to see a decrease in people uninsured, which we have already started to see, and we're going to see an increase in small businesses because people no longer have to stay in their jobs simply to maintain their insurance. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor.

mr. hatch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. hatch: okay. then, madam president? the presiding officer: th the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i rise to speak about the process we've been seeing here in the senate when it comes to settling major pie pieces of legislation. if you look at how the senate operates these days, i don't think anyone would say that we're the greatest deliberative body anymore. we no longer have real debates, most bills don't go through committee where they can be refined and improved, and when the senate democratic leadership decides to bring a bill to the

floor, we are far more often than not blocked from offering any amendments. the unimhoimen unemployment inse legislation before us is a good example. republicans have filed dozens of amendments to this bill. some of them would definitely improve the u.i. lels. others would address -- others would address the underlying problems that have led some to call for another extension of federal unemployment benefits; namely, the stagnant growth in our economy and jobs. yet it appears that none of these amendments will get a vote because the senate democratic leadership has decided that it's more important to protect their members from having to take difficult votes than it is to actually legislate. i filed several amendments, madam president, two of them in particular which would help create jobs and prevent further job losses. one of those amendments would

repeal the obamacare tax on medical devices. we had 79 votes for that and yet we can't get a vehicle that will put it through. the house will overwhelmingly vote for it. and yet we can't even get time on the floor to take care of it. that shouldn't even be considered controversial. indeed, a large majority of senators have already voted in favor of repealing this job-killing tax and protecting an important american industry -- or should i say, important american industries, because there are a lot of industries in this area. repeal of the medical dwi devicx has bipartisan support in both the house and the senate, as i've mentioned. i have another amendment that would repeal the obamacare employer mandate. in the face of this, this may seem more controversial, but it shouldn't be. after all, the obama administration has already delayed the mandate for two years. if the mandate is so harmful that the administration is fraid

to let it go -- is afraid to let it go into effect, why don't we simply do away with it altogether? these are reasonable amendments, madam president. they deserve a vote. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment number 2905. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: madam president, reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the? car from rhode island. mr. reed: the underlying legislation is critical to helping 2.6 million americans and i would hope we could move to that legislation. therefore, i would object to the unanimous consent request by the distinguished senator from utah with respect to his amendment number 2905. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hatch: you can imagine how

disappointed i am in that. i ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment number 2906. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: the same logic, given the nature of the legislation before you i would urge immediate action and therefore i would object to the distinguished senator's request, unanimous consent. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hatch: well, madam president, the senate didn't used to operate this way. i've been to the floor many times over the past few years to talk about the deterioration of the senate procedures under the current majority and to call for a return to the deliberative traditions of this chamber. many of my cheetion on the othef my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done the same. sadly, it appears that our calls have fallen on deaf ears. madam president, i've been here

a long time, and i have never seen it worse than it is right now. there have been some really tough rhymes here ovetimes heret i've never seen it worse. over the last number of years the majority would call up a bill and then they'll immediately file cloture, like we're filibustering when we don't have any intentions to filibuster. all we want do is be able to call up amendments. and then they'll accuse us of filibustering when there's no intention of filibuster -- to filibuster just to have some amendments. and then, of course, call it a filibuster. well, it's not a filibuster unless you have a vote on cloture. but, nemples nevertheless, thatn the technique around here that's

been used for a long, long time in the last couple years. and frankly it is not the way to run the united states senate. then what they do is they call up a bill, they then -- they then file cloture, they fill up the tree so you cannot have any amendments. now, there's -- well, let me put it this way. and you really can't legislate, and the minority has no rights whatsoever. a lot of the democrats on the other side of the aisle have never been in the minority. that may happen. then they're going to realize how important these rules are. and all i can say is that the

senate is not being run the way it should be run. now, i have no objection to filling up the tree after a full and extended debate, when people have an opportunity to bring up their amendments, full-blooded senators are on the floor, they have a right to bring up those amendments, they ought to be able to bring up those amendments. i have no problem with amendments that i totally disagree with being brought up. but you can't even do that most of the time on these bills unless basically the leadership on the democratic side approves the amendments, even though this body has always had the pooings that we can call up -- has always had the position that we can call up germane and nongermane amendments. it is what makes this body great, it is what has given it such prestige over the years. now it jus if it's run this ways

just a rubber stafn for the leadership. i think it is a bad, bad thing to do. the principle has been started and the precedent has been laid. i just lament this because i've been here long enough to see some of the greatest debates in the history of the senate done right here on this floor. some were initiated by democrats who wanted their rights to be able to bring everything up and to really have them debated, whether they were germane or nongermane. and theyatesserted thei they ass on the floomplet others were brought up by republicans that democrats didn't like. but the leadership in the past acknowledged that, my gosh, you have a right to do that in the most deliberative body in the world. we've made it anything but the most deliberative body in the world with this type of procedure.

now, it is my hope that the republicans will be able to take over the senate in 2014. perhaps that won't happen, but i would like to see it happen. and if it does, i think my friends on the other side are going to feel very badly if this same type of maneuvering is done to prevent them from bringing up the amendments they would like to bring up. and i don't doubt that it would be done for a while, just to make the point clear. but i personally believe that we would get back to the regular order, that the rules were before this type of shenanigan -- or shenanigans, i guess should i say, have taken place. this is important stuff and there's a lot of feeling on other side as to how the senate is currently being run. and as the most senior republican in this body, i understand those feelings.

i have them, too. it's wrong. it's certainly not right. and we need to change this, and we need to make it back to the most deliberative body in the world. and should we do that, i think everybody here will breathes a sigh of relief a understand say, my gosh, both side -- each side will have these rights restored that have been so, so i think distorted during the last number of years. madam president, i'm sorry i couldn't get these two amendments. one of them was a medical device tax repeal. we'd rather not be for it. it was on a bill that was not allowed to go to the house. 79 of our colleagues -- 79 of us voted for that amendment, a

bipartisan vote, a vote that was -- that had tremendous leadership on the democratic side through the distinguished senator from wisconsin, senator -- or minnesota, senator klobuchar, who has been a wonderful leader on that. if it wasn't bipartisan, maybe i'd understand it. but it's not only bipartisan, it's crucial to all of the medical device companies throughout the united states that have set precedents for the whole world. we're going to get that passed sooner or later. but in the meantime we're having medical device companies leaving the united states because of that stupid gross tax on gross sales, if you can believe it. there is eel onthere's only ones put into lels. that is, they needed about $30 billion -- with a "b" -- for

obamacare. it was. iit was basically a phonyapproa0 billion that would deliberately hurt one of the greatest budding industries in america, many of which are moving overseas because of this stupidity. i think we've got to change it. if you need to find other moneys for obamacare and you would probably need to -- in fact it is not the only thing that's happening -- then let's find them. but let's not continue to delay what's happening here on the medical device tax. you know, i can't think of a more stupid tax than a tax that taxes the gross sales of these

companies. that is a dangerous, debilitating, disgusting, wrongful tax, and yet we can't even get a vehicle over here to put it on -- the other body would pass it quickly -- so that we can get rid of it. all i can say is i'm very disappointed, but i do understand how this body works, and with that, i'll yield the floor. and i 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 maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i also ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, the numbers are in. over seven million americans have enrolled through the health exchanges around the nation. when we passed the affordable care act four years ago, the projections were that we would hit the seven million mark of enrollees at the close of the first year of enrollment. we have exceeded those numbers. we've exceeded those numbers even though we had a very rough rollout of the exchanges and people were frustrated when they couldn't get the information as quickly as they wanted, but americans wanted insurance. and they knew that they could get affordable coverage and they stuck with it and now we know that in fact over seven million have enrolled and when we

finally see the numbers, those numbers are going to go up. a lot of people on line on march 31, the processing has not been completed, we're going to see more, plus we from have the medicaid expansion which is going to bring millions more under insurance coverage than we had before. but over the last four years we have seen incredible progress and help to all americans with their health coverage and their health costs. no longer do we have preexisting conditions. a family that has a child with asthma does not have to worry whether that asthma will be a preexisting condition to full coverage. a woman does not have to worry about having a child being a preexisting condition to full coverage. parents can keep their adult children object their insurance policies to age 26. there is no longer any caps on your insurance. many americans thought they had insurance coverage only to go through a serious illness and find that their insurance had a

cap that did not cover all the expenses. no longer do families have to worry about being forced into bankruptcy because of an illness or an injury. our seniors now have much stronger coverage under medicare with preventive care covered without any deductibles. prescription drug coverage is now more complete with that so-called doughnut hole, that coverage gap being filled. and the solvency of the medicare trust fund has been extended by a decade. small business owners have choice of type of plans that they want, who don't have to worry about one person in their employment getting sick during the year causing an astronomical increase in their premiums. and they also have help and affordability in paying for their health insurance for their employees. community health centers have been expanded and covers such coverage as prenatal care, my own state of maryland we're seeing the low birth weight baby

numbers are declining, infant mortality rates are going down. we are now providing more pediatric dental services within the community as a result of the affordable care act. we now have passed the march 31 date and the first year of enrollment. and now many americans have affordable, quality health care and have a choice, they have a good product at a reasonable cost. everybody hears the numbers and i'm just going to go through a few. i have literally hundreds of letters that i've received from real people whose real lives have been affected, they're one of those 7.1 million people and we can read millions of accounts. dr. michael ell of cecil county in a letter to "the baltimore sun" said my wife and i would like to thank president barack obama for helping us save almost $4,000 a year on health care. i am 61 years old with preempledz of asthma which -- preexisting conditions of asthma which is under control with

medication. yet before the affordable care act my insurance company found it necessary to charge me 25% more for my insurance coverage. i'm sure there are many others like myself with preexisting conditions who will see a savings on their coverage. the p -- public should know that since fox news and g.o.p. would have us believe obamacare helps no one and will cost everyone more. colleen of anne arundel county coasted on her facebook -- "senator, i'm 26 years old and i have been on cobra paying $570 a month for coverage because of a preexisting condition, asthma. i want to thank you for fighting for the affordable care act. i applied recently and was accepted into the program. i now pay $243 a month with a $500 deductible. thank you, thank you, thank you. the affordable care act is a human right. thank you for fighting on my behalf." kelly m. wrote -- "i have a new

plan. i vice president had insurance for years. when i applied for insurance before, i was denied for preexisting conditions, even for plans with huge deductibles. i signed up on the maryland health care exchange back in october, and by january 1, i was holding an insurance card from carefirst blue shield, and i have already had my first doctor appointment. it works. i am proof. i am so grateful that i can take care of myself with dignity without having to go to the e.r. whenever i'm sick or have to spend half my paycheck at an urgent care center. i can do all the preventative measures that i have been putting off and get back on the road to health. it's a good feeling." paul from frederick county, maryland, wrote -- "my daughter and i met with a navigator from the door-to-door health care to discuss applying for health care. we have been having problems with the enrollment process. i have been paying for a separate plan for her and now

she is paying $55 less per month. now my daughter gets to have a comprehensive plan cheaper than before without any interruption on her coverage. thank you." ryan from prince george's county wrote -- who has aged out of her parents' insurance. ryan was suffering from asthma and a sinus infection but she was unable to afford a doctor's visit on her own. after attending a local affordable care act information session, she logged onto maryland health benefits exchange and was able to go through the entire process and picked an affordable health plan. she is now inshoed and able to get the treatment she needs. ryan is a 26-year-old. under 26 you can be on your parents' policy. you talk about those young people who think they never will need insurance. i was in downtown baltimore over the weekend at a fair where we were enrolling people in the affordable care act. i saw many, many people of ryan's age, young people who

were over 26 of age who are there to find out whether this was right for them. when they left, they held an insurance card, they had enrolled because they found out how reasonable the price was for a young person to get comprehensive coverage. now, i can read through a lot more letters. i have quite a few more, but i know some of my colleagues are waiting to speak on the floor. maybe at a later date, i will come back and read some of the other letters that i have received. but the point i want to bring up is that we have fundamentally changed the health care system from a system that was basically a sick system. only if you got sick, you figured out how to pay your bills, maybe you went through bankruptcy, to a health care system where we keep people healthy, where we provide for comprehensive preventative health care, so people can stay out of emergency rooms and can stay out of hospitals. yes, we have benefited those who had no health insurance.

millions of people now have coverage who didn't have coverage before the affordable care act. we have brought them into the system. they don't have to fear bankruptcy. they can take care of themselves, and they can do it in a more competitive way for all of us. we have helped our seniors, no question about it. they now have more comprehensive benefits and they have a system that's on a more stable financial footing. but we also have helped those who already had insurance. we have helped them by giving them a better product, by making sure that their insurance company, the premiums they charge are used for your benefits and not excessive profits. must spend 80%, 85% of the premium dollar on benefits. otherwise, you get a rebate. and we have gotten people out of the emergency room. i was asked on c-span today well, aren't we helping the providers? after all, people go to hospitals now are more likely to pay their bills.

absolutely right. but guess who paid for that uncompensated care. those of us who had insurance. our premiums are higher as a result of people not paying their bills. well, now they are going to be paying their bills. first of all, they are going to stay out of the hospital, which will save us all money, but if they need to be in a hospital, they will have the insurance coverage to pay for it. the affordable care act has worked for all of us by bringing down the growth rate of health care costs, by making the system more efficient, and today i think we can acknowledge that the fundamentals are sound. people are taking advantage of it. we hope that as we go forward, more and more will. i will just make one final point. when medicare part d was passed and we projected the number of seniors who would take advantage of it, we hit about 70% of our projection in the first year. on the affordable care act health exchanges, we're over 100%. this program is working, people know it. the more they know about it, the

more they like what they see. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: madam president, i rise today to speak about a critical disaster relief bill that i have recently introduced here in the united states senate. in the west, we have a saying that mother nature bats last. for millions of americans, that saying is a reminder that often entire communities are at the mercy of the raw force of nature and natural disasters. sadly, we're reminded of this truism every year with wildfires in the west, hurricanes in the south and ice storms along the atlantic seaboard. the devastating and tragic mudslides that have recently devastated oso, washington, are the latest example. i'd like to first and most importantly express my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims of this tragedy in washington

state, and i want to assure the people of washington that coloradans stand ready to assist in whatever way we can with the recovery process that we know all too well ourselves. we are all in this together. in times of disaster like these, i believe there are no democrats or republicans. we put aside partisan divides to unite in the face of tragedy. when confronted by these dire situations, we stand united to support our fellow americans who have been shaken by the destructive forces of mother nature. when the northeast was rocked by super storm sandy in 2012, a majority of the congress stood together to fund relief and recovery efforts, not because it benefited their state or because they expected anything in return, but because it was simply the right thing to do. similarly when hurricane katrina devastated the gulf coast in 2005, we united to support our

fellow americans who lost their homes and livelihoods in the hurricane and its aftermath. and when ice jams just last year caused the yukon river to fill its banks, flooding towns in alaska, congress stood as one to provide aid and assistance for those in need. my state, too, has felt the pain of destructive and unprecedented natural disasters in recent years. in fact, many parts of colorado are still reeling from the september, 2013, floods that resulted in ten deaths, washed away homes and businesses and literally redrew the map across parts of my state. in my travels to places like evans, jamestown and estes park, i witnessed firsthand how thousands were impacted by this disaster which spanned 200 square miles and 15 counties. fortunately, madam president, in

spite of a destructive federal government shutdown that forced all of us to scramble just days after the flooding, many of the 18,000 evacuees in my state have returned home and are working on rebuilding their lives and communities. this is thanks to the assistance from federal and state agencies, including important relief funding made possible by the superstorm sandy relief package we passed here in the congress in a bipartisan manner. so in sum, we in colorado are on the road to recovery thanks to the tremendous efforts of thousands of people, including many of our colleagues here in the senate. but as my colleagues who have dealt with their own natural disasters know all too well, the initial relief steps are only the first step. looking ahead over the next couple of months, colorado, like many other western states, may be facing another round of devastating floods, wildfires and mudslides.

why, madam president? well, colorado, like washington, has received an above average snow pack this year. we have more snow than normal. we're expecting 127% of average snow melt this spring. when you combine that increased snow back and the impending spring runoff with stream beds that are still jammed full of debris, crumbling riverbeds and waterways, colorado still has a recipe for disaster on her hands. and i want to share a photograph, madam president, of what happened in one of our communities. you can see the culvert that's been washed out, the vehicles that are embedded and the sand and boulders of the riverbed and the riverbed completely rerouted during the flooding and took out the road that's in that particular area. now, the good news is as we look at the potential for additional disaster, we have the power here in congress to confront the

disaster before it has the chance to occur, and i want to speak to the history of what congress did. we recognize, the congress did, the importance of stabilizing water banks, preventing soil erosion and clearing debris from waterways back in 1978 through the agricultural credit act. as a part of that important law, congress authorized emergency watershed protection program or e.w.p. for short. and as many of my colleagues know well,s w.p. provides critical disaster relief assistance for families and communities that have suffered severe damages from flood, fire, droughts or other natural disasters. the e.w.p. program focuses on funding critical emergency recovery measures for runoff mitigation and erosion prevention that will relieve imminent hazards to life and property presented by natural disasters. protecting and repairing these

watersheds wherever they may be is critical in preventing the type of erosion that leads to massive mudslides and future disasters. unfortunately, even though our country is rocked by these natural disasters every year, the critical e.w.p. program does not receive consistent funding, and the sporadic and inconsistent way we fund it, via ad hoc supplemental bills, has created a backlog in need of over $120 million nationally. for my colleagues in the chamber who may not immediately recognize the importance of e.w.p. and the program that's attached to it, let me make clear that there are 14 states that have projects that have been left unfunded because of this backlog, meaning that they are up to 28 -- there are up to 28 senators who could see relief in their home states if we pass this bill. this backlog is unacceptable. it's preventing us from funding dozens of projects that can help reduce the frequency and

severity of mudslides, projects that can protect our watersheds and projects that can save lives. so with this in mind, madam president, i rise today to ask this congress to come together yet again and pass legislation which i introduced last week supporting a more permanent funding stream for the e.w.p. program. i have introduced the bill with my home state colleague, senator bennet, and it has been cosponsored by the senior senator from washington, patty murray. it will not cost a dime, but it will finally change the way we structurally fund the e.w.p. program by creating a common unified account to provide support to families and communities around the country. this commonsense legislation would also free up dollars that have already been appropriated in the past but have not been used. unlocking these dollars will not create additional spending but it will infuse this newly created account with seed funding to begin clearing out the backlog and helping states

like colorado finance critical projects that can save lives. then moving forward, my bill sets up a system where appropriators and states affected in the future can ensure that every dollar made available to the e.w.p. program is used when needed and put back into this important permanent fund when it's not, reducing the threat and the cost of future disasters. as an avid outdoorsman, i'm well aware of the dangers presented by the forces of nature and i have been a long-time supporter of e.w.p. and its vital relief efforts. the importance of this program was only further emphasized to me last september when boulders, water and debris came roaring through el dorado canyon, which is just a short mile from my home. and, madam president, there were scenes just like this as well near my home. madam president, it's become very clear that every moment we spend trying to piece together ad hoc funding for this program

every year after these disasters have already occurred is another moment that could be spent rebuilding the homes and the livelihoods of americans that have been struck by mother nature. americans should not be forced to wonder or worry about partisan divides undermining their ability to access critical resources and services. they shouldn't have to face the uncertainty of whether or not congress will pass supplemental funding to support their families and communities after a devastating event like the one you see here that forever changes their lives. and they certainly shouldn't have to wait for congress in order to access essential and proven services from the e.w.p. program when a disaster leaves their homes and communities in shambles. unfortunately, madam president, some in this congress have shown that they are incapable of rising above partisan posturing to help those in need. the reckless partisanship has

nearly prevented us from passing a bill -- i should say the reckless partisanship of these individuals nearly prevented us from passing a bill that helped the storm ravaged states affected by hurricane sandy and kept the government shut down for 16 days even as we in colorado were constituting tkpwelg to take the -- struggling to take the important first steps after a flooding. we can't let essentials as e.w.p. be subject to this kind of rancor which is why my bill is so important. that is why it is past time that e.w.p. received a dependable funding stream and i hope my colleagues will join me in funding this legislation and i look forward to supporters to finance this fund for years to come. with the funding structure created by my bill in place, communities around the country that have been knocked off their feet by brutal and unanticipated disasters will be able to count on this program to immediately

help them to get back up and on to the road of recovery. this is not only the responsible thing to do, it is the right thing to do. madam chair, before i close, i wanted to briefly touch on a slightly different topic, but one that's also very important specifically to colorado, and that is the national security economic and job boosting potential of exporting liquid natural gas, or l.n.g. this is a topic that myself and many senators from both sides of the aisle have been talking about over the recent weeks, particularly in light of the ongoing crisis in ukraine and russia's use of its natural gas exports as a weapon. russian aggression and their incursion into the crimean peninsula illustrate precisely the reason we cannot wait any longer to responsibly develop our natural gas reserves and to export this resource abroad.

unfortunately, new facilities to export l.n.g. are on hold right now waiting for approval at the u.s. department of energy. while the department of energy approval is only one step in a complexion process to construct a new export facility, a process that includes environmental access and public input, it has become an unacceptable logjam. that's why i introduced a bill a few weeks ago that would break the logjam and pave the way for approval of l.n.g. exports to world trade organizations and nations in effect approving the pending applications in the queue. my bill is bipartisan and bicameral and it would send a signal to international markets that the days of russia's monopoly stranglehold on energy supplies are waning and my bill would pave the way for more american jobs and a shot in the arm to our economy. so, madam president, that's why i've been disappointed to learn that several of my colleagues have decided that another

political vote is more important than good policy and decide to push an l.n.g. amendment tied to approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline. i voted against republican and democratic keystone pipeline amendments because i believe these political votes by both sides setback progress on the real review process. tying good l.n.g. policy to a political vote does not lead to progress on either issue. instead it shows political motivations of those who are deciding to go this route. my friend from wyoming, senator barrasso, has a bill that would open up l.n.g. to targets in europe that he tried to tie to the ukraine bill. i agreed to that effort. he funds my bill as an amendment to that same legislation during the senate foreign relations committee markup. both of these approaches have bipartisan support.

both of them would make a difference and both of them are worthy of consideration. so i invite all of us who want to see us get something done to abandon election-year political games and focus on what matters. we can leverage our natural resources to remote global security, create jobs and prevent power-hungry leaders like putin from using energy supplies as a weapon. let's get this done, madam president, and work together to find a real way forward. and let's have a vote. madam president, thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i understand senator blunt would seek recognition. i would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks i be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment on this bill

numbered 2885. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: reserving my right to object, because of the emergency nature of the underlying bipartisan bill to aid about 2.7 million americans, i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. blunt: madam president, let me talk about why i think we should have this and other amendments on this bill. my friend from colorado just talked about an amendment that he said he supported last week. of course none of us got to support it on the ukrainian bill because it wasn't allowed to come up. just like on this issue of talking about unemployment extension or the other things that our friends on the other side have announced in a pretty aggressive way that they intend to bring up because they just hope to have a political issue rather than a process that will actually work, i think we should have these energy amendments like the one i'm proposing on

this bill, because getting people back to work and being concerned about people's take-home pay, being concerned about what people get to keep of what they earn is an important part of this whole project. so what i, the amendment that my friend objected to would be an amendment that would make it very difficult, it would establish another hurdle before anyone could have a carbon tax. a carbon tax, this is an amendment similar to one that i offered during the budget deposit this year, and 53 of my colleagues supported it. so a majority of the members of the senate are for this, but just not the majority that it would take in the senate to get it done. a carbon tax would force families to pay more at the pump. what is a carbon tax? a tax on fuels that have some carbon component, and that means fuels like gasoline, like coal-based electricity, like

other fossil fuels for this component for -- that you have to pay more at the pump. you'd have to may more for your heating, more for your cooling, more for virtually every product we make in america. the energy bill, the utility bill is a big component of what we make in the country today and it could one of our huge advantages in manufacturing and job creating. but we're headed in a direction with our view of energy that's not the most focused on more american energy, that doesn't take advantage of the moment we could be in. areas where i live in missouri, people in the south and midwest, frankly, from about the middle of pennsylvania to the western edge of wyoming are heavily dependent on coal for electricity. about 50% of all the electricity in that vast majority of the land mass of america is from coal. 82% of the electricity produced in missouri is from coal.

and there are five states that have a higher dependency on coal than we do. if we would have had a cap and trade bill, the estimates are that our bill would have gone up about 20% since 2013. and a carbon tax is disproportionately impactful on people who are struggling to get by. if you want to -- if you want to really do things that impact the vulnerable in our society, make the utility bill higher. if you want to really do things that impact the vulnerable in our society who are looking for work, make it harder to put those jobs in the united states of america. about 40 million u.s. households currently that earn less than $30,000 spend almost 20% of their income already on energy. why would we want that percentage to be higher than that? what you make is not nearly as important as what you're able to use to advance your family. everything -- if the utility

bill is 30% of what you make or 40% of what you make, instead of 20%, obviously the other things you would have done with that can't be done. these are the households that can least afford to have the new energy-efficient refrigerator. these are the households that are the last households to get the better windows, the last houses to get more insulation in the ceiling, in the walls. the first houses where people have to think about what room do we shut off this winter because we can't use all the rooms in the house in the way we'd like to. the last people -- it would be nice to be able to fill up your tank rather than stand at the tank, at the gas pump and wonder can i possibly afford to put more gas in than that pump has already shown on prices that are, in my opinion, already too high. and this whole -- there are lots of amendments on this bill about energy, none of which i'm told will be allowed -- and i think

that is a tragedy. a 2013 study by the national association of manufacturers found that the overall effect of a carbon tax on american jobs would be staggering, with a loss of worker income equivalent to about 13 million and 1.5 million jobs. why would we want to take that out of our economy when we cannot only keep it there, but by enhancing more american energy, we could expand it? the utility bill is an increasingly important part of job creation. energy-sensitive industries like chemicals, auto manufacturing, iron and steel manufacturing, cement, mining, refining sectors are the hardest hit by a carbon tax, and these sectors would see a big drop in their manufacturing output. so i would think if we had a debate that was the kind of debate we ought to have, it

should abdebate about how do we get people back to work rather than how do we continue to extend benefits in a policy that was never intended to have never-ending benefits. this system doesn't work. it doesn't work for people who pay into the system or draw out of the system. if we abuse it. and i think we all know that this is not the debate we should be having this week. and i would like to see us have one that really talked about how we can improve the economy while we deal with this so-called immediate need that we're talking about on the floor instead of the things we ought to be talking about. i want to talk for a few minutes, madam president, about the announcement yesterday of how many people have signed up for the president's health care plan, and i would just like to say, as i have said when the web site wouldn't work, it's not about whether the web site works or not. frankly it is not even about how

many people sign up. this is about whether this is the right direction for us to go as a country. is this health care more affordable and will more people be insured? and will the people that are insured be insured with policies they can afford and coverage they want? the president, of course, and everybody understands the web site had its problems. i think we would be really remiss if we decided if making the web site was a test of the program or, frankly, making people sign up was a test of the program. this debate is not over. it shouldn't be over. we need to continue to look for ways to try to make this work better. because i certainly continue to hear from missourians who tell me that the course we're on is hurting their families, hurting their job opportunities. the law of unintended consequences appears to be the law here that is most likely to be applied. the unintended consequences of people who are going to work part time, the unintended

consequences of people who are looking at a job that used to be a full-time job, but now the government said you don't have to provide benefits unless somebody works 30 hours a week. i guess what the government really said was you have to provide benefits when they do work 30 hours a week. but people immediately look at that and the society adjusts to that determination and so suddenly people are working 28 and 29 and 30 hours without benefits where they might have been working those same hours before with some level of benefit or might have, more importantly, for their families been working full time before. we're going to continue to talk about this law and how it serves people. let me just give you a couple of quick examples as i conclude here this morning. i had a person in the office this morning who was here for another purpose. he's a radiologist from cape girardo, missouri. and he said his insurance was

going to go up $500 a month, and that was the notice they had got for the same coverage until the president made the decision to suspend the law, a totally different debate topic, whether the president can do that or not. but when the president suspended the application of this law, which everybody is supposed to be so excited about, and they were able to keep their policy they had for another year. it was $500 a month less, $6,000 a year less for that family. here's some information we got today from sherry in she biville, missouri. her son has had cerebral palsy his whole life. he's 18 now. they've found a medicine that works that allow him to deal with this. last year a three-month supply of this particular medicine went from $125 to $1,086, almost a $1,000 increase. but that may or may not be

impacted by what's happening with overall health care policies. but what was impacted was her family's deductible this year went to $500 to $5,000. they were paying $500 on the three-month supply of medicine, the year supply of medicine would be a little over $4,000. they were paying $500 of that. now they're paying all of that. in her view -- like would be the view of most working families -- is we had insurance we could afford, we had insurance that met our needs; now we're paying $4,000 more than we were paying, or $3,500 more than we were paying. $300 a month, madam president, almost every family makes a big difference and it particularly makes a difference for families that are struggling, families where somebody already has a health problem. pete from jackson, missouri, receives health care benefits through his employer but his wife and two children had health

insurance through an independent carrier. his wife and children's plan will be dropped november the 30th this year. their new plan will cost $1,200 per month instead of $530 for similar coverage that they have right now. and finally, craig from st. joseph -- and, by the way, this is top of the list. if i had more time, i could certainly take more time with these stories -- craig from st. joseph's out-of-pocket expenses went from $2,500 per year to $10,000 per year. he's paying that by going into his 401(k) retirement plan now. now, if anybody thinks craig and his family are better off paying $10,000 out of pocket than they were 2,500 out of pocket and he's better off for having to drop into his retirement plan to pay for his health insurance,

i'd like to hear how he's benefited from this new change in the law. people have insurance. some of them had insurance before. they have insurance now through the exchange. they just happen to be paying in many cases a lot more and have a deductible that's a lot higher. that would be a great debate for us to have, again, on the floor, now that we really know as a country what's at stake. what to do to make sure that the best health care system in the world works better for everybody and how do we make changes so those who are outside the system get a better chance to be part of that system rather than penalizing everybody who had insurance or many people who had insurance that they thought was working for them. and i would yield the floor to my friend from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: well, thank you, madam president. i rise today to discuss the underlying legislation which is so critical. it is really an emergency.

december 28 we stopped extending unemployment benefits for at that point 1.3 million americans. these are individuals who were working and who are looking for work. that's the only way you can collect these benefits. and since that time, they have been without the very modest support that the u.i. program provides, about $300 a week. and we are trying on a bipartisan basis to move this legislation through this body and get it to the house so these people can get some help and support as they continue to look for work. it ha will support a program ths vital to these 2.7 million americans, and it's a bipartisan compromise. this is not something that is being jammed through exclusively at the will of the majority. this has been an effort that

began months ago, working first with senator heller, then with other colleagues, senator collins, senator murkowski, senator portman, senator kirk, to listen to their suggestions, to incorporate those suggestions and to move forward as we hoped this senate would do on so many different bills, to reach a bipartisan consensus, reach a vote, get it to the house and then put all our efforts in getting the house to pass it and signed by the president. and getting the relief, the support, the assistance to these americans, who, again, i have to emphasize, only qualify for this program because they lost their job through no fault of their own and they're continuing to look for work in a very, very difficult economy. but the one other inning i wanted to mention, and it is very important, is that we are building on significant changes to the unemploymentcompensation law that we passed in 2012.

at that time, the chairman of the ways and means committee in the house of representatives, chairman david camp of michigan, that said we passed historic reforms in 2012. now, our goal -- many times over the last few weeks and months and prior to and since ending of these benefits on december 28 -- is to find a path forward to a rather straightforward extension of the benefits. again, this is a temporary extension. it's a five-month total window but with each day more of it is retroactive. and the reason we wanted to look for a very straightforward proposal is that, first, it would recognize the changes and reforms that were made in 2012. many of the ideas i've seen and heard discussed around here actually have been considered thoughtfully in 2012 and incorporated in many cases --

not all cases -- incorporated into the legislation. and the other thing is we want to make this as administration y feasibility as possible. so adding significant changes, adding training components that didn't have before. not only were they complicated, when you step and look back, they usually cost money. and one of the premises, particularly from my colleagues who have worked on this, particularly from the republican side, is that this whole bill has been to be fully offset. so this is paid for. it incorporates the ideas, suggestions of my colleagues the other side, and it's now time to move passage. i recognize that there's many, many issues that we could deal with around the senate and many on both sides, colleagues, have

come up. but to do that would effectively undercut the ability in a timely manner, today or i hope tomorrow, certainly this week to pass this legislation and move forward. millions of americans are facing a crisis. they're out of work and they're looking for a job. in my state, there's probably two applicants for every job. in many cases, it's probably three or four applicants for every job. and we're also recognizing that this is a long-term unemployed population that is different in some respects than previous episodes of unemployment. there's indications and suggestions that they're older, on average. they're also facing a situation where the economy has been very difficult for a number of years. many of them are homeowners who can't sell the home because of market and move to a new location where there is work. many of them, particularly if they're middle-aged, have responsibilities to mothers and

fathers who need health care and they have children they have to support. so the overall situation is such that these individuals are facing a very difficult challenge. there was a very thoughtful paper by the former chair of the president's economic advisors, allen kruger, and they described the difficulty of the unemployed in this economy, particularly the long-term unemployed. we have seen significant periods of unemployment. i can recall in the 1980's unemployment hitting about 10%. but there was a relatively fast response once the right fiscal and monetary policy was put in place. some of that was because of the mobility of the american public back then, as contrasted to people now who are so tied to their home, which they can't sell. some of it is a reflection of the relative age of the unemployed back then, when

mobility was not as much of a factor as it is today. so we are trying to help these people who have in many cases worked for decades and now for the first time find themselves in a very difficult situation. if you look overall, there are about 10.4 million americans that are out of work but looking for that job, for that fair shot, for the chance to move on, to be a full working part of the american economy. and so extending unemployed benefits to these 2.7 million is just only one parts of the effort we have to undertake. nobody should be under the impression that this is the solution. no. this is just a response to the incredible need of these very worthwhile americans who are looking for work. you know, i do want to note that this aid is very targeted. i can't repeat this enough. there's this sort of notion out

there that this is just sort of a giveaway to people who are unserving. well, the benefits -- people who are undeserving. well, the benefits are targeted to people who meet very specific criteria. and most importantly, they have to have a relative work history to be eligible for unemployment insurance in the first place. they have to be workers. these are workers we're trying to help. and they have to have lost their job through no fault of their loan, that they were laid off. it wasn't that they didn't like it and left or they had problems in the workplace and weren't putting in, these are people that want to work and they were told they can't work any longer. they were downsized, they were outsourced, all, you know, the 10-k euphemisms to saying, "we don't need you anymore." well, they are important people who want to work and they have to actively look for work in order to qualify forth -- for the benefits of the so this is not an open-ended benefit to

individuals with no end in sight. they're either going to find a job or exhaust their benefits. one of the things we did in 2012, frankly, we shrunk the period of time. previous in 2012, 99 weeks of extended benefits. we shrunk that down to 73 weeks. so, you know, this notion that this is just an unending, indefinite, long-term benefit to people that don't earn it is completely incorrect. this program has been in effect for a very long time, and, indeed, some form of it has been put in place since 2008 when govment w. bush was the president -- george w. bush was the president and we first started seeing the signs of increasing unemployment. and this was in conjunction with the collapse of our financial institutions or the near collapse of many financial institutions in 2007 and 2008.

the housing economy coming off the tracks, literally. the consequences of the american economy, probably since the most severe consequences since the great depression, we've been dealing with them. and one of the ways we've provided, beginning with president bush and continuing now with president obama, is unemployment compensation extended benefits for americansmenamericans.so we havd be conscious of all these facts and these data. we are at a point, too, where we have to recognize there are two programs, there's a state program, the first 26 weeks, and then this is the federal unemployment benefits program. this program in some respects is becoming much more critical, because what we've found now is that the long-term unemployment are probably twice the number

typically you'd associate with an economy like ours at the present moment. we have unemployment rates that range from it is high, unfortunately it was 9%, to very low. there are some states because of commodities and particularly energy commodities, who have virtually no unemployment. but at this point, we shouldn't see the kind of long-term unemployed that we're seeing. and this is the program, not the state program, the first 26 weeks, but the federal program that is going to help these people who are particularly struggling. it is a targeted program, very much targeted, but it has an outside impact. not only are the workers who are receiving this very modest week the stipend of roughly $300 a week able to pay for serms, but it has a very positive effect on our overall economy. all of my colleagues are here today saying listen, not only do

we have to help these people but, more importantly, we have to grow this economy. well, by the way, the legislation we're proposing does both. these emergency benefits have been repeatedly analyzed by economists and they've been determined to provide a significantly greater bang for the buck than many other prplz that are being talked -- other programs that are being talked about today here on the floor, that are being suggested as alternatives or complements to what we're talking about. that's why the congressional budget office, in a very modest and conservative analysis, that if we failed to extend these benefits through 2014, the whole year, it would cost our cost 240,000 jobs. so those people who are opposing these benefits today are basically saying, well, we're not interested in at least part of the -- of these 200,000 jobs, because it's not, as they say too often, rocket science. what happens to this money is it

goes to a family who desperately needs it immediately to repair the car, to buy groceries, to take care of the necessities of life. so this money is not going to be put aside for a rainy day. it is not going to be sort of exported overseas for a venture someplace. it's going to be used locally in the economy, at the grocery store, at the service station, at the dry cleaners, to help fire the cell phone so you can stay in touch if you get that job. and that effect, immediately putting the money in the economy, generates more economic activity. it's the fact that, you know, at the local coffee shop a person will come in and get a cup of coffee and maybe be able to afford something else, too. well, that goes to the ability of that hol local coffee shop to keep more people on, work the counters. economists have measured it, and it is much more than the dhars n

the dhars we'rthedollars we're . so we're providing an injection of economic activity into our commitment of precisely what all of my colleagues are talking about we have to do. let's do it. and we can. we're very close. on a bipartisan basis we are hopefully hours away, i hope, from getting this done and then sending it over to the other side. and then asking our other colleagues on the other side to, you know, consider this and consider that not only the bipartisan nature of it but the fact that it not only provides economic stimulus, but it's fiscally responsible; we have paid for these efforts. and that is something that was insisted upon, and we've certainly acceded to that request by so many of our

colleagues. now, with respect to reforms in the temporary program and even the permanent state program, as i said before, we made significant reforms in 2012. and i was a member of the conference committee at the request of the chairman of the senate finance committee to participate particularly in the deliberations about the unemployment insurance compensation programs, and these real estate forms are something that i think go a long way to make the system better. can we make more improvements? of course. can we shift to a related but important topic, job training through the work forces act? yes, we can. and we should but we shouldn't hold this legislation hostage to training improvements and to additional reforms. one of the reforms which we worked to enhance in the bill before us today -- it was implemented in 2012 -- is the reemployment service and reemployment eligibility assessment or the r.e.s. or

r.e.a., and i have to thank senator collins particularly. she was insistent that we go ahead and provide a way to better link up individuals looking for work and the jobs that are available. and this is a mechanism that does this. this is an evidence-based reform that has been successful in et going individuals back to work sooner. it also helps to ensure that the individuals are receiving the proper benefit. it addresses one of the major concerns we've received from the house and ways republicans about with respect to overpayments. it requires -- there's one assessment in the program right now. this requires a second assessment a. a at a certain ped in the extended benefits where you would have to come in, you would have to be slings counseled and -- you would have to be essentially counseled, and they have have to verify bends d give you the kind of assistance

and help linking job seekers in jobs. and werks i think, very committed to this improvement. this is one of the improvements we put into the legislation. we've provided the funding for the say the agencies to take care of it. so this is something that we think is going to be a direct beneficial solution to a legitimate issue raised by so many. how do we connect those who are unemployed today with the jobs that are out there? i want to say something else, too. because there's been some suggestion that there are a lot of overpayments in the system, that people are getting morninge than -- are getting more than they should. r.e.s.'s and r.e.a.'s play an important role. they have to ensure that the people are in fact following through on job interviews,

actively seeking work, and when we're doing with this legislation is saying, these individuals have to physically come to the state agency, not just the first tier when they start it but at the third tier, the way we break it up, several weeks into the process of unemployment benefits. and in doing that, their physical presence in the office talking to a counselor helps the system be more legitimate and helps the accountability because the individual state kuhn lore wil-- statecounselor will be abk how consistent their benefits are. it is that double-check that's part of this legislation which i think will be effective and efficient -- we want both effectiveness and efficiency -- and as i indicated before, it is fully paid fomple paid for.

so it is not an additional burden to the states. in the 2012 reforms, we also included my work-sharing initiative. this was something critical. i've heard from so many companies in rhode island that basically before the 2012 legislation there were a few states -- and rhode island was one -- that was actually doing something very effective. they said, listen, instead of laying a person off totally. if you keep the person employed for a certain number of days and provide their benefits, we will fire the one or two days that they -- we will pay for the one or two days that they don't work. it is a partial payment. that has been able a how companies to really-- really-- that has been able to allow companies to really keep their core group of workers together. instead of throwing someone else, losing their skills, they've been able to keep their operation moving. it is a smart way of doing it. it has been very successful in rhode island, a understan and ia

national option. that's something else that i think we have to look back at in 2012 and say, that was good work, smart, efficient way to use taxpayers' dollars. now, with respect to work search generally you the 2012 reforms for the first time create add uniform standard for both the state-based program and the temporary emergency program to ensure that in order for ^staeuts to be eligible, individuals need to be actively seeking work. we also passed reforms to require states to offset their current state benefits in order to recover overpayments owed to other states and the federal government. so program integrity, program efficiency, and program effectiveness were significantly embodied in the 2012 amendments. so we're looking at a program that just two years ago has been significantly reformed. in fact, as i said, according to the chairman of the republican ways and means committee, historically reformed. so this program is something

that we can support and we should support. you know, we also back in 2012 provided up to ten demonstration projects in states that could be granted waivers on their state-based unemployment insurance program if they could come up with proposals that would improve the effectiveness of their reemployment efforts. and this was an opportunity to give the states flexibility, to test out new ideas. some of the new ideas that my colleagues have shared with me. we should do this, we should do that. well, the states -- at least ten states -- have that opportunity to apply today to do that. and we don't, i think, have to sort of reinvent that opportunity in this legislation, on an emergency short-term basis. that sunsets in 2015, but it is very telling because since 2012, ten states have had the option. no states have taken up these proposals. so many of the good ideas my

colleagues have suggested haven't passed muster at the state level because you would think, if they were that compelling, if they're that efficient, that affordable, that one state at least would have taken the options, which are available to ten, to try these new proposals. the 2012 real estat12 reforms ad states to drug-screen and test individuals if they were applying for work, which passing a drug test was a standard eligibility requirement. i mention this because we have heard persistently of proposals, particularly on the other side of the capitol, oh, we've got to drug test, et cetera -- well, guess what? states have the option to run that now. and i am not aware -- although we will check further -- of any steps -- any states taking this option and a. degrees civil doing that. -- and aggressively doing that. so, again, not a reason to stop today and say, we have to fix this problem.

this whole issue, i think, though, of drug testing deserves a further comment. that it is, i think, a presumption that people who are applying for these benefits are somehow more susceptible to drug dependency. that -- that's not accurate. in fact, i think -- again, reflecting my previous comments, there are so many people now -- particularly the long-term unemployed -- who are middle-aged colleagues or slightly younger than i who spent 20-35 years working, et cetera. they're not the typical person you would suspect of that. but when we looked at data from the t tanf round, there are othr data, individuals that are tested in these tanf programs

actually show on average slightly less drug usage than the average american. so this whole drug issue is something that i think has to be disabused. but for the record, there is in the 2012 reforms opportunities to states, if they feel so compelled, to exercise some of these options. so the record i think demonstrates clearly that we've made extensive reforms. and we've additionally, as i said, in this legislation required a second assessment process, which is going to be i think very efficient and very effective. and this raises the final point. we've tried to keep this very simple. we've tried to provide the resources to the states. the state administrators came forward with a letter saying, well, this is going to be very difficult for us. the letter was refuted point by point by secretary of labor tom perez. secretary perez was a former director of these programs in the state of maryland. he knows better than anyone what it takes to make these programs

work. he has committed that the department of labor not only will but can ensure that these programs, as we've written them today, will be fully and effectively implemented. so i hope my colleagues really come together. i thank my colleagues who already have joined together to get this legislation moving. time is literally ticking. this is a five-month bill. this is not a long-term, indefinite bill. the clock is ticking so every day more benefit benefits are retroactive than progress -- than progressive. we want to give people a chance. now people are struggling. with that, i would yield the floor because i see my colleague, the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president? sphir officer the senatothe pree

senator from cang cang. mr. moran: i ask that be made in order for me to offer a amendment designated 29 ^1 1. the presiding officer: snr is there objection? mr. reed: reserving my right to object, in order to get this bipartisan emergency legislation completed and benefit 2.7 million americans, i would respectfully object to my colleague's amendment. the presiding officer: objection is is heard. mr. moran: madam president, we were here last evening both you and i on this topic for consideration by the senate and the amendment that i was offering that the gentleman has objected to in my view is one of the many amendments that could be -- should be considered in this legislation, certainly should be considered by this senate. and while i'm certainly interested and willing to have a discussion about the extension

of unemployment benefits, it seems to me that this senate ought to be also looking at issues that would reduce the chances that individual americans, workers across the country, need that extension. we ought to be doing the things that we're not doing here in the senate. nrvetion, in min fact, in my vis senate, this president has done mog to increase the opportunities for americans to p their jobs, increase their employment opportunities, get a higher wage, to expand their economic opportunity in this country and the amendment that i was offering that has been objected to is one of those many examples of legislation that once again gets ignored on the senate floor, is not considered by any committee, is not allowed to be made in order, and again the process in the united states senate has broken down so that individual senators who have good ideas -- at least who believe they have good ideas

about how we can make life better for americans -- are not being enabled the opportunity to offer those amendments for consideration by the senate. in fact, there has now been 70 amendments offered to this legislation and it appears none of those 70 will be considered while we consider this issue of extension of unemployment benefits. the amendment would in my view increase the opportunity for every american to find a better job. we know that if we're going to increase economic activity, create jobs in this country, the statistics show, the facts show academic and real-life experiences demonstrate entrepreneurs, individuals who have a dream to start a business, who work in their garage or their back yard or their barn, decide that they have something they can contribute to the consumer in this country and they pursue that dream have the best opportunity we have in this country to create jobs for other americans. and so the amendment is

offered -- the amendment that i offered would be legislation called start-up act 3.0 and this is not just the senator from kansas or not just a republican senator in the united states senate offering this amendment, it's a bipartisan amendment offered by me and one of my democrat colleagues, but the underlying legislation actually has more democrat smors than it has republican sponsors. again, it's the kind of thing one would expect some consideration in the united states senate and, unfortunately, this legislation was offered three years ago shortly after i came to the united states senate, so my frustration is not that just this opportunity today is being denied me and my colleagues who support the concept of promoting entrepreneurship but it's been denied for certainly more than two years, almost three years when we have facts, academics -- academicians who tell us this is exactly the kind of things that would increase the chances that americans are

better off today and in the future. this deals with the regulatory environment, access to capital, federally funded research put into the hands of the private sector more quickly, the opportunity for americans to better compete in the battle for global talent. all things that just are common sense and my guess is would be agreed to if we would ever have a vote on the senate floor about this concept that i wouldn't be surprised but overwhelmingly my colleagues would support had. there is nothing in here that is a partisan issue, there's nothing in here that is significantly controversial, and yes, we can argue or debate the details and we can improve this legislation but we're never given the chance to pursue that goal. so it's certainly disappointing to me that once again legislation that would address the underlying problem we face in this country, the inability of americans to keep jobs, improve their job circumstance, and create a brighter future for the next generation of

americans, is something that this senate for the last three years has determined doesn't have merit for even consideration either in a committee or on the senate floor. so, madam president, for those who are interested in the details of this legislation i would refer them to my remarks on the senate floor last evening, and i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, if there is a quorum call, i ask

that it be ended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to try to advance important legislation to fully authorize 27 veterans' affairs clinics around the country, 18 different states, communities that desperately need these facilities for our veterans, including two in louisiana. lafayette and lake charles. madam president, these clinics have been on the books, planned for, approved for quite a while, and, unfortunately, they ran into several bureaucratic glitches and hurdles. in the case of our two clinics in louisiana, the first thing was a flat-out mistake, a screwup at the v.a. which they fully admit to, but they made some errors in the contract letting process, and because of that, they had to stop that

entire bidding process and back up and start all over. that basically cost us a year in terms of those vital community-based clinics in lafayette and lake charles. then as they were into that year of delay, then really out of the blue, the congressional budget office decided to score these sorts of clinics in a different way than they ever did before, and that created a scoring issue with regard to all 27 of these clinics in 18 states. well, on a bipartisan basis, a number of us went to work on that issue to clear up that, and we have solved that issue, and the house has put a bill together with strong bipartisan support, virtually unanimous support, has passed the bill that resolves that issue. it came to the senate. i reached out to all of my colleagues. there were a few concerns, and i

address those concerns proactively by finding savings in other parts of the budget to counter -- to off balance, counteract any possible cost of this bill, and so we added that amendment to the proposal. and through all of that hard work, we have addressed all of the substantive concerns with moving forward on these 27 clinics. and so, madam president, i have been trying to pass this bill with an amendment at the desk so that these 27 clinics can move forward as expeditiously as possible. as i said, every substantive concern about this bill as it would be amended has been met. everybody's concerns, conservatives, moderates, liberals. the only objection to the bill now is from the distinguished senator from vermont who, quite

frankly, wants to hold it hostage, wants to object to it simply to try to advance his much broader veterans' bill which he brought to the floor and was unsuccessful in passing several weeks ago. well, i appreciate the -- while i appreciate the senator's passion on this issue, i appreciate his legislation, his focus on it, the problem is that legislation does have many senators with concerns about it, including me. 43 senators, 43% of the overall u.s. senate, 43 out of 100 have serious substantive concerns with that much broader bill. in contrast to that, no one in the senate has substantive concerns with my narrower bill with regard to 27 v.a. clinics around the country. and so i simply suggest that we agree on important matters we

can agree on. we use that to begin to build consensus, to move forward constructively, do what we can agree on, continue to talk about and work on that on which there is some disagreement. and so in that spirit, madam president, i come to the floor again to ask unanimous consent that the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of the narrow veterans' clinics bill i was referring to, h.r. 3521, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that my amendment which is at the desk, which i also referred to, be agreed to, that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sanders: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. and i thank my colleague from louisiana for being down here today to talk about, in fact, an

important issue. and before i respond to him directly, i did want to comment that he is right. there were 43 members of the united states senate who voted against what is regarded as the most comprehensive veterans' legislation to have been introduced in several decades. legislation that was supported by virtually every veterans' organization in the country, including the american legion, the veterans of foreign wars, the disabled american veterans, the vietnam veterans of america, the iraq-afghanistan veterans of america, the gold star wives, and dozens and dozens of other veterans' organizations. and, mr. president, if i might point out that while my colleague from louisiana is, of course, right, that there were 43 senators who voted no, he

neglected to mention that there were 56 senators who voted yes, and there was one senator who was absent on that day who would have voted yes. so we are now at the stage where we have 57 senators, which i would suggest to my colleague from louisiana is significantly more than 43%, it is 57%. and if we could have the cooperation -- and i hope we can maybe make some progress right here and now -- from my colleague from louisiana who has shown interest in veterans' issues, you know what? we can do something that millions and millions of veterans and their families want us to do. and if my colleague from louisiana would allow me, i would just like to quote from what the disabled american veterans, the d.a.v., has to say about this legislation, which unfortunately my colleague from

louisiana voted against, one of the 43 who voted against it. this is what they say, d.a.v. -- quote -- "this massive omnibus bill, unprecedented in our modern experience, would create, expand, advance and extend a number of v.a. benefits, services and programs that are important to the disabled american veterans and to our members. for example, responding to a call from d.a.v. as a leading veterans' organization, it would create a comprehensive family caregiver support program for all generations of severely wounded, injured and ill veterans. also the bill would authorize advanced appropriations for v.a.'s mandatory funding accounts to ensure that in any government shutdown environment in the future, veterans' benefits payments would not be delayed or put in jeopardy. this measure would also provide additional financial support to survivors of service members who die in the line of duty as well as expand access for them to

g.i. bill educational benefits. a two-plus year stalemate in v.a.'s authority to lease facilities for health care treatment and other purposes would be solved by this bill, which is, of course, what the senator from louisiana is referring to. and then they say these are but a few of the myriad provisions of this bill that would improve the lives, health and prospects of veterans, especially the wounded, injured and ill and their loved ones, end of quote. that's the d.a.v. so i ask my colleague from louisiana, you are raising an important issue, and i agree with you, but what i cannot do is take this issue over here, separate it, and that issue over here because tomorrow there will be somebody else coming and say, you know, senator sanders, i want you to move forward on this. and the next day somebody comes forward and wants to move forward on that. we have a comprehensive piece of legislation supported by millions of veterans, supported by 57 members of the senate, and

i ask my colleague from louisiana, who is concerned about veterans' issue, work with us, support us, give us the three republican votes that we need. we had 55, 54 members of the democratic caucus. we only had two republican votes. help me get three more votes. you will get these facilities in louisiana, we will get facilities all over the country, but we will also address many of the major crises facing the veterans' community. so with that, madam president, i would object to my colleague's proposal. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: madam president, reclaiming -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my time, i find this approach really unfortunate. to follow through on the scenario the senator from vermont himself laid out, yes, we can find agreement here and move forward, but then katie bar the door, that might lead to our

finding agreement on other important matters that can help veterans and we might be moving forward in this area and that area and the other one. god forbid we make progress to help veterans and actually get something done versus having a hostage standoff. god forbid. i think the more productive way of working together is to agree on what we can agree on and keep talking about those areas where we have disagreement. and in fact, in the past, senator sanders has endorsed that approach in the area of veterans' affairs. he has said in the past working on another issue -- quote -- "i'm happy to tell you, this was november, 2013. "i'm happy to tell you, i think that was a concern of his, referring to another senator. we got that u.c. last night, so we moved that pretty quickly, and i want to try to do those things where we have agreement. let's move it."

close quote. he agreed on a small focus bill where we did have agreement. he said let's do that by unanimous consent. let's agree where we can agree and be constructive and move on. quote -- "i want to try to do those things where we have agreement. let's move it." well, i would say to senator sanders through the chair we have agreement. this is an important matter. 27 republicans isn't the world, but it is an important matter that affects hundreds of thousands of veterans in 18 states, including in my louisiana communities of lafayette and lake charles. we have agreement, so let's move it. i agree with that approach. i think that's a constructive approach versus saying i have majority support but not the 60 required so i am holding

everything else veterans related hostage. i'm not agreeing to anything else. i don't think that is a constructive approach. i don't think that reflects the spirit of the american people who want us to try to reach agreement where we can reach agreement. i don't think that's a constructive way to build goodwill and to build consensus. so i'd urge my colleague, with all due respect, to reconsider. let's agree where we can agree, where we have agreement. let's move forward where we have agreement. let's move it. this isn't the world, but it's meaningful, it's significant, and it does not relieve any pressure in terms of the broader veterans' discussion regarding the sanders bill or the burr alternative or anything else. those bills are so much more massively larger that these 27 republicans being done

separately does not change the discussion or the dynamics of this in any way, shape or form. so i would really urge my colleague to reconsider. i would urge my colleague from louisiana, senator landrieu, to urge senator sanders to reconsider. something she has not done today. a lot of us are waiting for her support of these important community-based clinics in lafayette and lake charles. she hasn't been on the floor. i urge her to join me on the floor to get this done. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: first of all, i will tell you that -- two things. in terms of senator landrieu, she has, in fact, spoken to me on numerous occasions about her concerns about this issue, but more importantly, she has shown a willingness to stand up for all veterans in this country, and she voted for the

legislation supported by the american legion, the d.a.v., the vietnam veterans of america and virtually every veterans' organization. so i thank senator landrieu very much for her support for comprehensive legislation that would benefit millions and millions of americans. now, essentially, what the senator from louisiana is saying, let's work together, and i agree with him. let us work together. i have got 57 votes for this piece of legislation. so right now, i ask my friend from louisiana, work with us. what are your objections? at a time when we have given huge tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires, when one out of four corporations in this country doesn't pay a nickel in federal income taxes, does my colleague from louisiana think that really in this country we should not take care of the men and women who have put their

lives on the line to defend this country? i am prepared, my staff is prepared to sit down and hear your objections. i'm not sure what your objections are. you haven't told me. are you opposed to an expansion of the caregiver's program? are you? so that 70-year-old women who have been taking care of their husbands who lost their legs in vietnam get a modest bit of help. is that an objection that you have? are you objecting to the fact that maybe we provide dental care to some veterans whose teeth is rotting in their mouth? are you objecting to advanced appropriations so we're not in a situation where if you have another government shutdown, disabled vets will not get the checks they need? are you objecting to the fact that right now we have young veterans trying to go to college through the g.i. bill but can't get in-state tuition? are you objecting to that? are you objecting to helping veterans find jobs in an economy

where it is really, really hard to do so? i'm not quite sure what your objection is. tell me. tell me now or sit down with my staff and me and maybe we can work it out and do something of real significance for the veterans of this country. so, madam president, having said that, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 297, s. 1950, that a sanders substitute amendment, the text of s. 1982, the comprehensive veterans health and military retirement pay restoration act be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time pafpbd and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: reserving the right to object, i would again point out that i'm not only going to object to this, there are 4