tomorrows will actually bring. the bills in tomorrow's mail, the cuts in tomorrow's paycheck, the affordability of tomorrow's

health costs. these are the things that can't be addressed with reheated speeches or clever quotes. they require actually working with people, including those you might not always agree with. for instance, going around telling people obamacare is work the way it's supposed to or that its fabulous or wonderful, as cephal of our democratic friends -- as several of our democratic friends have done, well, that doesn't really change reality. i.t. just words. -- it's just words. it doesn't change the fact that recent surveys show only 13% of americans -- only 13% of americans -- now believe the law will help them. or that about half believe it will make things worse for the middle class, or that actuaries are now predicting cost increases of 30% or more in my home state of kentucky. now, i know the president likes to point to the few places, as he did yesterday, where premiums might actually drop under

obamacare, but he's basically silent on the places where it's been announced that premiums will go up under obamacare. and he won't say a word about all the people who've lost their jobs or seen their pay cuvmen p. "the washington post" profiled a college professor in virginia who will see his headquarters slashed as a result of this law. as the post put it, "for this man, the cost of health care could have been better health insurance. instead is produced a pay cut." and many would agree, not for the better, especially for the growing number of americans forced into part-time work with fewer hours and smaller paychecks as a result. as one part-time waitress interviewed in another paper said, "i can't believe i voted for this. this is not the change i wanted. and it feels like there's no hope." so if the president is ready to

pivot from campaign mode to governing mode, he can start by dropping the misleading claims and admitting what pretty much everybody knows, that a lot of americans are going to feel the pain once this ocean pull finally crashes to shore. americans are worried, and i don't blame them. last week i met with employers from around kentucky who expressed continued concerns about the impact the law will have on their operations. they want the democrats who run the senate to follow the house's lead and n delaying obamacare for everyone, for everyone, both businesses and individuals. and they know it makes sense to do so. and i know they want the president to sign the bill when it passes, and i agree he should. it would be a great first step toward implementing the delay our country needs, a delay that would give republicans and democrats a chance to start over and work together this time on a bipartisan step-by-step set of

health reforms that would actually lower costs. but we can't get there until the president changes his mind-set, until he puts the poetry down for a moment, flips the campaign switch off and the governing switch on. and when he does, i think he'll be surprised to find just how many republicans want to do exactly what we said all along, to work with him on solutions to get our economy moving, our jobs growing and our health care more affordable. we're waiting. americans are waiting. i hope he'll finally be ready soon. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the

second 30 minutes. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i would suggest that the

whole -- that this be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to discuss a problem i have spoken about many times over the past three years, beginning with debate on the dodd-frank wall street reform bill, that bill which congress passed in july 2010 contained a provision i authored with my republican colleague, senator row 0 skwrer wicker of -- roger wicker of mississippi. it gave the securities and exchange commission authority to address the conflict of interests inherent in the industry, conflict of str tr* which contribute -- conflict of interest which contributed fightly -- mightily to our financial collapse and has continued to plague that industry through today.

i'm speaking about that again today because even though the conflicts continue to put the industry at risk the s.e.c. still has not proposed meaningful reforms. the s.e.c. has studied the issue, the financial crisis inquiry commission has studied the issue. the permanent subcommittee on investigations has studied the issue. now it is time to move forward and take action on the issue. let me start off by briefly reminding everyone what this conflict of interest is about and why it is important. in the years leading up to the 2008 financial collapse, the credit rating agencies were enjoying massive profits and booming business. there's nothing inherently wrong with massive profits and booming business, but there was one fundamental problem. booming business was coming at the expense of accurate credit

ratings, which is supposed to be the entire reason for the existence of the credit rating agencies. credit rating agencies were and still are paid to issue ratings directly by the wall street banks issuing the paper and requesting the ratings. if a rating agency, let's say, moody's, does not provide a triple-a rating that the bank wants, the bank can then take its business over to fitch or s&p's. that's called ratings shopping and it continues to this day. the opportunity for ratings shopping creates incentive for the credit raters to give out triple-an ratings even when not

warranted and that is exactly what happened. and it happened over and over again. it became ingrained in the culture of the industry. the permanent subcommittee on investigations chaired by senator levin took a close look at the big three rating agencies, examined millions of pages of documents and released an extensive report detailing the internal communications at moody's, s&p, and fitch. among the many troubling e-mails, there's one in particular from an s&p official that kind of sums up the prevailing attitude quite nicely. quote --" let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters." with all the risky bets in the financial sector and bets on

those bets, our financial sector indeed became a house of cards. but without the conduct of the credit raters, the house of cards would have been just one card tall. two years after that e-mail was written that house of cards didn't just falter, it collapsed and because that house of cards had grown several stories high when it collapsed it brought down the entire american economy with it. the financial meltdown cost americans $3.4 trillion in retirement savings. it triggered the worst crisis since the great depression, with its massive business failures and mass foreclosures and job losses and the explosion of our

national debt. the crisis profoundly affected the everyday lives of millions of americans in so many negative ways, including in minnesota. people lost their homes, they lost their jobs, they lost their retirement savings, they lost their health insurance. i've previously on the floor shared the story of my constituent dave burg of ede edenberry, minnesota. but it is worth telling again. he testified in a field hearing i had in may of 2010 and told the story of having t to start over at 57 years of age. his flexes on his experience -- his reflections on his experience mirror those of millions of other men's. he said this -- quote -- "the downturn of the economy caused

in part by the abuses on wall street led to the loss of my retirement security. reforming the way wall street operates is important to me personally because i have a lot of savings yet to do. and i simply cannot afford another wall street meltdown. i need to have confidence in the markets. i need to know that there is accountability to those who caused the financial crisis." it's hard to overestimate the extent to which the credit rating agencies contributed to the financial crisis in which millions like dave lost their jobs, their homes, and far too many minnesotans had their hopes for the future dashed. and these americans are not necessarily seeking retribution from wall street. they just need to be reassured

and assured that it won't happen again. they know that there is a problem and the problem needs to be fixed. we do not need further proof of that, but we get it in the february complaint filed by the department of justice against s&p in which d.o.j. alleges that the credit rating agencie agenc- quote -- "falsely represented that its ratings were objective, independent, and uninfluenced by s&p's relationships with investment banks when, in actualityty, s&p's desire for increased revenue and market share led it to favor the interests of these banks over investors." inquote. unquote. the complaint highlights the patently problematic way credit rating agencies habitually did

business. one e-mail obtained in that investigation from a high-level s&p official reads, quote, "we are meeting with your group this week to discuss adjusting criteria for rating c.d.o.'s of real estate assets. because of the ongoing threat of losing deals." c.d.o.'s -- collateralized debt obligations -- are one of those derivatives or bets that added stories to the house of cards. this official had apparently become so comfortable with the cull truer oculture of conflictt that he appeared to have no reservation about putting it in writing. in fact, a while ago s&p asked

the judge in the case to throw out the justice department lawsuit against them by pointing to a previous decision made by a u.s. district court judge in an earlier securities fraud case against them. that earlier suit against s&p had been filed by shareholders who said they brought their -- bought their shares believing that s&p's ratings were independent and objective, as s&p had long declared, but the judge in that earlier case dismissed the shareholders' suit finding in s&p's statementing that their ratings were independent and objective were mere puffery. in other words, that no one could really take s&p's statements about their ratings objectivity and independence seriously. it was just puffery.

advertising, that no one could believe. very recently s&p tried to use in their briefs, in the department of justice's case against them, they filed in their filing they used the earlier puffery ruling to try to get the justice department sued thrown out against them. so s&p's legal argument was that no one could reasonably think that they had a reputation for producing independent and credible ratings. thanksfully, earlier this month the judge in the d.o.j. suit ruled that the d.o.j. suit could go forward, saying last week that he found s&p's puffery defense to be -- quote -- "deeply and unavoidably

troubling." s&p's rationale should strike us all as deeply and unavoidably troubling because their legal defense -- this is s&p's legal defense -- says that no one could possibly rely on their ratings. but that was their job, to provide independent, objective, accurate ratings. millions of americans lost their jobs because s&p didn't do its job. they didn't -- s&p didn't do their one job. they have one job -- to provide accurate ratings. they didn't do their one job. they have no other job.

i'm glad the department of justice is pursuing this case. but d.o.j.'s action is not enough. it is backward-looking, and it addresses past hamplet harms. my concern is that -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. franken: i would ask for about five more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. thank you. i'm glad the d.o.j. case is going forward. but, as said, it is not enough. it is backward-looking and addresses past harms. my concern is that the conduct kins to this day. the credit raters are still influenced by the relationships

with the banks because that is who pays them. it is a clear conflict of interest, and we need to priority tightprioritize actionl prevent another meltdown in the future. the da dodd-frank provision i we with senator wicker would root out the conflict of interest. the theament we offered and that the senate passed directed the s.e.c. -- the securities and exchange commission -- to create an independent, self-regulatory organization that would select each -- which agency, one with the adequate capacity and expertise, would provide the initial credit rating of each structured financial product. the assignments would not be based just on the agency's

capacity and expertise but also, after time, on its track record. our approach would incentivize and reward excellence. the current pay-for-play model with its inherent conflict of interest would be replaced by a pay-for-performance model. this improved market would finally allow smaller rating agencies to break the big three's ole g.o.p. lymph the oligopoly is clear. the s.e.c. estimates that as of december 31, 2011, approximately 91% of the credit ratings for structured finance products were issued by the three largest credit rating agencies -- fitch, moody's and s&p. each of which was implicated in the p.s.i. investigation. the other five agencies doing

structured finance make up the remaining 9%. the current oligarchy does not incentivize. if we move to a system based on merit, the smaller credit rating agencies would be better able to participate and could serve as a check against inflated ratings, helping to prevent another meltdown n our proposed model, the independent board would be comprised mainly of investor types -- managers of university endowments and of pension funds who have the greatest stake in the reliability of credit ratings. as well as representatives from the credit rating agencies and the banking industry and academics who have studied this issue. our amendment passed this body, passed the senate with a large majority, including 11 republican votes, because this

is not a progressive idea. it is not a conservative idea. it is a commonsense idea. the final version of dodd-frank modified the amendment to b amet more decision-making authority in the hands of the s.e.c. as to how to respond to the conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry. the final version directed the s.e.c. to study the proposal senator wicker and i made along with other alternatives and then decide how to act. the s.e.c. released its study in december. the study acknowledged the conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry and it reviewed our proposal and many of the alternatives laying out the pros and cons of each without reaching a definitive conclusion on which route to pursue. the study also proposed holding a round table discussion to further examine reform opportunities.

this s.e.c. convened this round table on may 14, and both senator wicker and i had the opportunity to present opening remarks. bloomburg news had a good article on the round table on may 14, including several key quotes that i'm going to use in my remarks today. the round table provided a rigorous examination of our proposal and of alternatives. one executive at a smaller rating agency endorsed the concept of a rotating assignment system to help break up the current oligopoly. jewels cruel, c.e.o., said of the big three, they are saling themselves out, just as they did before. i'm anticipating, mr. president, they may have to go -- this will go -- i got about three minutes left. before you have to interrupt me and tell me that my time is up.

could i have those three minutes? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thanks. the big three were also represented at the round table an s&p representative argued against meaningful reform saying "a government consignment system could slow down marnlts and disrupt capital flows at a time when we could least afford it." and he didn't mention puffery. unsurprisingly i disagree with his characterization and would indeed suggest that we can -- that what we can least afford is to maintain the status quo. an alternative proarnlg the continuation of the 17-g-5 proposal was met with more than a little skepticism. the 17-g-5 program seeks to encourage unpaid, unsolicited ratings by requiring the sharing of data on which ratings are

based. the theory is, unsolicited ratings were keep paid ratings honest. joseph petroof morningstar credit ratings said that using the unsolicited rating program -- quote -- "is not the best use of resources, as we're trying to build oit ou out our ratings plm the s.e.c. commissioner made a strong point. he noted negative unsolicited ratings by a firm -- quote -- "may not be the best way to get business in an issue pay setting." by the time the report was written, it was a 17-g-5 program had produced only one or two ratings. i have said all along that i believe that senator wicker's and my proposal is a good one and the right one and i have continued to believe that more and more as i've thought about

it and looked at it in the years now since we wrote the legislation. but i have also said that i'm open to any other meaningful proposals, and i will support any proposal the s.e.c. recommends he that addresses the conflicts of interest in a meaningful way. but the round table made very clear once again that reform is necessary and that the status quo is inadequate to protect american investors, workers and homeowners in the years ahead. deal breaker.com, a satirical blog wrote the s.e.c. will stop until everyone starts paying attention. that is one approach and would

be complete polyliu unacceptable -- completely unacceptable. to do that would fail the american people. senator wicker and i have worked with the s.e.c. over the past few years and i will continue to pursue this issue until the s.e.c. fulfills its directives to resolve the conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry. i'm obligated to my constituents and to the american public to make sure that that satirical headline does not become reality. i look forward to working with the s.e.c. on the next steps for a proposed rule on credit rating reform. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence -- sorry. i note the presence of my esteemed colleague from hawaii, both my esteemed colleagues from

hawaii, the one presiding and senator hirono, who is about, i believe, to ask for the floor. ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, i rise today to speak in support of s.1243, the transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act for 2014. i would like to thank senators murray and collins, senators mikulski and shelby for their hard work. the bill before us reflects the bipartisan agreement that funding our nation's transportation and housing infrastructure is vital to creating jobs and supporting strong communities. i'd like to thank the committee for funding programs that support projects that are especially crucial for my home state of hawaii. first, the committee's bill provides nearly $2 billion for capital improvement grants which support transit projects across

the country. especially important for hawaii is honolulu's rail transit project which when completed will provide much-needed relieve for oahu commuters. during the morning peak period the travel time is 89 minutes for a 17 mile drive. the rail would turn that into a 40 minute ride above traffic. the project is estimated to remove roughly 40,000 cars from oahu's congested roadways providing relief for buses and other surface public transportation services. while the rail project is a crucial step forward for developing hawaii's most populous island, it is the committee's support for hawaii's indigenous people for which i especially extend my thanks. the committee's funding of both

the native hawaiian housing block grant and the 184-a loan guarantee program will help our nations continue -- help our nation continue fulfilling its trust obligations to native hawaiians. in 2010 the american community survey reported that 27.2% of native hawaiians in hawaii live in overcrowded conditions compared to 8.5% of hawaii's total population. in addition, the overall cost of living in hawaii is almost 50% higher than the united states average and housing costs are almost 150% higher. coupled with these costs is the fact that 18% of native hawaiians live in poverty. congress created -- the presiding officer: the majority time has expired. ms. hirono: could i ask for unanimous consent for another

five min?esidg officer: without objection. ms. hirono: thank you, mr. president. congress created the hawaiian home lands trust to provide housing and settlement opportunities for native hawaiians. however, as the statistics i just laid out show, this indigenous population continues to struggle with finding affordable quality housing in their place of origin. that is why the native hawaiian housing block grant or nhhbg is so important. these funds can be used for a variety of initiatives. for example, the current wait list for access to housing on homestead land is long and continues to grow. funding the nhhbg helps the department of hawaii's home lands continue developing lands to meet the housing needs of those on the wait list as well as future beneficiaries, allowing the department to effectively administer this trust responsibility. the 184-a program is another important tool for assisting native hawaiians in securing

homes and homesteads, lands that they cannot own. as i've mentioned, the cost of living, especially housing in hawaii, is among the highest in the country. on top of saving up the cost of a down payment for a mortgage, there is a tricky task of securing a mortgage for a home without ownership of the land beneath it. this has proved problematic not only for native hawaiians, but also native americans and alaska natives. the 184-a loan guarantee program helps get hawaiians on to homesteads by providing a guarantee for lenders who are unfamiliar with the hawaiian homes program. i also want to thank the committee for supporting the essential air service program. being an island state, hawaii is uniquely affected by any changes to air transportation policy. for us, driving between counties is not an option. so air service is for all intents and purposes the only way to get from one island to another. and there is a population in

hawaii that is uniquely the reason for the air service program, the residents of kalapoppa. beginning in 1866 this area was used as an exile for diseased patients. this practice continued until quarantine of the area was finally lifted in 1969. it is precisely because of kalapoppa's isolation it was selected to serve as a space for hanson diseased patients. their only option for getting in and out of the area for medical treatment or to visit family and friends is flying. maintaining proper funding for the essential air service program directly translates into assuring continued access for the people of kalapoppa, other communities and the services that they need. the committee's bill also

provides appropriate levels of funding for larger national programs like the community development block grant or cdbg. certainly hawaii has been able to put cdbg funds to good use and agencies across the country rely on this essential block grant funding to continue meeting the needs of their most vulnerable populations. the home, investment partnerships program is yet another example where the funding level in the senate's bill is warranted. if hawaii is any indication, home funds move out the door so quickly that many subgrantees with equally worthwhile projects are left waiting for the next fiscal cycle to compete. the support for cdbg, home, and other programs in the bill provides communities across the country with a means to provide safe affordable housing for the least fortunate, the elderly and others. however, as the wide support for these programs demonstrate, there is need for -- more need

in our communities than there are resources. since the sequester has taken effect, things have only gotten harder for those who are struggling the most. every day it seems we hear about housing vouchers being frozing on rescinded or about how elderly or support selves are being cut back or about how the lines for limited housing grow as people who have been out of work for too long exhaust their savings. for many of the people that rely on these programs, there is nowhere else to turn. this bill doesn't fix all the problems caused by sequester, nor does it fully address the critical needs to create jobs. however, it is a bipartisan step forward that makes positive progress in both of these areas. perhaps it will give us some momentum in tackling those big challenges our nation faces in a more comprehensive way. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, we now know that the i.r.s. targeting scandal implicates senior officials at the very highest levels of the internal revenue service. indeed we know that the i.r.s.'s chief counsel, counsel's office headed by an administration appointee was aware of the abuses according to sworn testimony in the house of representatives. we know that two former i.r.s. commissioners -- we know that, number two, former i.r.s. commissioner douglas shulman categorically denied those abuses in march of 2012, even though senior i.r.s. officials learned about them as early as june 2011. we know that the i.r.s. official who first revealed the abuses to the american people decided to take the fifth amendment invoking her right not to incriminate herself rather than

testify before congress. and finally, we know that i.r.s. officials improperly targeted not only conservative organizations but also political candidates and donors. and still yesterday the white house press secretary called the very scandals involving this administration phony scandals. well, i don't know anyone who actually believes that's true when an institution like the internal revenue service, with its power literally to tax and destroy is abusing that power, this is something that deserves the investigation and -- of the congress, and we need to get to the bottom of it. but the idea, as initially floated out, that this sk-pbl was the work of a few rogue staffers in the cincinnati office is no longer plausible.

even if it was at one point. this scandal clearly represents a serious breach of the public trust and has created a major credibility problem for this agency that is supposed to be objective and nonpartisan. it's bad enough that america's tax collection authority has based like a thuggish political machine, indeed policing political speech and rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the united states constitution. to make matters worse, the internal revenue service will soon be responsible for administering some of the most important provisions of the affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare, including the individual mandate. in other words, the internal revenue service will be responsible for administering a law that affects one-sixth of the united states economy, and it will be collecting even more information about individual american citizens. are we really comfortable with

dramatically expanding the power of an agency that's proven so abusive and so untrustworthy. i know i'm not, which is why two months ago i introduced a piece of legislation that would prevent the internal revenue service from participating in its current role of implementing obamacare. yesterday i submitted this legislation as an amendment to the appropriations bill that we're currently considering. rather than give more power to the internal revenue service, we should be giving more power to patients and their doctors. remember even before obamacare became law, the i.r.s. had enough power to destroy the lives of american citizens. in the famous words, i believe, of the supreme court justice, the power to tax is the power to destroy. and he had it right. now the worst possible time to give this agency such massive influence over the u.s. health care system is past overdue

action on our part. instead we should be curtailing the internal revenue service's power, replacing obamacare with sensible patient-centered alternatives. and my amendment would do that. mr. president, before i conclude, i'd like to mention another amendment that we will be filing to this appropriations bill. one that i cosponsored with my friend from south carolina, senator graham. our amendment would prevent any funds in this bill from being used to bail out detroit or any american city that mismanages its public finances. we have a federal bankruptcy code, chapter 9 specifically, that was designed to handle these problems and detroit has filed for bankruptcy. there's no good reason why detroit or any other american city ought to receive a taxpayer-funded bailout from washington. i hope that the normal bankruptcy process will be allowed to go forward, and i hope that the bankruptcy follows

the rule of law and the obama administration resists any temptation to meddle in the process and play politics. my colleagues might recall that during the 2009 government-run crisis for bankruptcy process, bondholders received much less for their loans than the united auto pension funds. my colleagues might also recall that during the run-up to the 2011 solyndra bankruptcy, the obama administration actually made taxpayers subordinate to private lenders, in violation of the law. detroit's financial woes offer a warning to all cities and states that are struggling with pension obligations and unfunded liabilities. and speaking of unfunded liabilities, the federal government currently owes more than $100 trillion worth of

unfunded liabilitie liabilitiess for medicare and social security, something that urgently needs our ar are needs. it is time for government officials at all levels, state, federal, and loafl, to mak locae hard choices we have been postponing for too long. manmr. president, i yield the fr and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. last summer the supreme court nearly upheld its attacks of the massive government takeover of health care in america, known more commonly as obamacare. since then, as the law's provisions have slowly been implemented, the size and scope of this colossal monstrosity has become clear. i opposed obamacare bill from the very beginning as a member of the house of representatives serving on the ways and means committee. back then americans were told that congress needs to pass the bill before they could know all thad that wa--know all that was. but the more the american people learn about it, the less popular it becomes. the administration is now looking for help from hollywood celebrities to push a bill that

americans do not support. that tactic has been used before. in the 1950's and 1960's, hollywood and some athletes were used to sell tobacco products. today hollywood and some athletes are being asked to pedestriapeddle the obamacare. while americans grow more uncomfortable with this law, the administration has allowed for $54 million to be spent on navigators to help push people towards this program. reports that suggested that there will be 175,000 of these so-called navigators whose job it is to facilitate this law. ed that tadd that to the 16,000w i.r.s. agents being hired to implement obamacare, it is becoming more clear how flawed this law is. it is being widely circulated that the administration is willing to spend nearly $1

billion on advertisements to entice the american people into buying something that they don't want. the president's recent decision to delay for another year the law's mandate on employers and small businesses is more compelling evidence that the obamacare approach to health care reform isn't working. and it is only going to make matters worse. it's remarkable that the same day the administration pushed so hard for this health care takeover is now hesitant to put in place the very measures contained in the law, but i think the administration has a very good reason to be hesitant. since obamacare's inception, middle-class families have seen their premiums skyrocket by an average of $2,500. nearly 75% of small businesses in this country have been forced to fire their employees or cut their hours and turn full-time

employees into part-time workers. in fact, just last month, 322,000 workers were forced into part-time employment. so the administration has created quite the balancing act for the middle-class families. at the same time they're dealing with increased health care costs and higher premiums, they're confronted with reduced work hours and the threat of being forged intforced into part-time. i say that's an unacceptable situation to put the american people in. clearly at a time when we're approaching five straight years of an unemployment rate over 7.5%, obama's job-crushing provisions are only making things worse. no one argues that the health care system in this country is perfect. there are absolutely steps that we can take to increase access to high-quality, affordable health care. but obamacare's massive

expansion of the federal government's role in the health care industry isn't turning out to be the solution its supporters said it would be. that's why the architects of the legislation are cher pricking were i part -- cherry-picking which parts of the law to enforce delaying some of its key provisions. it is obvious this legislation is well on its way to collapsing under its own weight, and that will only further hurt the american people and cause even greater damage to our economy. mr. president, i have a three-part test that i've told my constituents about countless times. it is a test that i apply whenever i evaluate legislation, and it's called the more higher less test. i evaluate whether the bill will lead moo to more competition, higher quawcialghts and less cost. hence the more, higher, less test. if the passes the test, it is a bill that i will consider

supporting. that is rooted in the fact that the american market system has created the world's greatest economy. competition is the key to improving our health care system, not burdensome regulations and mandates, especially when they're selectively enforced by government bureaucrats. perhaps the obama administration has the same concerns about obamacare that i have, and that's why they'd rather not fully enforce it until after the next election. but if that's the case, they need to make the tough decisions to address the problems instead of pretending that those problems don't exist. when i was recently back in my home state of nevada, i toured a medical school and spoke with a number of bright, hardworking students who expressed serious concerns about the effects of obamacare. i told them that one of my biggest fears was that the law would turn them all into government employees and it would put a bureaucrat between

them and their patients. instead of a system like that, we need to reduce the cost of health care services by enacting meaningful tort reform, making insurance more affordable and providing market-based solutions to meet consumer needs. and we need to create an atmosphere that will foster economic growth and job creation instead of pushing the middle class with higher health care premiums and fewer hours at work. i can understand the obama administration decision to delay the employer mandate that is crushing small businesses across the country. that's why so many of us opposed the law to begin with. but the american people deserve far better than a cherry-picking, tax-increasing approach to health care reform. american families shouldn't have to juggle higher health care premiums with thephlet of losing their jobs or -- with the threat of losing their jobs or losing hours at work.

obamacare is clearly not the solution. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president, this week the president, president of the united states, president obama, has made yet another pivot back to the economy and to jobs. issues the american people haven't had the luxury of pivoting away from. while the president is yet again attempting to refocus on jobs and the economy, giving speeches are not real solutions to our nation's problems. in fact, yesterday, mr. president, president obama said in his speech that washington, washington is taking its eye off the ball. well, mr. president, you are washington. you've been president now for

four and a half years. these are your policies, policies that are hurting our economy and costing americans jobs. as for taking your eye off the ball, the president appears to be swinging with his eyes closed, with his eyes closed on the impact that his policies are having on the economy and this country. you don't have to look very far, mr. president, to see what the impact of those policies is. the obamacare legislation is having a crushing impact on jobs in this country, a crushing impact on the economy. you look at the unemployment rate, it's still at over 7.5%, and it's been there now for 54 months. that's the worst job record of any president since the great depression. and the president's signature law, as i mentioned, obamacare, continues to hamstring the job market. in june alone, the last month for which we have data, 322,000 americans were forced into

part-time employment status. these are people who otherwise would have been able -- would have been willing to work full time, but because of these policies that are encouraging more employers to push their employees into part-time status, you have 322,000 individuals in this country who want to work full time that are now having to work part time. obamacare and other policies put forward by this administration have been probably the best thing that's happened to part time jobs, mr. president, unfortunately, for most americans, they want to be working full time. a recent chamber of commerce survey shows that nearly 75% of small businesses are firing workers or cutting hours as implementation of the obamacare law continues, a number of small business owners who take these steps unfortunately is only going to increase. according to a recent "wall street journal" article, rod carson, owner of restaurants

around denver began in april converting his mostly full-time workforce into one comprising part-time help to minimize his health care costs. he is plowing ahead despite the obamacare administration's reprieve because he said, -- and i quote -- "we need to get there anyway and it will take until january 1 of 2015 to make this transition. " he's referring to the employer mandate which the president has chosen to delay for this next year when it was supposed to take effect until january 1 of 2015. most employers unfortunately are not taking great consolation in the fact that this is being delayed by a year. they know at some point they're going to have to comply with it and so they're taking those steps already which is adding and fueling the number, the data i just mentioned with regard to people being forced into part-time jobs. americans are facing decreased hours, which means decreased wages. additionally, families are facing higher insurance premiums which further erode their

disposable income and opportunities to invest in a new home or a better education for their children. a growing number of americans are realizing that obamacare is the wrong prescription for families who are at the mercy of an already struggling economy. the administration has been forced to concede that the employer mandate which was a key component of the obamacare legislation is broken and unworkable which is why they delayed it. and we're target to see democrats who have historically been supportive of the law suddenly jumping from the obamacare sinking ship. on monday a headline in "the washington post" read -- and i quote -- "moderate democrats are quitting on obamacare." the article disclosed that fewer than 50% of moderate to conservative democrats now support obamacare, which is down more than 25 percentage points since 2010 when it passed. congressional democrats are also becoming increasingly skittish about obamacare. the house vote last wednesday on the employer mandate delay

passed 264 to 161. 35 democrats joined 229 republicans in support for that bill. additionally there were 22 house democrats who voted to delay the law's individual mandate. even a democratic senator has introduced legislation for a two-year -- not a one-year, but a two-year employer mandate delay. in a recent letter to the democrat leadership, three large unions expressed grave concern with the law, led by the teamsters union, the organization that jimmy hof if a leads -- jimmy hoffa, three major unions pend a letter basically saying that the health care law will -- and i quote -- "shatter, shatter health benefits and cause nightmare scenarios." shatter health benefits and create nightmare scenarios. that is what the unions are saying. the unions also slammed the law

for defining a full-time employee as one who works less than 30 hours. the unions went on to say in their letter that the law -- and i quote again -- "will stroeu the foundation of the -- will destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the middle class." mr. president, it's very clear that even those who were vocal, those who vigorously defended and supported the obamacare legislation, recognize this is not working and are making it abundantly clear in the statements that they're now making. just yesterday the president delivered a speech aiming to yet again pivot, pivot as he says, back to jobs and the economy. he used the speech to kick off another campaign-style tour of speeches in hopes that touting his continued commitment to an economic recovery will overshadow these harsh realities of obamacare and other economic woes that plague this country. during yesterday's speech, the

president claimed that he dedicated to the middle class and growing the economy from -- quote -- "the middle out." well, mr. president, what do these concerns tell you about the state of the middle class? hardworking americans are now fearful about their job security, about their health care coverage and their ability to make ends meet all because of this catastrophic law. the president's strongest political allies who represent millions of workers say the president's signature domestic achievement is -- and i quote again -- "destroying the backbone of the middle class." mr. president, while the president continues to pivot to and away from these issues senate republicans remain focused on creating jobs in this country. it is time for a real recovery. the american people are ready to get back to work. for 54 months now we've seen unemployment at or above 7.5%, and that number does not reflect the people who have given up

looking for work. let's remove the heavy hand of washington regulations from our job creators. let's create certainty for employers so they might hire new employees, not cut the hours of those they already have. let's spare the middle class from premium increases. i've seen studies all over the place that suggest for families, for individuals that premiums across this country are going up. according to kaiser, for families $2,500. in order to achieve the goals of addressing these issues and our economy, mr. president, we have got to start with a permanent delay of obamacare for all americans. not just for the employers, not just the employer mandate, but the individual mandate, the other regulations that are 20,000 pages high, seven and a half feet tall is the number of regulations already promulgated to implement this law and it continues to grow by the week. we didn't need a 2,700 page bill

to address the problems we have in our health care delivery system and health care coverage system today, mr. president. but that's what we got. the president's jobs-killing tactics don't stop just at health care. the president's proposed climate change regulations alone would cost 500,000 jobs and reduce household income by up to $1,000 per year. dodd-frank has already cost $15.4 billion and 58.3 million hours in paperwork burdens on businesses across this country. rather than more campaign-style speeches touting the same old flawed ideas, the president should work with congress to put more americans back to work. by working together, we can enact meaningful regulatory reform that will provide relief to employers and to employees alike. we can fix our health care system in a manner that lowers

cost while allowing families to keep the doctors that they want. we can enact tax reform that will create economic growth needed to lower the unemployment rate and reduce our unsustainable budget deficits. we can expand access to domestic energy resources in a manner that fully realizes the benefits of increased energy production. again, mr. president, this cooperation must start with president obama getting off the campaign trail and getting to work with congress on these important issues. and so instead of pivoting yet again to the economy in campaign-style speeches, mr. president, we need a president that is here, that is working to address the economic woes that american families are experiencing today. and if you want to start by going out and touting theupbgdz that you're going to -- touting things that you're going to do for the economy, start by improving the keystone pipeline.

that is a no-brainer in most people's estimation. in fact, the president's own administration has analyzed and reviewed and scrutinized and studied this thing now four different times and concluded it wouldn't have an impact on the climate. it would create immediate jobs, thousands of jobs, construction jobs and then jobs over a long period of time. it would help lessen the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy by freeing up transportation of energy resources that come from friendly allies in countries like canada to get to american consumers in this country. and so there are things the president could be doing that actually would create jobs. come up here and engage in the debate on tax reform. commit to tax reform that is revenue neutral, that doesn't raise taxes on people who create jobs in this country but rather lowers the rates to unleash economic growth and job creation in this country. and work with us to repeal, delay, permanently delay the obamacare regulations that are

crushing jobs in the economy. and as i pointed out earlier, forcing more and more americans into part-time jobs, forcing employers to either cut and reduce their workforce or not hire people they otherwise might hire, and raising premiums for hardworking middle-class families. mr. president, its not washington that doesn't have its eye on the ball. i.t. you that doesn't have your eye on the ball. wands you to focus like a laser on the economy and recognize that you can't close your eyes to the economic -- the harmful economic impact that your policies are having on way too many middle-class americans and small businesses who create jobs in this country to generate the economic growth that's necessary to improve the standard of living and the takehome pay of every american family. that's what we need, mr. president. i hope the president will get off the campaign trail, get back here, and focus on what really matters to middle-class

americans, and that's jobs and the economy and a better life for their children and their grandchildren. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 11:30 a.m. and at 11:30 a.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 186, as provided under the previous order. ferraro is therthe presiding ofs there objection? without objection. mrs. murray: i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the apriewl of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that margaret taylor, a detailee from the state department to the foreign reels committee, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of s. 1243. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, as the house and senate have begun debating our separate aeption pros bile for the -- appropriations bills for the coming years, we have been forced to take a hard look at the numbers and exactly what so many important programs and services will look like next year under cuts that are forced by scwefertion. and i'm here to till, it is not pretty. and, mr. president, as chair of the budget committee, i it has only served as a reminder to me of how important it is to fully replace -- fully replace -- the across-the-board cuts that sequestration has forced us to make because it is only getting worse. sog osome of my republican colls here in the senate and most in

the house don't believe that sequestration has had a real impact on families, communities or our military. so, mr. president, i wanted to take just a few minutes today to talk about what i have already seen in my home state of washington where the impacts of sequestration have been very severe. mr. president, washington state has a proud history of supporting our nation's armed forces, from fairchild air force base in eastern washington to joint base louis mcchord, our state is home to thousands of military families, and in addition to those active duty service members, washington state is also home to thousands of civilian defense employees who work at these various military installations. under sequestration, these men and women have borne the brunt of these across-the-board budget cuts. this month weekly furloughs began for nearly 10,000 of these

civilian employees in my home state of washington, so now once every week they can't go to work. and it amounts to a pay cut to them of 20%. madam president, these are men and women, many of them veterans with mortgages and medical bills and tuition costs just like all the rest of us. and thanks to this gridlock here in congress, their lives have become 20% tougher. one of those people who is impacted is will silva. he lives in tacoma, washington and works at joint base lewis mcchord. will is a former marine. he is an amputee and he is a fire inspector at the base. thanks to sequestration, he is one of 6,700 people in that community who won't be going to work tomorrow because, mr. president, friday is furlough day at jblm. so tomorrow, friday, in my home

state of washington the 911 call center and fire departments will be understaffed. airfields will be shuttered except for emergencies. the military personnel office and the substance abuse center will be closed. the madigan army medical center will be forced to close clinics and even the wound care clinic is going to be understaffed, all of this because of the cuts we all agree are hurting our country. jennifer kerry green is another person who won't be going to work at jblm tomorrow. jennifer happens to be a single mother of a six-year-old boy. she works at the madigan army medical center in the neurosurgeon department. her job is to care for service members, many who are undergoing serious brain operations. she was here in washington, d.c. on tuesday to testify at our budget committee hearing about the impacts of sequestration,

and, mr. president, it is really impossible to forget her story. jennifer works very hard. she started there as a volunteer in the surgery center. she has worked her way up, but she doesn't make much money to support herself and her young son. she budgets every month down to the dollar. she has no luxuries and in her only spare time, she cares for her son and works towards an associate degree at the community college. now she told me yesterday that because of these furloughs, her take-home pay will be reduced almost exactly $1,000 a month. $1,000 a month. that isn't enough for her to pay her most basic expenses. but, mr. president, even with all the challenges she faces, jennifer came here yesterday to talk about what those cuts will mean for others, for the people she cares for at the hospital, army hospital that she works at. because she has been furloughed

along, by the way, with the doctors, technicians and other employees at the hospital, service members and veterans aren't going to be able to get the care they need. that means, those furloughs mean that everything from routine checkups to brain surgeries are being delayed for these men and women who served our country. so, mr. president, let me repeat that. brain surgeries at military hospitals are being delayed because of cuts from sequestration. that is just unacceptable. and unfortunately it's very real. and the impacts on our civilian defense employees are just the tip of this iceberg. sequestration has resulted in dramatic cuts to countless other programs throughout our country. head start facilities have been forced to shut their doors. meals on wheels programs vital tower nation's seniors are serving less seniors. even our judicial system has been forced to let go of

prosecutors and public defenders. the cuts are clear and across the board, impacting so many people in this country, in our communities and our families. so, mr. president, i understand that many of us have different opinions here on how to address our nation's financial challenges. but before we do that, all of us have got to understand the devastating impacts that sequestration has already had on our nation. and i want to remind all of my colleagues here, it doesn't have to be this way. it doesn't have to be this way. it is now 124 days since the senate passed a budget that fully replaced the sequestration. and 17 times now my colleagues and i have stood here and asked to go to conference with the house to fix these ridiculous cuts. and 17 times now our republican colleagues have said "no." they refused. so, mr. president, i'm here to

say today i am absolutely committed to replacing sequestration. and if some of my colleagues think this is about politics or this is some kind of game, i'd ask them to talk to will or jennifer or any of the thousands of families who suddenly today can't pay their bills, because for them, these cuts are very real, and they need a solution now. so thank you, mr. president. i hope other members of the senate will come and talk about these cuts. we can fix this. we can replace sequestration. we can manage our country responsibly. we can be much smarter about what we're doing. but we need the will of the senate to allow us to go to conference, fix this, and move forward and tell will and jennifer we as a country can work for them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. 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: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, derrick anthony west of california to be associate attorney general. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be one four for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the nomination. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum call be divided equally. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to propose and support two amendments to the appropriation bill that is on the floor today and will continue into next week. and they both have a common theme and that theme is to keep faith with the american people. to not put ourselves here in washington, here in congress, in a different, hire class than middle-class americans but to be one of them, to truly represent them, to truly fight for them here in washington. the two amendments address this in different ways. one is to block a pay raise that would otherwise happen for members of congress, even in the midst of this very, very

sluggish economy, barely getting out of the recent recession. mr. president, as you know, there is an automatic pay raise in the law. this was done years ago, really behind closed doors in a bit of a smoke-filled room, to put an automatic pay raise for members of congress in the law so that most every year it just happens automatically, no inconvenience of having to propose it, actually having to come to the senate floor, come to the floor of the house of representatives and justify it and god forbid have to vote for it. it just happens. i disagree strongly with that system. i think that entire system and premise is offensive and for that reason, senator claire mcchafl and -- mc mcmccaskill and i have a proposal to undo that, that any pay raise will have to be

proposed not and justified on the floor of the senate and the floor of the house and actually voted on. this is not that entire bill, this amendment is focused on the here and now to block the automatic pay raise that would happen this year 23 we don't -- if we don't act. now, you'll hear from members of the committee, handlers of this appropriation bill, this amendment isn't relative, isn't germane to this bill. well, the folks who set up the automatic pay raise system several years ago were very clever. they figured out a way that an amendment like this would not be germane to any appropriation bill, would not be germane to any bill. that's why we need to act on this bill because this may be one of the few appropriation bills, few spending bills we actually deal with on the floor of the senate this year. two congress' credit, in the midst of the recent recession,

congress denied itself these automatic pay raises. and so they not have happened since 2009. but, mr. president, we're not into healthy growth. the american middle class, mr. president, is not doing just fine. unemployment is still over 7.5% 7.5%, 7.6%, well above the 5% promised when congress and president obama passed the trillion-dollar stimulus. in fact, we've had 53 straight months with unemployment above 7.5%. that is not a healthy economy. that is not recovery. and so as americans continue to suffer, continue to look for work, continue to look for full-time work as part-time becomes more the norm, particularly in the era of obamacare, we need to relate to them and not set ourselves

apart. we need to be a fighter for them, not a member of a higher, different class in washington. and one simple but worth way to do that is to say no pay raise when we're in the midst of this very, very sluggish nonrecovery. again, senator claire mccavic has -- mcmccaskill has joined me, i appreciate her, on this amendment, the vitter amendment 1746 and i urge all of my colleagues, democrats as well as republicans, to adopt and support this commonsense amendment. this is an important message. this is an important statement, and the question and the choice is simple. are you going to be a true representative of the folks back home, relate to them, be one of them, or did you really come

to washington to put yourself in a different, higher class? the answer needs to be the first answer provided. we need to represent the folks back home, not put ourselves in a different, higher class, and this pay raise amendment is one way to do that. say no to any congressional pay raise in the midst of this horribly slow economy. now, mr. president, my second amendment also continues this theme, and it relates to our health care benefits, but it's really the same issue and the same theme. are we one with the folks we were elected to represent or are we trying to set ourselves as a different, higher class here in washington? this amendment is vitter amendment number 1748, and it would ensure all members of congress, all congressional

staff, all executive appointees deal with obamacare in the same way ordinary americans do. they have to go in the exchange, they have to deal with their health care that way. they don't get special treatment. now, in the midst of the obamacare debate, that issue came up. i brought the issue up, i brought an amendment to the floor, the louisiana colleague in the house, john fleming, did the same thing in the house. because of the attention we focused on that issue, there was a limited provision in the law that said members of congress and their direct staffs would be in the exchanges. however, very conveniently, some of the details were jiggered around so that members of the leadership and their staffs and committee staffs would somehow be in a different, higher category and they would not be subject to the same obamacare rules.

they would benefit from the very generous and very lucrative federal employee health benefit plan that congress has traditionally been under. i think we should undo that. i think we should again be one of the american people, relate to the american people and get the same treatment through the exchanges that the great majority of them will do under obamacare. the problem is, here on capitol hill, again, behind closed doors, the effort is largely in the opposite direction. "the wall street journal" unveiled this on april 25 of this year. it reported that senator reid and congressman steny hoyer had initiated some behind-closed-doors secret discussions to actually fix the problem as they saw it and put all members of congress and all of our staffs back in that

select category. not with the american people, not in the exchanges, but in that select, higher category and be granted preferential treatment. now, because that hit the press, because that word got out, i am hope thankful those secret negotiations have stopped. we need to make sure that we don't move in that direction. obamacare is a train wreck. implementation is causing dramatic problems for millions upon millions of americans. but the solution is -- is not to fix it selectively for us. the solution is to fix it for everybody, to fix it for average middle-class americans, and if we do that, we would benefit as well. so this amendment not only blocks the effort by senator reid and steny hoyer and others to move members of congress and

our staffs back into a select category and protect us from the train wreck of obamacare implementation, the solution is to broaden that pool and actually have that same treatment along with ordinary americans for every member of congress, for all of our staffs, for leadership, for committee staffs, and also for president obama's appointees. and so my amendment, vitter amendment number 1748, on which dean heller is a cosponsor, would do just that. it would ensure that all bureaucrats, all obama appointees, all congressional staff, all members, leadership and otherwise, all of our staffs, committee and otherwise, are subject to obamacare and are not put into a select higher class and offered preferential treatment.

again, common theme with my other amendment, that's how we relate to the folks we represent. that's how we're truly one of them. obamacare is a problem. implementation is a train wreck. but the solution isn't to put ourselves in a higher class, divorced from that problem. the solution is to live that problem ourselves and hopefully that will promote us and motivate us to solve that problem for all of the american people. again, this is not a partisan amendment. this should not be a partisan fight. this is about are we truly part of the states we represent, do we truly relate to those citizens who sent to us washington, or do we come here and put ourselves in a select, different class, give ourselves preferential treatment under law after law after law in this

case, obamacare. again, this is vitter amendment number 1748, and i urge all of my colleagues, republicans, democrats, independents, everyone, to support this, to tell your constituents no, i didn't come here to put myself in a special class. i didn't come here to get preferential treatment. i came here to fight for you. and yes, obamacare has major issues, major problems. implementation is, as one of my democratic colleagues has forthrightly said, a train wreck. but the solution isn't to fix it behind closed doors selectively for us. the solution is to fix it, which personally i think means delay or repeal it for the american people. thank you, mr. president. and i yield back the floor. i also suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: