the presiding officer: has every senator voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 98. the nays are zero. and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the smith nomination. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you, madam president. i'll be very brief. i rise to support the nomination of ambassador daniel bennett smith to be assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mrs. feinstein: ambassador smith was reported out

unanimously from the intelligence committee and will, when confirmed, serve as a top intelligence official in the department of state. he is well qualified, having served for 30 years as foreign service officer in a variety of positions in the state department. most recently, he was ambassador to greece from 2010 to 2013. this i.n.r. is a key position responsible for informing diplomatic decisions with available intelligence and in providing the state department's input to intelligence decisions. i urge his confirmation. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: who yields time? all time is yielded back.

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

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 98, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed.

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid:. the next vote will be the last in the seas of votes. the next vote will be by voice then we'll start a series of votes at 1:45. there could be as many as 11 votes. so everybody should cinch up their vests. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the first novelli nomination. who yields time? who yields time? all time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote?

if not, on this vote the yeas are 97. the nays are zero. and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the second novelli nomination. without objection. the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately be notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session

under the previous order, the time until 1:45 is equally divided. the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar number 565 and 570. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that any related statement be printed in the record, that the pred be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: reserving the right to object, and i will object. i'd like to just remind my colleagues of a couple of important points. first, over the last several

weeks some of my colleagues in the majority have expressed frustration because some of the nominees they support haven't been brought up for a final vote. i must say this is quite surprising to me. as everyone knows, late last year the senate democrats invoked the so-called nuclear option. the stated reason for doing so, of course, was to strip those of us in the minority of our ability to stop any judicial or executive nominees on the floor. in fact, just before invoking the so-called nuclear option, here's what the majority leader said about it -- and i quote -- "the change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominations an up-or-down vote on confirmation. question or no. -- yes or no. the rule change will make cloture for all nominations other than the supreme court a majority threshold vote, yes or

no." end of quote of the majority leader. and of course 52 democrats voted to take this unprecedented step which tossed aside two centuries of senate history and tradition, even though this president has an outstanding record of getting his nominations confirmed. in fact, prior to the president's attempt to fill up the d.c. circuit with judges they didn't need, the senate had confirmed 215 of the president's judicial nominees, rejecting only 2. that's more than a 99% approval rating of the president's nominees. not withstanding that record, however, the majority voted to cut the minority out of the process on the floor. i note that there was bipartisan opposition to what the majority leader tried to accomplish. three democrats voted against it. and i have to give credit to the senator from arkansas who has

made this unanimous consent request to be one of those who thought that the minority should not be cut out of the process. the bottom line is that under the precedent 52 democrats sought to establish, the majority leader now can bring up at any time these nominations for a vote on the floor whenever he decides to do it. if he did, the nominees would be confirmed within no more than two hours of debate. so, the minority simply has no ability to stop anyone from getting a vote. there is no filibuster of any nominees anymore. that was the whole point of what the majority chose to do in november. so, madam president, i object to this unanimous consent request and respectfully suggest that any senator, including the senator from arkansas, discuss the matter with one individual who has the ability to bypass

the minority in that matter, and that happens to be the one senator who is the majority leader of the united states senate. so i do object, and i yield the floor. mr. pryor: madam president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. pryor: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i would like to respond and further explain my request. madam president, we have two judges that are pending on the calendar number right now in the sequence of judges to be considered they are number 2 and number 7. one is timothy brooks, the other is james moody. number 2 and number 7. tim brooks was nominated by the white house in june. he was confirmed -- he came out of the judiciary committee in october. jay moody was nominated by the white house in july, came out of the judiciary committee in november. we have eight judges on the federal bench in arkansas at the district court level.

eight judges, we now have two vacancies. i don't want to be dramatic and declare a judicial emergency but certainly people should understand we're only working at 75% horsepower right now and we need to get these judges confirmed forth with. yesterday i stood at my desk and i notified the senate that i was going to do that. i didn't hear an objection. i notified the senate that we were going to -- i was going to make this request. that was my intention. i did not receive an intention as far as i know, unless maybe it was staff person talking to a staff person, but i didn't ever hear of any objection on that. but, madam president, the real reason i'm doing this and the true sense of urgency, it's bad enough to have this 25% of our judiciary in arkansas needs to be filled but the real issue of this is a matter of state law. one of these judges, james moody, number seven on the list, he is an elected state judge, an elected trial court judge. under arkansas law, that is a

nonpartisan position. so our filing deadline for the 2014 election cycle opens on the 24th of february. that's under state law. 24th of february, and it goes to march 3. so here's the problem, madam president. today's the 12th. next week we're on recess. we're about to have a snowstorm, it sounds like tonight and the next few days. next week we're on recess. we come back on the 24th. the filing period will already be opened in arkansas. and i wish i could tell judge moody, look, don't worry about it. you're going to be confirmed when we get back. but the way things have worked around here recently, i can't give him that guarantee. i can't give him my word. i can't tell him, no, judge, don't file for reelection. just go ahead and wait and trust that this is going to happen. i can't do that under the circumstances. so he's in limbo.

and the problem is there are other lawyers and judges in arkansas that want to run for his position. and as you know, there's a domino effect in the local judiciary, in local bar about this. but the last thing is this. under arkansas state law, once he files, he cannot get his name off the ballot. the state law has no -- these are nonpartisan elections. if they were party elections, he could go to the state party and they could handle it through their primary process or through their rules or whatever. but that's not the case here. there is no party to go to. once he files and his name is on the ballot, he's on the ballot. and that's a big problem. so this is causing a lot of problem back home. there's no principle involved here. there is no principle involved here. there is no reason why these two judges should be held over. they should have been done at the end of last year.

i asked my colleagues to help me do that. i was told "no." we need to get these judges done now so that we don't create this problem in arkansas. both these judges are very well qualified. they have all the credentials that the american bar association looks at. every lawyer in arkansas, as far as i know, stphapbl is for both of these. in fact i heard my colleague, senator boozman of arc saurbgs tell the republican leader last week, he said, mitch, if you were picking these judges yourself, you couldn't pick any two better judges than this. that is a paraphrase but in effect what he said. that is true. these are noncontroversial judges. both these judges should be confirmed now so we don't cause this problem in arkansas. madam president, with that, i yield the floor. but i will continue to push for these nominations. thank you.

the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. h.o.v. i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i see the 12340r from new mexico. i am certainly willing to defer to the senator, if time is an issue for him. if it is not, madam president, i rise this morning to speak on the issue of the military cola. this is the cost-of-living adjustment for our military rear tired. in the budget agreement, the cola was reduced for military retirees by 1% until they reach age 62. then the cola is restored. i'm opposed to this provision in the budget, and i since have c cosponsored legislation to fix

it, meaning fully reinstate the cola for our military retired. the bill we're considering today and we'll be voting on later today fixes the cola problem. it reinstates the cola in full. that's good. that's what i want to do and that's what i believe the vast majority of the members of this body on both sides of the aisle want to do. so we should pass the bill and i will this afternoon that we will. now, the bill that we have been considering this week fixed the cola problem, restored the cost-of-living adjustment for our military retirees, but it did not cover the cost of doing so. the cost of the legislation is about $6.8 billion over a ten-year period, which of course is the c.b.o. -- congress budget office -- scoring period. we can cover that cost -- and we should. we've got a deficit and a debt.

we've got to address our deficit and debt and so we've got to make sure that we're paying for things. and we absolutely can do that in this case. and in fact we've put forward amendments to do just that. now, the amendment that i have -- the first amendment that i joined in putting affor puttinge that was led by senator kelley ajot, the senator from new hampshire. now, it fully covers the cost of fixing the coal lavment the way it worked, it covered that cost by simply requiring that the additional child tax credit statute is properly enforced. let me explain that. what it requires is that families with children who apply for the additional child tax credit must have social security numbers for those children. this is a simple, straightforward enforcement provision to ensure that the law is followed. and why wouldn't we enforce the

law, make sure that it's enforced? i believe that's an important part of our job, after all. in fact, i also believe that the treasury department supports this enforcement provision as well, and i'd like to cite from a recent inspector general's report. "in 2011, the treasury department's inspector general reported that individuals who are not authorized to work in the united states received billions by claiming the additional child tax credit and several news investigations found troubling instances of abuse of this tax credit. in just one example, according to a 2012 news report, an downlted worker in indiana -- an undocumented worker in indiana admitted that his address was used to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who fraud will notly claimed 20 --

fraudulently claimed 20 children in total resulting in tax returns of nearly $30,000. this change would save approximately $20 billion over 10 years. that's $20 billion in savings over ten years, which obviously far more than covers the $6.8 billion cost of the cola fix that we are putting forward. clearly, that works. but i understand that we have not been able to get bipartisan agreement on this provision, on this pay-for. so we need to find something that we can agree on, because we need both republicans and democrats to pass this legislation to fix the cola. and that's why i've since offered another pay-for. this is a simple one-page amendment, a simple one-page amendment that provides a

pay-for for restoring the cost-of-living adjustment for our military retirees. what it does is it simply extends the provisions of the budget creel act, th control act that weigh passed from 2023 to 2024. and i'm pleased to say that's what we will be voting on this afternoon. not because i've offered the amendment but, rather, because leadership has agreed to offer the house version of the cola fix. that's the legislation that we will be voting on this afternoon, which has the pay-for that i've just outlined. now, it is not identical to the amendment that i've submitted, but it is very, very similar, very close. and it ensures that our military retired will receive their desired -- their much-deserved retirement. i've urged my republican colleagues in our caucus to fix

this problem, and i have urged my democrat colleagues on the senate floor to fix this problem. and today i believe we will, in a bipartisan way, i believe today we will fix the cost-of-living adjustment and do it in a way where we pay for it, so we make sure that we're not increasing the deficit or the debt. as a former governor and now as a senator, i've had the honor and the privilege to work with our military men and women. i've been to iraq and i've been to afghanistan, and i've gotten the calls from one of our hero e -- when one of our heroes makes the ultimate sacrifice. i know they put it all on the line for us. today i ask my fellow senators to join with me and vote for our men and women in uniform, to vote to fix the cola for our

military retired and to support those great men and women who wear the uniform and who honor us, protect us, and serve this nation in the cause of liberty and freedom with their dedicated service. join with me and support them and vote for this legislation. thank you, madam president. with that, i'd yield the floor. mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, madam president i rise today to talk about health care for our rural veterans. this is a critical issue to many veterans who are left behind and to many who are not getting the care that they need.

but first, madam president, i want to say how important it is that we have reached an agreement to restore the cut to pensions for working-age military retirees. this cut and cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees should never have been included in the budget bill. but let's be clear: the bipartisan budget agreement was critical to new mexico and our nation because it rolled back damaging sequestration cuts, cuts that hurt our military and military families. but working-age military retirees should not have to bear the burden. many of these men and women have given decades of service to our nation. they were willing to give everything for us. they should get the benefits that they've earned. i have been working from the beginning to restore this cut to their cola benefits. i've been very happy that we have a bipartisan agreement to

move afford and ensure we keep our promise to them. now, madam president, i come to the floor today to also talk about rural veterans and a rural veterans improvement act. i was proud to introduce this bill with senator heller from nevada earlier this week because when it comes to veterans' health care, we know there are challenges. we know that we can do better, and we know we have to doert -- do better. over 6 million veterans fiscal cliff rural areas, including about one-third of those that fought in afghanistan and iraq. three million of those rural veterans receive health care through the v.a. our veterans have fought halfway around the world for our freedom. we should go the extra mile for them. senator heller and i have been -- we both come from rural western states. we know the difficulties

veterans face. when distances are too far and choices are too few, our legislation would do four things: improve access to mental health services, expand transportation grants, hire and retain more medical professionals in rural areas, and give congress and the v.a. improved tools to improve the quality of rural facilities. first let me start with mental health care. this is crucial. veterans are struggling when the help they need is not available or is very far away. one of my constituents lives in a rural area in northern new mexico. he fought in vietnam and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. he required therapy, two full days a week. for two years vital care that probably saved his life. the v.a. was there for him and he is grateful. but he had to drive to

albuquerque, over thee hours away, to get that essential care. the vemptses in m veteran in mye clear. they need better access to treatment and more mental health options. one size does not fill all. conventional therapy does not work for everyone. veterans groups like the wounded warrior project have long supported alternative treatments and more holistic mej methods. tribal governments are also working with the v.a. to use traditional native american healing treatments. these veterans are in pain. they are at an increased risk of suicide. help has to be there when they need it. our bill would that i believe the v.a. to work with non-v.a. fee-for-service providers for veterans with service, with

service-connected mental health issues. when conventional treatment is not available or where alternative treatment is not an option. second, even the best health care is useless if you can't get to it. i have talked with many veterans in my state about this, and it is a big problem across new mexico. veterans in carlsbad face a six-hour trive to the v.a. hospital in albuquerque. one such veteran fought bravely in world war ii. he is in his 80's now. he has to get up at 5:00 a.m., make the trip to albuquerque to see medical specialists. sometimes he doesn't get home until midnight. thanks to the great volunteer drivers at southeast new mexico veterans transportation network, he is able to get there. but it is an exhausting day. another of my constituents recently retired to a rural

community in the north of new mexico. he and his wife built a home there looking afford to retirement. the v.a. outreach clinic was nearby, but its contract was not renewed, and it closed. his only option now is the v.a. clinic in espanola, 80 miles each way through the southern rockies. when winter storms come, as they do in northern new mexico, he may not be able to get there at all. the v.a. offers transportation grants to help, but only for veterans in what they call highly rural areas, with fewer than seven people per square mile, not for those in rural areas, in small towns like chauma and the small towns in nevada and so many other states. they need help, too. the miles are just as long and the journey is just as hard. our bill will help by expanding v.a. transportation grants to

include rural communities, and it will not require matching funds for grants up to $100,000. making it easier for these communities to apply for assistance. third, rural v.a. clinics like their private counterparts have trouble getting staff and keeping staff. this is not news to veterans who sikh see constant turn -- who see constant turnover of doctors and nursesaged other health care professionals or who have to travel long distances just to see anyone at all. our bill will establish a v.a. training program, working with university medical centers to train health care professionals, severing rural veterans at outpatient clinics. those who complete the program and a three-year assignment will receive a hiring preference for jobs with the veterans health administration. we also propose a pilot program

for housing incentives, for health care professionals to work in rural v.a. facilities. and we are proposing that the v.a. streamline the hiring of medical -- military medical professionals transitioning to the civilian world into the v.a. system. rural v.a. health centers have a big job. they do their best. we have to do all we can to help them, to get staff and to keep staff, with incentives, with training, with innovation. it isn't easy but it's essential. fourth, we call for a full review of v.a. community-based outpatient clinics in rural and the highly rural areas so we can prioritize expansions and improvements. making sure dollars are well spent and resources go as far as possible. we also call for a report to congress on whether to add polytrauma centers in rural areas to help veterans from iraq and afghanistan recover from

multiple major injuries like serious burns and traumatic brain injuries. every day american service members wake up far from home and every day they stand watch. they do their job they promised to do. and not only if it's easy or only if it's convenient. we owe them the same promise. rural veterans should not be left behind. they should get the care they need and deserve. again i want to thank senator heller for working with me on this bill. he understands the problem. he's committed to finding solutions. our bill is a step forward for the health and well-being of our veterans. this is about essential care, about access, about honoring our commitment to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our community. i would urge my colleagues to support the bill.

and, madam president, i would ask that senator durbin be given consent to speak immediately after me, and i would yield the floor. i see senator durbin on the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i want to thank the senator from new mexico. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: when it comes to understanding the influence of big-money donors on congressional and presidential campaigns, the numbers don't lie. in 2012, the top 32 donors to super pacs spent as much money as every single small donation to president obama and governor romney combined. the top 32 donors to super pacs spent as much money as every single small donation to president obama and governor romney combined. that means 32 individuals contributed as much as $3. $3.7 million -- as much as 3.7 million americans. in 2012, candidates for both the house and senate raised the

majority of their funds from large donations of $1,000 or more. 40% of all contributions to senate candidates came from donors who maxed out at the $2,500 contribution limit, representing just .02% of the american population. the amount of money that special interest dollars and super pacs are willing to spend has grown exponentially since citizens united and it's expected to increase. this dramatic increase in spending tells us that special interests are not going to be shy about saying to members of congress, if you vote against our interest, we'll spend millions to make sure you never get a chance to vote again. that's a terrible reality for many members of congress who are trying to make honest decisions about policy. it's an even worse statement about our democracy. i think it's time for fundamental reform for the way we finance congressional elections. we need a system that allows candidates to focus on their constituents, their districts,

and their states instead of fund-raising. we need a system that encourages ordinary americans, the candidates i call mere mortals, to make their voice heard with small, affordable donations to candidates of their choice. that's why i'm introducing the fair elections now act. the fair elections now act will dramatically change the way campaigns are financed in america. this bill lets candidates focus on the people they represent, regardless of whether these people have wealth or whether they're going to attend big-money fund-raisers. fair elections candidates would be in the policy business regardless of what policies are preferred by the special interest. i want to thank senators boxer, brown, cardin, franken, gillibrand, hearke harkin, hein, klobuchar, murphy, sanders, shaheen and warren for joining me in this effort. the fair elections now act will help restore public confidence in congressional elections.

it provides qualified candidates for congress with grants, matching funds and vouchers from the fair elections fund to replace campaign fund-raising that now relies largely on lobbyists, wealthy donors, corporations and other special interest. in return, participating candidates would agree to limit their campaign spending to amounts raised from small-dollar donors plus the amounts provided from the fair elections fund. there are three stages for senate candidates under this bill. to participate, candidates would first need to prove their viability to raise -- by raising a minimum number and an amount of small-dollar qualified contributions from in-state donors. once a candidate qualifies, that candidate must limit the amount raised from each donor to $150 per election. for the primary, participants would receive a base grant that would vary in amount based on the population of the state that the candidate seeks to represe represent. participants would also receive a 6-1 match for small-dollar

donations up to a defined matching cap. the candidate could raise an unlimited amount of $150 contributions if needed to compete against high-spending opponents. for the general election, qualified candidates would receive an additional grant. further small-dollar matching and vouchers for purchasing tv advertising. the candidate could continue to raise an unlimited amount of $150 contributions, if needed. instead of spending so much time courting donors and super pacs, fair election candidates would have an incentive to spend their time with the middle-class americans that they want to represent. candidates would have an incentive to seek small donations and citizens would have an incentive to donate. under fair elections, the average citizen would know their small donation of $150 would be converted to a $900 donation through the 6-1 fair elections match. it would also be eligible for a refundable tax credit. the fair elections now act would establish the my voice tax

credit to encourage individuals to make small donations to campaigns. the maximum refundable amount for the tax credit would be $25 for individuals, $50 for joint filers. to ensure the tax credit targets small donors, it is only available to individuals who do not contribute more than $ 300 to a candidate or political party in any given year. madam president, our country faces major challenges. everybody knows we need to reduce the deficit, modernize our energy policy, create good-paying jobs, reform the tax code, and many other things. what many people may not know is that at every turn, there are high-powered special interests fighting each and every one of these proposals. it's difficult for members of congress not to pay attention to the concerns of these special interests when the members have to turn and raise money for their own campaigns. this bill would change the whole ball game. it would reduce the influence of these special interest lobbyists and wealthy donors. as a result, the bill would enhance the voice of average

americans. let me be clear. i honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of the people serving in political life are good, honest people and i believe that senators and congressmen are guided by the best of intentions. but we are stuck in a terrible system. the perception is that politicians are corrupted because of all the big money we each have to raise and whether it's true or not, that perception and the loss of trust that goes with it makes it incredibly difficult for the senators to solve tough problems. that's why so many americans have congress in such low rega regard. this problem, the perception of pervasive corruption, is fundamental to our democracy and we need to address it. fair elections is not a far-fetched idea. fair elections systems are already at work in cities and states around america. similar programs exist and are working well in jurisdictions throughout the country, from maine to arizona. these programs are bringing new faces and new ideas into politics, making more races more

competitive, dramatically reducing the influence of special interest. the vast majority of americans agree it's time to fundamentally change the way we finance political campaigns. recent polling shows that 75% of democrats, 66% of independents and 55% of republicans support fair elections style reform. the fair elections now act is supported by numerous good-government groups, former members of congress from both parties, prominent business leaders and even some lobbyists. everyone's entitled to a seat at the table but no one's entitled to a special seat or maybe the only seat. the fair elections now act will reform our campaign finance system so members of congress would focus on implementing policies in the best interests of the people that sent them to washington. madam president, you just finished a campaign and i know from visiting with you in your home state, you worked hard and i'm in the midst of a reelection campaign myself. and i know that i'm working hard

and a lot of times -- time's being spent on the telephone raising money from a lot of generous people. i say in politics there are the millionaires and the mere mortals. i'm in the second category and that means i can't write a check to cover the cost of a campaign. i have to hope that enough people want to support me in my effort. and with those contributions, i will be buying media primarily, television, radio, internet advertising, some mailings, paying for a headquarters and volunteers. it's expensive in a big state like wisconsin or illinois. now we're in the citizens united era where the traditional campaigns that i just described are, frankly, not even close to the reality of what candidates face. one senator, one incumbent democratic senator now up for reelection has had over $8 million spent against her in her home state with negative advertising that's gone on for months. for months. it's being paid for by some very

wealthy billionaires. these billionaires -- in this case, the koch brothers -- spent i believe $248 million of their own money in the last election cycle. they are, in fact, a political party to themselves. they decide the candidates they support, which coincidentally are all in the other political party and they invest huge sums of money in those election efforts. make no mistake, we're raising money on the democratic side too but not nearly to the numbers that we see on the other side. this business of politics is being swamped with money in amounts and levels we have never seen before. what it means is that if incumbent or even a challenger wants to have a viable campaign, they spend more and more time raising money if they can't write a personal check to cover it. and most of us can't. and so instead of being back in my state working on issue as that are important in the sena senate, i spend a lot of time

fund-raising. we've become so used to it it's like the frog in that pot of water on the stove that may not sense the increase in temperature until the water's boiling and it's too late. we're in that same predicament here. we are watching election after election the cost of campaigns go through the roof. it discourages good people from engaging in the political process. it makes small contributors feel like they're such small peanuts that nobody even notices. we have to change that whole concept. i'm reluctant to say this but so far this campaign finance reform bill is only being cosponsored and sponsored by members of one political party. i have tried for years to get republican support for campaign finance reform. the only republican senator who would ever join me was arlen specter of pennsylvania who ultimately changed political parties on me -- i shouldn't say not on me but changed political parties and then i didn't have bipartisan sponsorship. but the point i'm getting to is

this should be a bipartisan issue. i have no doubt that in a limited campaign with limited expenditures, i'd still have enough money to get my message out in illinois and i'm sure my opponent would too. that would be a godsend in sparing me and whoever from raising a lot of money and a relief to the voters who get sick and tired of the political advertising that swamps the screens in the closing days of a campaign. fair elections now is an effort to move in that direction. it's a new concept but it's one we should look at honestly. we can clean up the election campaigns in america. we can be responsive to the needs of our constituents. we can further the goals of our democracy and do it in a fashion that is affordable and allows mere mortals to compete. madam 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: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i move we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: madam president, i

want to talk a little about the letters i have received and the messages we have received in the office the last week regarding the changes we see going on in health care. quite a bit of discussion last week about how health care impacts the workplace, and i think a lot of misinformation out. this report doesn't say, as some people have alleged, the c.b.o. projection, the congressional budget office projection doesn't say that two million more people are going to have part-time jobs. it says the equivalent job loss because of the affordable care act is the equivalent of 2.3 million people losing full-time jobs. that may mean 10 million people that otherwise would have had full-time jobs have part-time jobs. the other thing is it's three times as big as the number that was on the table when people voted for the affordable care act. at that time the congressional budget office says if this law

passes that there will be 800,000 fewer jobs than if this law doesn't pass. the collective impact on the economy is 800,000 fewer jobs. well, last week, they said there would be 2.3 million fewer jobs, three times, roughly three times the amount that the earlier estimate was, and like so many other estimates in this law, the -- the reality of the law turns out to be different than the estimates, and certainly -- surely that was an estimate that nobody wanted. i can't imagine that anybody that voted for this bill -- and i didn't vote for it, but i can't imagine that anybody that voted for this bill thought that's a really great thing, we're going to lose 800,000 jobs if this bill passes. i assume they thought the good this bill will do will offset losing 800,000 jobs. now we find out it's 2.3 million jobs, and all kinds of information that the good that was supposedly going to be done

is not what people had hoped for. i have got -- while we're talking about the workplace, i have got a letter here from the -- a person who is the president of one of our community colleges in the state of missouri, and he says we -- because of the affordable care act, we have reviewed all part-time employment to ensure compliance with the affordable care act which defines full time as 30 hours or more per week. without specific guidance in knowing the difference in a credit hour and a working clock hour, we have reduced part-time faculty teaching loads to ensure that nobody works more than 30 hours. and this isn't the only letter or contact that all of us have had on this topic. we know that the unintended consequence of this law on the workplace was that people are now told who they don't have to insure.

state governments, community colleges, big companies, all looking at a law for the first time that supposedly says who you have to insure, although the president certainly feels he has the authority that none of us can find anywhere in the law to decide when the law's going to go into effect and when it's not, but the law says who you have to insure and suddenly people who for a long time have provided health care benefits because they thought it was the right thing to do or the competitive thing to do now respond to this directive from the federal government that says what you have to do, and that means that's all you have to do. so all of these employees who may have worked 25 hours, 28 hours, 32 hours in the past and all got insurance now are suddenly working less than 30 hours, and i have talked to enough of these employees to know that this isn't because they don't want to work more. this isn't because they want to make less money. this isn't because they want to

teach -- want to teach one less class. it's because the law has had that kind of impact on the workplace. the other letters that -- the other promises we're going to get better coverage for less cost, surely somebody is getting better coverage for less cost, but my guess is that is a much smaller group than the group that's -- than the people that are losing their insurance and because of the so-called broader and better coverage, the so-called better coverage have more costs. here is a letter from kathy in wentsville, missouri. she says i carry insurance through a large corporation, and my premium increase this year because the minimum standards in the law affect my plan. the premium increased by 25%. she goes on in no uncertain terms to suggest that she doesn't like the affordable care act or think it was affordable. jeff from st. joseph said thank you for the opportunity to share

my family's opinion on obamacare. first off, i'd like to state that we have experienced increases in our health insurance. my employer's insurance has doubled, of which i pay one half. my family's separate insurance policy has risen as well with cancellation due in december. i have considered canceling my own health insurance through my employer so i can provide for my family's health insurance at their new rates. this was a family that a few months ago thought they were going to be able to continue to keep what they had, they liked what they had, they thought they could afford what they had. now they're deciding who is going to go without insurance so other people can have insurance in the family at the higher rate. william from st. louis, missouri, says my insurance was canceled in december. says my insurance rates have been drastically increasing each year since the law was passed.

four years ago, i had a policy for my family with a $500 deductible and the ability to go to any hospital or doctor in st. louis at a cost of $1,000 a month. now i have a policy, he says, with a $2,000 deductible and i can't go to the doctor i used to go to. and he says his policy now that doesn't allow him to go to the doctor he used to go to doesn't cost $1,000 a month any longer, it costs $1,500 a month. ted in st. joseph said that his doctor has changed the way he does business. he says he's downsized the types of plans he accepts and is moving to a customer base with higher incomes. so ted's doctor according to ted in st. joseph has stopped taking patients with blue cross/blue shield because of increased costs, and now ted who, by the way, liked the doctor he had, now has to find another doctor that will take the coverage that

he can get. steve in st. joseph and his wife are raising their 14-year-old grandson, and all three have seen their insurance costs, they think because of the affordable care act. grandson's policy went up $50 a month from $104 to $154. his wife's deductible went from from $1,000 per year to $5,000 per year, and her insurance costs over $800 a month. now, he goes on to say -- and i thought about whether i should read this or not. i assume they have talked about this, too. he says if we were to get divorced, her premium would be less than $200 a month. i think steve is not suggesting that he and his wife should get divorced, but just talking about, again, the unintended consequences here. a family that's together can't afford to have the coverage they had. her coverage is $800 a month but as a substitute teacher -- i believe that's what this letter

says she does -- her income would qualify her for a $200 a month policy instead of the $800 they're paying now. sandy from armstrong, missouri, says she received a letter from her insurance company notifying her that her premiums were about to increase. she went on health care..gov to find plans she and her husband could qualify for and the plans she found were double the premiums she had been paying. kelly, farmington, missouri, works at the h.r. department, the human resources department at a bank. she feels that healthy groups will be paying more for insurance because of a.c.a. and because of the expanded coverage. her department's received many questions, she says, about health care coverage that feels limited in how much they can really tell anybody because they don't know how the new law is going to apply. the law of unintended

consequences continues to be the law that applies here. missourians and people all over the country are contacting us and asking how much damage we're willing to do to the health care system that was working to get more people included in that system. there were ways to do this that every one of which i believe was legislatively proposed in 2009. small changes that would have made a big difference in a health care system that was working for people who were in that system. we need to figure out the few ways to get more people in that system. instead, we have had dramatic impact on the best health care system in the world, and people are beginning to figure that out. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum as i yield the floor. protothe clerk will call the roll. --

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask the disposition -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. durbin: i ask that it be suspended. i ask unanimous consent -- excuse me, madam president. let me ask the staff. i ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the house

message with respect to s. a 25 the senate proceed to the executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar numbers 497, 498, 493, 494, 495, 495, 531, 534, that the senate proceed to vote qowt without intervening action or debate in the nominations in the order listed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session, further there be two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual manner prior to each vote and all after the first vote be 10 minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, with what we went through in the state of florida in the attempts of suppressing voters, you would think with the experience of people having stood in line in order to vote for five to seven hours that it would have put this issue to rest. but they're back at it again. and this time in a very subtle way. the governor's office through his appointed secretary of state, who is the chief elections officer, has now interpreted a statute that in a municipal election that students

at the university of florida cannot early vote prior to the election on campus at their student center. the interpretation is made that it's an educational facility and does not qualify, according to the statute, on a technical reason that it is not a government-owned conference facility. when indeed it's owned by the state of florida through the university, and indeed, it is a conference facility for many, many conferences, outside groups as well as student groups. no, what it is an attempt in a runup to the november election to try to make it more

difficult, less convenient for students to vote. as it turns out, in this particular municipal election coming up shortly, students would have to go across town some mile and a half in another location, some three miles away, and, of course, students as busy as they are, that's going to discourage them. and so if they end up doing this for this special election in march, a municipal election, they are of course going to try to do it for the november election when we have a statewide election for the governor and the cabinet. why? well, an attempt to suppress students' votes, who may not be voting for the people in power that are trying to suppress

their votes. it's all the more of interest because there will be on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment to change the state constitution to allow by doctor's prescription medical marijuana, something that has generated interest in all sectors of society but particularly among students. another reason they want to come out to vote. the whole idea of early voting is to try to make it more convenient for people to be able to vote that they might not find it because of a babysitter problem, a work problem on election day, but early voting, as we saw in the

experience of the 2012 election, the days were shortened from 14 to eight, they cut out the sunday before the tuesday election, a day that professor dan smith doing a study at the university of florida found that those that availed themselves for sunday voting were primarily hispanics and african-americans. and indeed, the attempts were made in limiting the number of early voting locations within a county, and then of those early vote locations, having a facility that was small so that you could not get a lot of voting machines in. again, another way, very subtle, of trying to suppress the vote.

so the people of florida naturally were outraged, particularly when they heard stories of the 101-year-old lady that had to stay three and a half hours in order to cast her vote and the others that were staying five and seven hours and they were not going to have their vote taken away from them and they stood in line. and so the people were outraged. and so there was an attempt to pass a new law -- and i will close with this, madam president -- this new law now is being interpreted that the very same suppression efforts are occurring again, and we are simply not going to let this happen if we have to call the justice department in. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i rise today to talk

just for a short period of time about the magnitude of our budget debt and deficit. against the backdrop of the debt ceiling increase, members of both parties are going to today, likely, repeal one of the deficit reduction measures included in the bipartisan budget agreement that was approved less than two months ago. how do we convey to the nation the seriousness about solving the debt crisis when at the first sign of political pressure we repeal one of the deficit reduction measures? as we all know, the ryan-murray budget deal included modest reductions in some spending programs over the next ten years in order to increase discretionary spending caps in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. i voted against this agreement because i thought the spending cuts didn't go go far enough. i don't think we're treating our debt and deficit seriously enough and second i've been down that road of trading spending increases today for spending

cuts later many times. it doesn't work. we've seen that play before and we know how it ends. because year after year members of congress simply refuse to stick by the budget discipline that we said we'd stick to. exhibit one is before us today. that congress is about to undo, in fact, repeal one of those provisions as i mentioned. it's important to note that the cost of living adjustment that will be repealed or the reform that will be repealed was a cost of living adjustment or cola for military reez resulting in -- rearees resulting in less than 1%. that's 1%. this stopped far short of the elimination of cola requirements for retirees under the age of 62 that the simpson-bowles commission recommended. certainly our veterans deserve the utmost respect and generous retirement pay. however, it's been reported

regardless of age members of our armed services could easily in some instances receive retirement and health benefits for 40 years or more. some of my colleagues have suggested that failing to support measures to repeal the cola reduction is tantament to turning our back on veterans. this is untrue. this is a mischaracterization of the issue at hand, we all know that that. the military is at a crossroads, fast growing benefits are threatening to displace investments in readiness of our armed services. so i would encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at the fiscal mess we face before we vote to roll back one of the few few deficit reduction measures that the president and congress has agreed to. our fiscal situation is serious. we cannot ignore that forever. this problem will continue to get worse. yes, we ought to be reforming entitlement programs so they're around for future

beneficiaries, veterans and others, but for goodness' sake, when deficit reduction measures get signed into law, surely at some point we need to stand by them. madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia.

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask that the quorum o be terminated. officer without objection. yorktsd the chair lays before the senate a message from the house with respect to s.540. the clerk: that the bill from the senate s. 540, entitled an act to designate the air route traffic control center located in gnash watt, new hampshire, at pa triblg clark air traffic control center do pass with an amendment. mr. reid: i move to concur in the house amendment. i have a cloture at the desk. the presiding officer: the cloark cl report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion:

we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to s.540, signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. spher sph without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators snorns with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 540 signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to s.540 shall be

brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: