mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would rise today to address the -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. sessions: i thank the chair and i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i want to address the pending legislation to extend unemployment benefits. this legislation is frankly and admission after five years of costly government stimulus, spending more money, all of

it borrowed to try to stimulate growth and increase employment in america, we still have an unemployment crisis. not long ago mr. sp the white house said there are three applicants for every job in america. this legislation is in effect an admission that tax, spend, regulate and borrow has not worked. indeed, those policies will never work. more regulation, more taxing, more borrowing, more debt will not improve the economy. we know that. despite what some so-called experts say. we know that is not a policy that will work. but urgent action is needed. according to testimony we heard this week in the budget committee, if you adjust for the retirement of the baby boomers, the labor force is still

4.5 million people, the equivalent of $500 billion in national income lost each year. but the majority has circled the wagons around this spend and borrow agenda. for instance our friends are blocking a republican amendment requiring companies to hire legal workers, not unlawful workers. the everify system that allows and should be required nationwide and it would say simply you check the social security number of the applicants which would identify many people who have no right to be employed in america. they're not here lawfully. and at a time of high unemployment we ought not to be filling our jobs with people who are not lawful and not lawfully enabled to work in america. while at the same time supporting financially people who are unemployed in the

country. at the same time, the congressional democrats have pushed for a bill that would more than double the future h-1b guest worker visas that are freely used to of offshore jobs. as rab -- as ranking member of the budget committee i often inform my colleagues this bill is not honestly paid for because it violates the ryan-murray budget law signed into law three months ago. we said we were not going to spend above a certain amount. ryan-murray limited the -- raised the amount the broalt had limited spending to and we're in a tight fix, and so particularly this year i think was the toughest year under the budget control act and relief was provided and it raised the

spending limits for a bit here and it helped. but we reaffirmed just three months ago those spending limits and said we weren't going to go above them. just this past monday the senate adopted the so-called doc fix which exceeded the ryan-murray spending limits. my $6.1 billion -- by $6.1 billion this year alone. so we adopt a limit, we want to help our doctors, and so what do we do, instead of reducing spending somewhere knells this massive government, we just come up with a gimmick argument to say we are paying for it and add in effect $6.1 billion to the expenditures this year. and we objected to that and voted on it and people voted to

waive the budget. waive the budget. up and down vote, do you want to stick by the agreement we reached three months ago or do you want to raise it and spend more? and a majority in the senate voted to spend more. and this is what's been happening, and this is why we have such an extreme debt threat in america today. so the bill now before us is unemployment insurance, exceeds this year the 2014 limit on spending by another $9.9 billion. our federal budget is $3.5 trillion, 3,000 five hundred billion and we can't find any other reductions if we want to fund a new expenditure like unemployment compensation, we can't find someplace that we can tighten our belts and pay for it?

colleagues say that while spending increases this year, the bill is paid for over the next decade. they promise, well, we'll spend this year but a decade, ten years later, we're going to get around to paying for it. there are three major problems with this contention, and we just have to address them so there's no mistake about it. this is not legitimate and it threatens the financial integrity of the country. the ryan-murray budget limits, that deal, established spending limits. and you cannot get out of those spending limits by raising fees and taxes. taxes -- taxing more to spend more was not the deal. you see, this is what the deal was in the budget control act. the budget control act says we're going to reduce the growth in spending.

and we were on track over ten years to grow spending $10 trillion. under the budget control act, we would allow the spending to increase but it would only increase $8 trillion, not $10 trillion. now we were told that the -- we are told that the budget control act which includes the sequester which was just part of it, the budget control act, we can't live with it, growing spending $8 trillion is not enough. we've got to grow spending even more. every time some worthy cause is brought before the senate, we take the easy way out. we come up with a gimmick to pay for it or we plain-out violate the budget and spend the money anyway. so what good is it to have a ryan-murray or a budget control act if nobody adheres to it?

secondly, one of the big reasons our country is going broke is the philosophy of spend today and promise to pay for it tomorrow. here's what a new bloomberg analysis, independent group, concluded -- quote -- "since december, 2013, three months ago, the republican house and the democratic senate have approved more than $40 billion worth of spending offsets in the form of cuts that would take place in 2023 at the earliest, or timing shifts in policy to bring savings into the ten-year window" -- close quote. both of these gimmicks are not legitimate. they won't work, and have been criticized by independent groups who are concerned about the future of republic. thirdly, the promised revenue offsets are phony savings. the offsets come from something

called the pension smoothing -- wow, what is that? pension smoothing. and -- quote -- "prepayment of premiums to the pension benefit corporation." so these are two popular schemes, double counting and timing shifts that allow companies to prepay their payments for up to five years. in good times, companies can pay ahead into the pbgc trust fund and congress can take the money out the back door and spend it on in this case unemployment. but in bad times, this will leave the taxpayer further on the hook if pbgc has to take over a failed pension plan. so it's taking money out of the plan that was supposed to be set up to guarantee and ensure pensions. so i realize some of this sounds complex, but that's the problem. the big spenders in washington have been -- have turned bilking taxpayers out of their money into an art form.

some spend their whole time trying to figure out a gimmick to get around the actual requirement, which is for us to set priorities and can't -- and to recognize we can't fund everything we'd like. and if we have a new idea for a new program, what the budget control act says is, okay, do it, but you have to do it within the spending limits. you have to find some spending reduction. to justify unuse -- a new spending increase. that's what we agreed to, colleagues. that's what the president of the united states signed into law and he signed the ryan-murray into law. is he here advocating responsible action? no, he is here supporting the democratic leadership to push these budget-busting provisions, and not to pay for them properly. that's a disappointment, frankly. the president of the united states is the chief person that talks to the american people.

and he has yet to look them in the eye and tell them we are on an unsustainable course and we're going to have to tighten our belts. indeed, every time he talks, he talks about a new spending program. a new program that spends more, in essence is borrowing more, increasing even further our debt. so in the few months since ryan-murray was passed, the senate, driven by senate democratic majority, have passed five bills that busted through the ryan-murray limits. five bills that busted the budget. we're just -- we just agreed to, they just voted for three months ago. they say these are all important measures, and we have to do them, and we should disregard those prior promises we made to the american people. but the whole point of a supplement is to make congress

set priorities if you feel have you legislation that needs to pass, that's your duty to find a way to pay for it within the limits of spending we agreed to. this is not a radical concept. this is responsible governance. it's done in cities and states all over america. they're living within their means. they're tightening up their efficiencies and productivity and people holler and scream and wail whenever they make those cuts but, you know, those cities and counties and states are still standing. they haven't sucked into the ocean. they're still operating. and they're going to be leaner and more efficient and more productive as a result of going through a tight budget time. and as money rises and hopefully the economy bounces back, they'll be better positioned in the future to serve the taxpayers of their communities efficiently. so here are the budget

violations in the pending bill. these budget violations were all confirmed to us -- i say to my staff on the budget committee, where i'm ranking republican, and democratic chairman, senator murray, is a fine and fair chairman of the committee, and her team has acknowledged that these violations of the budget occur. and as a result, it's subject to a budget point of order. so there's not a dispute about essentially what i'm saying today. so there's a $9.9 billion in spending in excess of a topline outlays for fiscal year 2014, what we're in today, that was set by the ryan-murray spending agreement. $9.9 billion more than being spend an the limits of ryan-murray would allow. there's also a violation -- another violation of the budget

control act because there's a $9.9 billion in spending in excess of the finance committee's allocations. the committees have certain allocations, the finance committee has allocations, the finance committee is spending $9.9 billion more. how much is $9.9 billion? well, alabama's general fund budget, we have a lean state government, i'm proud of it, is about $2 billion. this is $9.9 billion. in violation of our agreement. also, there's a 10z 7 -- $10.7 billion increase in the long-term deficits beyond the bindo and that's subject to a point of order, a violation of the budget. normally we would be able to raise a point of order, however, two of these points of order were wiped away by a

loophole creating language in the ryan-murray legislation, which i warned was in there and urged my colleagues not to adopt. but it was adopted anyway. so two of the budget points of order i just mentioned aren't subject to floor action and have been eliminated basically through the use of the deficit neutral reserve fund. at the time of the budget committee's -- at the time of its consideration, the budget committee staff, my staff, created -- did the work, and we warned that the 57 deficit neutral reserve funds in the ryan-murray bill would be used to increase spending above the spending limits. we warned that would happen. the way that works is the majority can get around the budget rules that limit spending if they propose to offset new spending with new, higher taxes.

so we are witnessing today exactly what i warned would happen. the minority has lost a procedural tool to block spending increases as long as they are paid for by more taxes. what we agreed to in -- under the budget control act was if you spent -- you couldn't spend above this limit. if you raised taxes, it would be used to reduce the deficit. so now we have been able to switch that around so the rising of taxes are allowed to increase new spending. so these deficit reserve funds have been used by senator reid and the majority to pass or propose an additional $13 billion in spending above the caps already. now, the unemployment bill still triggers a long-term deficit point of order because it uses revenue timing shifts to conceal long-term deficit impact, so

it's still in violation of the budget, even though two of the points of order are gone. we do have to look at the long-term deficit picture, and it's good that we still at least have that point of order that we can raise. we can't just spend today because it fits within the ten-year window and somehow looks okay, whereas we know in the out years it's going to add to the deficit of the united states. so the budget drafters and the b.c.a. people have got language in to prohibit that, rightly so. the problem is we won't adhere to it. last year, we paid our creditors $221 billion in interest payment. $221 billion on our roughly $17 trillion debt. that's a huge amount of money.

the federal highway bill is $40 billion. aid to education, a whole bunch of programs that we have, $100 billion in total. the defense budget is $500 billion. so we paid our creditors last year $221 billion in interest alone on the debt. that's enough to pay for 172 weeks of unemployment benefits for everyone collecting at the end of last year, over the course of the next ten years, according to c.b.o., we will spend a cumulative $5.8 trillion in interest payments on our debt. so in the next ten years, c.b.o. , our accounting firm that tries to do the right thing every day, that tells us what is going to happen with our spending and budget, they tell us we're going to spend over $5 trillion, almost $6 trillion, on interest in the next ten years, money that could be used to help people with, to rebuild

our infrastructure, to fix crumbling roads and bridges. at today's level, that $5.8 trillion is -- will pay for a great amount -- great things. the c.b.o. also told us that ten years from today, the one-year annual interest payment will not be $223 billion. it will be $880 billion. $880 billion. an increase of over $650 billion in interest payments each year. not one -- not one time, but that year alone we'll pay $600 billion more in interest. so how can we fund programs? isn't it going to crowd out spending that we need?

washington is squandering our national inheritance. we are a nation deeply in debt. so my colleagues, i would say every time you violate our budget limits -- because i'm not voting for it -- you add more to the nation's credit card, you're increasing the interest burden that's crushing america and you reduce the amount of money that will be available to spend on whatever program you'd like to spend it on as the years go by. interest increases represent the fastest growing item in our budget. how much money will there be left over for your chosen government pradges when our interest payment reaches almost $1 trillion a year? c.b.o. says that by 2024, it will hit $880 billion. how many more years will it take, two or three, to reach a

trillion dollars? we must help the unemployed, no doubt about it. we need to help them get better jobs, more jobs and better pay, and we have got to do so without adding more to the debt. that's what's placing a wet blanket over the american economy. we need to produce more american energy. we can do that. we need to streamline our tax code to lower rates, close loopholes and boost growth, economic growth. we need to eliminate regulations that are reducing productive activities and sending jobs overseas. we need to endorse a trade policy that defends the american worker from unfair trade practices. too much of that is occurring. we don't need to lose a single job to unfair trade practices. and we need an immigration policy that serves the interest of the american worker. at a time of high unemployment,

the very idea that the senate would pass a bill that would double the number of guest workers on a permanent basis that would enter the country boggles the mind. in addition to the fact it would legalize 11 million and increase the annual flow of work -- of immigrants into the country from one million a year, the most generous of any nation in the world, to 1.5 million. in effect, we are providing under the bill that passed this senate, we would be providing permanent legal status to about 30 million people in the next ten years, and our current law allows for a million a year, about 10 million over the next ten years. is it any wonder people are having a hard time getting a job today? there is not a tight labor market out there. there is a loose labor market. how do i know? because wages are going down.

employers were desperate and needed more workers and couldn't find them, why aren't they having to pay higher wages to get good workers? we have got to stand up. the american people need to know what's happening to them. so what is the solution, our colleagues say? well, unemployment is too high, wages are not going good, let's borrow more money and spend it by sending out unemployment checks to people who are unemployed because somebody illegally here or legally here took a job that they could have taken. there's no doubt about this. we need to create and transform the welfare office into an office that transforms the lives of people who are struggling today. we have got 40 job programs at

least. we have got a host, i think 80 different means tested social programs. those all need to be consolidated. there needs to be one central place where an american who is hurting, who is out of work and needs help is given financial help but also counseled and provided training in the things they might need to get a job. maybe they even need a car to go to work. maybe they need a little money to move to another town where the jobs are readily available. but this idea we just continue to spend more and more on helping -- attempting to help people by giving them money without helping them transform their lives and become productive has got to end. in fact, all the means-tested programs all added up amount to about $750 billion, which is

more than all the other individual programs that we spend money on. more than social security. more than medicare. more than medicaid. more than the defense department. this country has got some challenges in front of it. we would respond with classical american values, of hard work, individual responsibility and technology and training, we could turn this country around, but the idea is not -- we don't have any leadership in that regard. any change, any suggestions that you would reduce a subsidy program in order to fund a job training or even fund unemployment compensation is a nonstarter around here, it appears. i'm worried about where we are. this unemployment insurance violates the budget, and we should not pass it. we should do it within the budget, and we need to analyze it carefully to make sure we are doing it in a way that actually

helps those we intend to help. i would thank the chair, yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: is there a roll call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the roll. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i came to the floor today with the intention of asking unanimous consent to pass h.r. 3521, which we've heard a lot about on the floor lately between senator vitter and senator sanders. this bill would authorize the construction of 27 veterans clinics, two in our state, louisiana, one in lake charles and one in lafayette. these clinics, it's a long and sad story about why they have not been built, i'll get into that in a minute but as you can see, texas, california, florida, georgia and other states are affected, and i know that the senators from those

states support what we're trying to do. my colleague yesterday and the day before came to the floor to call me ineffective. i'd like to say that i was a little bit shocked to hear that. i've been called many things on the floor of this senate -- hard headed, stubborn, tenacious, you know, the senator that never quits, i've never been called ineffective so it was a little bit shocking, what i could say is i've spent 18 years on the floor of the senate and working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle developing very strong phillips, very -- friendships, and trusting friendships that i think have accrued in large measure in a very beneficial way to the state that i represent and to the region of the country that i'm so proud to also represent, the gulf coast. so maybe my colleague was having a bad day. i'm going to let it go, but it

was a little, you know, shocking to hear that. that word. but back to the issue, mr. president. the issue is quite serious. the issue is that we have had a process of building veterans clinics in this way a certain way for a very long time and about three years ago c.b.o. kind of out of the blue decided to change the scoring mechanism. instead of the way we were doing it through a leasing process, change the scoring system to cause the budget problem -- the budget constraints in the budget to not allow us to move forward with the construction of these veterans facilities. but added to that change, what's really happened in louisiana, why this is such an important issue to us is that we were scheduled to build our two clinics, and in line, had waited in line patiently for

many years, our clinics were getting ready to get built in lafayette and lake charles which are a very part -- important part of our outreach to thousands and thousands -- tens of thousands of veterans in our state and the veterans administration itself, mr. president, made a very serious mistake which they have admitted to in writing, verbally. you know, general shinseki has been down to our state to visit these sites to talk with many of us in louisiana about how, you know, unfortunate it was that the mistakes on the bidding process were made, not by us, not by the state, not by the locals, but by the federal government. but because of these mistakes, our processes of building these clinics was delayed. that's why house member bustani, a wonderful colleague and a dear friend and a great leader, has been leading the

effort -- these are basically in his district, and he and i have been working very closely together, a, to try to bring to the attention of the leadership here the fact that they made the mistake, not us, we shouldn't have to pay the penalty because of that, and then in the midst of that fight, this new scoring mechanism came down, now we can't get out from underneath either the offset required or the new process required to get our clinics built. it has nothing to do with need, we are on the top of that list. we have the need, we have the veterans, we have, you know, the commitment of the federal government to get these built. so all of our delegation has been working very closely together to try to get these clinics built. now, i'm happy to say that i'm here today as i have always been on this issue supporting it and will ask in just a minute --, wanted to ask but won't in just a minute for unanimous consent

to build these clinics without an offset. just as the house bill passed, it's a $1.6 billion charge, it would move without an offset. that's what the house voted on. it was a huge vote, 346 i think votes, republicans and democrats, i think when you have a vote like that, we need to be really paying attention over here. they voted to build these clinics at a cost of $1.6 billion without an offset, that's what i'm going to ask for. senator coburn will object. he has let me know that he will object and, unfortunately, because of personal reasons he's not able to be here today. so out of respect for the process of the senate and out of courtesy, i will not be asking for that unanimous consent now, but i will be asking for it early next week. and just to be clear, it will be a unanimous consent to build these 27 clinics based on the

house vote without this bill going back to the house, going straight to the president's desk for signature by the president. the offset that the senator from louisiana offered is a bogus offset. we have a letter from c.b.o. that i want to read into the record. the senator, junior senator from louisiana offered an offset to raise the -- supposedly raise the $1.6 billion that would pay for this. this is from c.b.o. analysis. it says -- "based on preliminary estimates of the amendment offered by senator vitter, based on the information of the department of defense and the department of veterans' affairs and their current practices and joint purchase of prescription drugs, i do not estimate any savings for drug purchases relative to current law. my preliminary estimate of the amendment would be a minimal

discretionary cost of less than $500,000." so there really is no money to be saved by the amendment offered by senator vitter, so i will be offering the bill to build these clinics with no offset, and that is what the house passed. it will go directly to the president's desk, and we will resolve the problem for these states. and then finally, figure out a way to get back on track, building clinics that we need and figure out a way to pay for these clinics in the future. but these clinics got stuck in a -- kind of a technical bureaucratic mess in the recalculation, and ours in particular were caught because they should have been built the two years before this new scoring process came into being, which is why louisiana is having a particularly difficult time. but as the record will show, our entire delegation has supported

this effort. i honor the leadership of congressman boustany from the house who has literally worked on this tirelessly for six years. i really appreciate the house delegation sending this bill over here. i will not require an offset. the offset that senator vitter offered is bogus, and so i will be offering to -- as soon as senator coburn can get back here, which will be early next week, i will be offering this unanimous consent. unfortunately, i understand that he will object to it because he believes we should find a way to pay for it. there might be other objections as well, but i'm looking forward to the debate with senator coburn next week, and i yield the floor.

a senator: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. madam president, yesterday's hearing of the commerce committee subcommittee on consumer safety provided a powerful and important moment in our legislative process. and i want to thank my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, senator mccaskill, for enabling us to come together, as well as my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, senators klobuchar and boxer and senator ayotte, for their very insightful and significant questions and comments on a challenge that should unite on both sides of the aisle. tragic events, death and

life-changing injuries to unsuspecting drivers who were victims of a defective ignition switch in automobiles manufactured by g.m. a car defect that should have been fixed disclosed and remedied before these deaths occurred. i want to thank the families of the victims of these directive cars for coming forward and being at that hearing yesterday and sharing their stories with me and others. they are doing a great public service through their courage and strength. i want to also thank mary bauer, the c.e.o. of g.m., as i said to her then and i'm going to repeat now, i admire her fortitude and

her service in coming forward to face the questions of our committee and be the face of general motors and the issues that confront us now in car safety. i admire her career at g.m., an engineer who has risen through the ranks, a second-generation employee at an iconic, great american manufacturing company. i've long admired that company and the products that it has produced that have enriched the lives of so many americans over the years. and my hope is that this hearing and this process will be a turning point for the company in facing these car safety challenges. i admire greatly also its

dealers and employees. some of them have contacted me, especially connecticut dealers, telling me how they are reaching out proactively to the drivers of these defective vehicles, asking them to bring them to their company so they can be repaired before they do further damage. this great company can reclaim its iconic brand and luster by breaking with its past. and mary bauer has the opportunity for this historic contribution. as i said to her yesterday, she may be surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers and public relations people who will advise her to be cautious, to be timid, to be reactive, but now is the time for her to seize the initiative and take three simple steps as a

beginning. number one, establish a compensation fund for all who have suffered damage from this defective ignition switch which caused cars to crash, some of them to burn. victims who have suffered injuries and dendle as well as economic damage. second to provide a warning, a clear, strong warning to drivers still behind the wheels of vehicles that still have this defective ignition swivment the cars are under recall but unrepaired. people are still driving them. many not knowing the full risk that they have undertaken by continuing to drive them. a strong warning to ground those vehicles until they are repaired

is what's needed now. and, third, support our legislation. senator markey and i have offered that legislation that would provide for better reporting by car companies, a stronger accountability system, and better disclosure through a database to consumers, so that they will know what the risks are before they take them and can make choices, informed choices, about what they drive and when. these steps are well-warranted by the past misconduct of genetically modifiedg.m.doing tg the trunnel, telling the truth to power and making sure that innocent consumers are protected

against harms that may not be known to them. she has the opportunity to break with the past culture, a culture of deniability and of deception. deception is what happened at g.m. these ignition switches were known to be defective as recallly as 2001, year after year there were reliable and material facts that indicated to g.m. you had to responsibility to fix these vehicles and yet you took no action to repair them, to recall them, to inform consumers. and the fix was not a major, costly one. $2 per vehicle, easily done. and yet in 2005-2006, g.m. made

a business decision that the price was too hierks th high, ts too long, and it continued to provide those vehicles for sale to consumers. and then it deceived the united states government. i've already spoken on the floor about section 612 of the agreement that g.m. signed that indicated there were no material adverse facts at the time that it was bailed out, 2009, as part of a reorganization. that deception is bad enough. but what happened as a result of that reorganization was a shield from liability, a form of immunity against legal accountability that was granted only because g.m. failed to disclose to the united states and to the bankruptcy court that at that might well be liable and in fact was responsible for these defective vehicles.

that shield from liability still bedevils the victims of injuries, death, and economic damage as they seek to hold g.m. accountable, because g.m. itself is invoking that shield in courts today aren' around the cy and seeking to dismiss actions brought against it, seeking to return them to the bankruptcy court where the black hole of discharge will prevent recovery. i welcome the independent investigation that g.m. has undertaken by a very credible and respected former united states attorney. i welcome the appointment of a consultant, ken feinberg, also well-respected, with experience and expertise in providing compensation. but g.m. itself has said still there is no compensation fund,

and it will not commit to one. and as able as these two individuals are, the question remains: what will it take? what fact or evidence will be required to persuade g.m. to do the right thing? i think there's more than ample evidence -- in fact, abundant evidence now -- as to what the path should be, and i urged it yesterday on mary barra. g.m. should very simply do the right thing now, establish a compensation fund sufficient to seek to make these victims whole. nothing will erase or even ease the pain and grief suffered by these families and loved ones. but justice has its own virtue, and g.m. has the rare

opportunity in american corporate life to do justice and not wait for its consultant and its investigator to -- quote -- "work through" -- end quote -- the issues here. working through the issues here means doing right by those victims. yesterday i asked ms. barra about the safety of the vehicles that are still on the road and she assured me that they were fine to drive, as long as the key was not overloaded, as long as the ignition switch was used alone without additional keys. she assured me that there was no more risk to drive one of those vehicles than any other in use today. i asked her about the contradiction of that statement with the recall notice itself,

and i'm going to display it he here, which says that these vehicles are risky to drive, in effect, if your key ring is carrying added weight or -- and i emphasize that it is an "or" -- there are rough road conditions or jarring or impact-related events. jarring or impact-related events or rough road conditions. unfortunately, too many of our highways and our bypass have rough road conditions or provide the opportunity for jarring events.

ms. barra may believe that the tests and analysis done by her company -- she referred to them yesterday -- assure her and g.m. that driving these defective vehicles is safe as long as they are done with only the ignition key, without the added weight of additional keys. but she must know, because she has children, as do i and most members of this body, that they will drive with additional keys on that ignition switch. in fact, thousands -- hundreds of thousands, millions of americans have no idea that driving these vehicles with added keys provides that kind of potentially fatal risk. when these cars lose power, they lose steering, they lose their

brakes, and they lose their airbags. losing power, brakes, steering is terrifying. but airbags are essential if power is lost and the car crashes, as victims of these crashes have discovered to their sorrow and the grief of their families. this kind of pothole, a rough road condition, a potentially jarring event -- how common are they? well, this photograph is from surf avenue in straitford, a beautiful coast along the coast of connecticut, and i could take hundreds of these photographs from connecticut, which has better roads than many other places in our state or country. they are as common as the roads

themselves. those risks are g.m.'s responsibility to warn. it has failed to do so. i asked ms. barra what evidence or facts would persuade her to issue a stronger warning. the recall notice itself says that risk increases if your key ring is carrying added weight, such as more keys, or the key fob itself -- the key fob itself adds additional weight, or your vehicle experiences rough road conditions or other jarring or impact-related events. what would persuade her to issue the warning to consumers, stop driving these cars until they are repaired? and, specifically, i asked her

whether evidence about drivers who have, in fact, experienced a power loss, without adding additional weight to their key ring, if they encountered these kinds of conditions and their cars shut down would persuade her to change her view. and she answered to me, quote, "senator, if i had any data, any incidences where just the key or the key in the ring there was any risk, i would ground these vehicles across the country." ms. barra, let me tell you about laura valley. in march of 2014, ms. valley, who owns a 2007 silver chevrolet cobalt received g.m.'s recall letter instructed her to remove all items from her key ring,

leaving only the vehicle key. as the recall notice instructed, she continued to drive her vehicle, using only the vehicle key. and yet, while driving with a friend, she lost power. fortunately, she was on the side of the road, on the right side of the road, and she was able to pull the vehicle to a stop. there will be other instances. i know that they will come forward to me and to my colleagues and to lawyers who may represent them. today i call on g.m. to issue that warning. there's more than ample evidence -- or as ms. barra "data,"

"incidences" -- where the key or just the key in the ring led to the vehicle stopping, not because there was added weight but because they encountered rough road conditions or jarring events which could consistent of simply leaning the wrong way, moving the driver's knee. these vehicles create risks that are unacceptable before the thee repaired, and the advice g.m. should give to people is, bring these cars to be repaired immediately. stop driving them. in the meantime, use the loan theirs g.m. has offered -- the loaners that g.m. has offered. g.m. has the opportunity to avoid another business decision. it may be more costly to provide loaners, but in the long run they will save lives and

dollars. finally, i ask g.m. to do the right thing again by supporting the legislation that senator markey and i have introduced. this legislation is critically important to the future. it can't correct the past. but it can make sure that accidents are reported, that defects are made known to the national highway transportation safety administration, and that there are not only incentives for reporting but there is increased accountability for failing to do so. and to require nhtsa to establish a publicly accessible, searchable database that will allow drivers and consumer safety advocates to connect the dots and companies that are unwilling to connect those dots will be brought to justice, will

be required to recall these vehicles, and to find out about defective models in time to save lives. miss barra has not yet committed to supporting this bill. it's he responsibility, in my view -- it's her responsibility, in my view, to do so. it's the responsibility of g.m. to take this action now. she and g.m. have the opportunity to change corporate culture, not only in that company but in others, by setting a model, leading by example. not by their words at a senate hearing or in letters after polling, but by action. action speaks louder than words. action speaks louder than the appointment of a consultant or investigator whose report may not be made fully public. miss barra was unwilling to make

that commitment yesterday. it's a corporate culture that refused to make a 57-cent change car ignitions, or a $2 change, even though that change would have saved lives. and now? the time -- and now is the time to hold g.m. accountable, for g.m. to issue that warning that will help save others from the fate known only too well to those families who came to be with us yesterday. i look forward to working with miss barra, with g.m., with my colleagues, with all who are interested in improving car safety and to using this sad, tragic, unfortunate experience as a turning point and a teaching moment, a rare moment of bipartisan action to make our roads safer. thank you, madam president.

i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. a senator: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. scott: i ask, madam president, that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to discuss my two amendments to the legislation that we've been debating this week. i think most of us would agree that we need to give folks a hand up. that makes a lot of sense. but we also need to ensure that they have a solid foundation on which to stand. the best way we can help the unemployed is to help them find a job. my amendment aims to do just

that. first, we will restore the 40-hour work week which was destroyed in obamacare. the employer mandate currently requires employers to provide health insurance to full-time employees and the new definition of a full-time employee is 30 hours per work week. as a result, employers are cutting hours for many of the employees to fewer than 30 hours per week. i've heard from several employers at home in south carolina representing institutions as large as clemson university and as small as the local surf shop, who are suffering the consequences of this new 30-hour definition. a few weeks ago, i was on a bus in charleston talking with some of my constituents. i started speaking with one young man who had just moved to south carolina from georgia looking for new opportunities. he worked for a restaurant and had recently received notice that his hours were getting cut.

after talking with this young man for a few minutes, it became very clear to me that his pay was cut and his hours was dwindling as a direct effect of the 30-hour rule. and not only was he losing 25% of his pay, he was losing the ability to work overtime. according to the hoover institution, 2.6 million americans are especially at risk of having their hours and wages cut like the young man that i was speaking to. of that 2.6 million americans, 59% of them are between the ages of 19 and 34. 63% are women and 90% do not have a college degree. further, families most at risk are those with a median income of $29,126.

many of these millions of americans who are earning hourly wages to support their families will see a 25% cut in their pay as employers struggle with the massive new costs forced on them by the federal government. their federal government. thanks to obamacare, not only will these workers not have health insurance, but they will no longer have full-time jobs. we must -- and i want to emphasize "we must" -- restore the 40-hour work week, period. my second amendment is the same as my skills act, which i introduced as a part of my opportunity agenda earlier this year. it provides much-needed reforms to modernize the government's bureaucratic maze of work force development and training programs. with 4 million jobs currently unfilled across our nation tod

today, including 65,000 jobs in south carolina, job skills training is critical for folks looking for work. we have to make sure people are prepared for continued success and that starts with education and work force training. thanks to the leadership of my colleague, mrs. fox, in the house, the skills act has already passed with some democratic support on the other side of the capitol. it is well past time for the same thing to happen in the senate, and i hope my colleagues will join me in providing more skills and more opportunities to develop skills to put americans back to work. madam president, this is truly a conversation about jobs. how do we encourage job growth and stop the government from blocking job creation? it's a simple answer. these two amendments are steps in the right direction.

let's not let -- let's not let them -- let's stop allowing politics to dictate the future of these two amendments. we can do better and we should. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have at approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent the request be agreed to and spread on the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. today, all postcloture time on the reed of rhode island amendment number 2874 be considered expired, that it is following amendments be -- the following amendments be withdrawn, 2875, 2877, and 2878. that senator sessions be recognized to raise a point of order against the reed of rhode island amendment 2874. that once the budget point of order is raised, senator murray

or designee be recognized to make a motion to waive. that the senate then proceed to vote on the motion to waive. that if the motion to waive is agreed to, the senate then proceed to vote on the adoption of the reed of rhode island amendment 2874. and upon the disposition of that amendment, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on h.r. 3979. if cloture is invoked on the bill, no other amendments or motions be in order to the bill. at 5:30 p.m. on monday, april 7, all postcloture time be considered expired and the bill as amended be read a third time, the senate proceed to volt on vn passage of the bill, as amended, if amended. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, there's a number of women who are going to be joining me here today. they are leaders in this capitol who are working each and every day, both here and back in their home states, to give more and more of their constituents a chance to succeed. so today we are here to talk about one small idea that stands to make a huge difference in the lives of our constituents and for women, in particular, and that is the idea that if you are putting in 40 or 50 or 60 hours of work per week, you should be

able to put food on your table and pay your bills and you won't be stuck below the poverty line. mr. president, this idea could change the lives of millions of americans if congress simply acted and raised the minimum wage. we need to act now because right now one in four women -- one in four women -- is making minimum wage today. that is 15 million american women who are making the equivalent of about two gallons of gas per hour. are we prepared to tell them that that should be enough to support themselves and their kids? in fact, as i'm sure you'll hear repeated by others today, nearly two-thirds of those who earn minimum wage or less are women. this is coming at a time when more and more women are now depended upon as the sole income earners in their families. and right now in cities and towns across america, there are millions of those women who are

getting up at the crack of dawn for work every day. they are stuck living in pover poverty. they can't save up for a car, much less a house. they can't pay for school so they can get better skills and a better paying job. they can't even afford to provide their children with warm winter clothes or basic medical care. raising the minimum wage is about bringing back our middle class. and i am proud that in my state of washington, we are taking the lead. we in our state, our work force, enjoys the highest minimum wage in the country, and i'd like to point out to all of our friends on the other side of the aisle, washington state's economy has not been negatively impacted by our high minimum wage. in