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 fact, our economy has

benefited from a high minimum wage. job growth has continued at a rate above the national average. payrolls in our restaurants and bars have expanded due to people having more money in their pockets to spend out at dinner or a night on the town. and poverty in washington state has trailed the national level for at least seven years now. that is why i support making the national minimum wage $10.10 for families from washington to wisconsin, from massachusetts to minnesota and hawaii and everywhere in between. now, it's not enough to make you rich, but it is a small raise for millions of families who desperately need it. it's a small raise for mom and dads who need help. and, mr. president, beyond that, we've got to do more. today two-thirds of families rely on income from both parents, two-thirds, but thanks to our outdated tax code, a woman thinking about reentering the work force as the

second earner in her family may face higher tax rates than they are husband when she does that. that is unfair and it's got to change. so last week i introduced the 21st century worker tax cut act which will help solve that problem by giving struggling two-earner families with children a tax deduction on that new second earn ear income. my hope is over the coming weeks we can coming together in this chamber on behalf of millions of american women who, like my own mother, when i was growing up, became the sole breadwinner and caregiver in their families and i hope our colleagues have gotten a sense how the current $7.25 an hour translates to a grocery trip for a family of four, or to shopping for school supplies or even how it impacts people's daily commute. that's why we're here today, to give that mom, that dad, a fair shot at succeeding in america.

and i'm proud to be joined today by a number of my colleagues here in the senate who are strong women and are fighting for women and men in their home states. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you. when my grandparents were raising me, i learned that if you work hard, you play by the rules, you should be able to get ahead. and as i travel throughout the state of wisconsin, meeting with wisconsinites, i know that my fellow wisconsinites learned that very same thing when they were growing up. but today people are working as hard as ever, and they deserve to get ahead, but many are working full time, many are working two jobs to make ends meet, and yet far too many are

just barely getting by. or living in poverty. as i've traveled my state, wisconsinites have told me that the powerful and the well connected seem to get to write all of their own rules while the concerns and struggles of working poor and middle-class families go unnoticed here in washington. they feel like our economic system is tilted towards those at the very top and that our political system exists to protect those unfair advantages. the house budget introduced by congressman paul ryan from my own home state is a perfect example of that. when instead we should be making sure that everybody gets a fair shot. so i'm really proud to join my colleagues this afternoon to deliver our own call for action.

it's simple. the time is now to give hardworking americans a raise. we can do that if both parties work together to reward hard work, so an honest -- an honest day's work pays more. we can do that by raising the minimum wage. i believe we need to build a fairer economy and grow the middle class. i believe our economy is strongest when we expand opportunity for everyone. and that's why i'm an original cosponsor of the minimum wage fairness act. raising the minimum wage would improve the economic security of families across the country and strengthen the overall economy. it would give 28 million american workers a raise, including over 595,000 wisconsinites, benefiting more than a quarter million wisconsin children who have -- would have

at least one parent getting that raise. it would mean workers in wisconsin would have $816 million more to spend at local businesses, which according to the economic policy institute, would boost wisconsin's g.d.p. by $516.6 million and generate 1,800 new jobs after only three years. because women are disproportionately low-wage workers, making up two-thirds of low-wage workers in the country, raising the minimum wage would also directly impact millions of women across america. nadine from appleton, wisconsin, would directly benefit from a raise. nadine is a 20-year-old woman who makes the tipped minimum wage, working as a server in a

family restaurant. now, i probably need to remind some people that the tipped minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour. nadine got her first job at age 14 so that she could start saving for college. she started college but had stopped attending because she simply couldn't afford it. nadine even moved from her small hometown to a larger city in search of a better job so that she'd be able to return to school. in telling her story, nadine writes "raising the minimum wage is not an abstract notion in my life. it's a real factor that affects me in several important ways. first and most importantly, it is important to me because i am a young woman and as -- and i am working to support myself. i had to quit going to -- put going to college on hold because

it couldn't afford it. without a higher income i worry i won't able to transition two from dead-end jobs into a long-term career." nadine currently averages $200 to $300 per week. she spent $50 per week on gas because ch. she eats simply in order to budget $30 each week for food. the rest of her income goes to rent and other bills. need lz to say, it doesn't go far. nadine picks up every shift available to her and doesn't rely on government assistance of any kind. she worries that she'll never be able to experience things like having a family and finishing college, traveling and just having a fair shot at building a stronger future for herself. women like nadine make up 72% of workers in predominantly tipped

occupations and workers in tipped occupations are twice as likely as other workers to experience poverty. and servers are almost three times as likely to be in poverty. if for no other reason, we need to raise the minimum wage because in america, no one who works full time should have to live or raise a family in poverty. raising the full minimum wage and the tipped wage will give 15 million women a raise. including 330,000 in my state of wisconsin. women who make up 80% of america's 2.8 million working single parents would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, reducing child poverty among female-headed households. according to the center for

american progress, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would reduce dependence on government programs including the supplement nutrition assistance program that we commonly called snap, which would see nearly 3.5 million fewer enrollments and save $46 billion over the next decade. and raising the minimum wage will help make progress towards closing the gender pay gap. i now look forward to getting the job done and reward the hard work of women across our great country. to get the job done of passing the minimum wage fairness act, to get the job done of giving american women the raise they deserve. thank you and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from california.

mrs. boxer: thank you, mr. president. i'm so proud to join senator murray who organized us, several of the women here, to speak out in favor of a minimum wage increase for the workers of america. i mean my colleagues have said it well, but it bears repeating, that no one in america, male or female, should have to live in poverty after putting in a full day's work and yet that is the case today. we should give hardworking americans a fair shot to get ahead, to raise their families. everyone deserves that fair shot. and that's why democrats have a fair shot agenda. right now we don't seem to have many republicans joining us in our desire to raise the minimum wage so that it gets people, mr. president, above the poverty line. when they work full time. and i would argue that anyone voting against that level of pay, which is about $10.10 an

hour, to get get you right above poverty simply wants to keep people in poverty and that's not the american way. because right now a mom who is working full time on the minimum wage earns just $290 a week. i'd ask that people take their conversations to the cloakroom. thank you. right now, a mom who is working full time on the minimum wage earns just $290 a week. that's just $15,000 a year, below the poverty rate for a single mom. no mom or dad should come home from a full day's work and have to worry about whether they can feed their children. whether they can afford a roof over the heads of their kids. and at a time mr. president -- and i see senator warren here and she has brought such attention and such focus to the unfairness in this number i'm

about to say. when 400 families in america control as much wealth as 150 million americans, to hear people in this chamber who do just fine supporting their families oppose the minimum wage, is absolutely in my view a morally wrong position. they have their right to it but i think it's morally wrong. the minimum wage is a two-thirds problem for women. let's be clear. two-thirds of workers earning mainly or less are women. two-thirds of tipped minimum wage workers are women. two-thirds of america's families, women are the breadwinners or the cobreadwinners. so we've got a two-thirds problem. and women are overrepresented in low-wage jobs and that's why i'm so proud senator mikulski is going to lead us next week toward equal pay for equal work, a wonderful bill. i think it's called the paycheck fairness act.

and i will tell you this, when we lift the salaries of these workers, it helps entire families. senator harkin's bill which we're all supporting, will benefit 14 million children, and we have to do it, we have to do it for workers like wendy arellano who works directing vehicles at an airport and she has two other jobs, i say to my colleagues, but she still doesn't make enough to support her two daughters. we should do it for women like sherrica elliott who works as a janitor scrubbing the floors and cleaning the toilets but still doesn't make enough to keep her gets pooch the poverty line and do it for women like nia potts who is working so hard to finish her college degree but is struggling to support herself and her son. i joined nia at a press

conference last week. in closing i want to talk a minute about the tipped minimum wage. this is a disscrais -- discrais because the -- disgrace because the tipped minimum wage at the federal level is $2.13 an hour and we all know because it's been studied that there are waitresses and there are waiters, and most of the less expensive restaurants hire women and they don't get big tips. and if it's a storm and suppose they had nobody come in that day, $2.13 an hour. this bill does move us up to 70% of minimum wage for tipped workers. personally, i think there ought to be no difference. in california, we pay our workers, all of them, tipped or not, the full minimum wage, and no one can tell me that california's restaurants are suffering. they are some of the most successful in the country and in the world.

so let's be clear. history shows raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt the economy. now, you will hear our colleagues on the republican side cite a c.b.o. study that said we could lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. that study is an outlier. in 1956, the minimum wage was a buck. i hate to say it, i remember those days. it was a dollar. and i remember i worked my first job was a telephone operator for hilton hotels, and i earned a minimum wage. actually then because i was a teenager, it was half the minimum wage. so i worked for 50 cents an hour, and i was not very good at that job but i tried hard. but let's say the congress had that attitude then. we're not going to raise the minimum wage because we will lose jobs. the minimum wage will still be a dollar an hour. how ludicrous. since then, since 1956, we have raised the minimum wage 18

times. and guess what? did we lose jobs? no. the economy grew by more than 80 million jobs. and i ask unanimous consent to put in the record the economic policy institute projection that we would see an increase in jobs of 84,000 and add $22 billion to the economy over two and a half years if we raise the minimum wage. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: so mr. president and others who are waiting, i am so excited to finally get to vote on the paycheck fairness and the minimum wage. all we democrats are saying is let's give americans a fair shot. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, we will -- i will be making in a moment a point of order against the bill before us as -- because it violates the budget that we agreed to, and i will just share

briefly a few moments -- and the order is that we are to commence voting at 2:30, is that correct? i believe that's correct. i think i was approved for five minutes. would the chair notify me when my time is up so others i see here might want to speak. so, mr. president, in august of 2011, this congress, house and senate, republicans and democrats, along with the president of the united states, agreed on the budget control act that included the so-called sequester but it was really just a part of the budget control act, and it agreed to limit spending, the growth of spending only. how much did it limit the growth? well, at that time we were projected to spend $10 trillion more over the next ten years

than we were currently spending, and so the congress didn't cut the budget really, although a few agencies in the short term have had reductions, defense being the primary one, but over the ten years, we would grow spending $8 trillion instead of $10 trillion. not enough reduction in spending, colleagues, to cause this country to sink into the ocean, that's for sure. really not enough, because our deficits are out there. and so in december of last year, this congress passed the ryan-murray amendment to the budget control act that broke the budget, allowed more money to be spent than we had agreed to but capped again overall spending for the next eight years. and so that was the agreement that passed and the president

signed it three months ago. it's now the law of the land. what i would say to you colleagues is this is the third or fourth time in which we will have voted since that day on legislation that busts the budget, that busts the spending limits we agreed to. there are multiple violations. two of them were covered by new language that got into ryan-murray that people didn't fully understand that allowed the use of a deficit-neutral reserve fund to in effect avoid budget points of order. so two of the budget points of order are covered and are within the deficit-neutral reserve fund, i think gimmick, that was a part of ryan-murray, but one of the -- one of the objections still clearly remains, and that is over time it extends -- this

bill will add to the debt outside the ten-year window. and one of the things we have learned is that when you pass laws today that sound good and sometimes those laws, even if they are within the budget, within the ten years that we normally use, it may indeed in the outer years add to the debt of the united states. kent conrad, the former chairman of the budget committee, ranking democratic senator, it was his language because he was concerned that we were passing things that might be okay within ten years but were adding debt to the country in the long term. so that's why this lies. the congressional budget office has concluded that it violates that principle of the budget, and it found the numbers and laid out the numbers that so say, and our chairman of the budget committee, senator

murray, has acknowledged that it does, in fact, violate the budget. so we don't need to do that. we need to stay within our budget. it's simply a refusal to make tough choices. we spend what? $3,700,000,000,000 a year and we can't find $8 billion or $9 billion to fund the program that we think needs to be funded today, unemployment insurance. people want to deal with that and help people that are unemployed, and i understand that desire, but if we do so, we should do it by finding offsets, not -- not spending more than we agreed. and they say well, we can raise taxes. well, you can raise taxes to pay for the new spending, except that violates the budget because our agreement was to only spend so much. and if you want to raise taxes, we ought to use that money to pay down the deficit. this past year, we spent

$233 billion on interest, on the $17 trillion debt this country has run up, which is more -- virtually half the defense budget. the highway bill is $40 billion. but in ten years, the congressional budget office, dr. elmendorf testified before the budget committee just a few weeks ago, dr. elmendorf told us that in ten years, one year's interest payment on the debt of the united states of america would be $880 billion. that's over $650 billion more in one year on interest than we are paying today. so we have got to at least adhere to our promises to contain spending. we cannot continue to vote time and time again to violate the spending limits we agreed to. no wonder the american people are unhappy with us. this is irresponsible. we can find the $9 billion or

whatever we need to fund the -- any program in this bloated government of ours. but no, it won't even be discussed. there is no discussion about finding honest reductions in spending where money is wasted to pay for a current need. we just come up with a plan that gimmicks the spending and adds to the long-term debt of the united states. so in conclusion, i would say that there is -- it is quite clear that this legislation, the unemployment extension, will add to the long-term debt of the united states. the presiding officer: the senator has spoken for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask consent to make the budget point of order. and, mr. president, the pending measure, amendment number 2874 to h.r. 3979, the vehicle for

the unemployment insurance extension, violates section 311-b of the f.y. 2009 budget resolution by causing a net increase in the deficit over $5 billion in the ten-year period from 2024 to 2033. therefore, i raise a point of order against the measure pursuant to section 311-b of s. con. res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget office of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, i move to waive all alickable -- applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: without objection. is there a sufficient second?

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask consent the vote occur at the time set out under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for extension of time of six minutes to be divided equally between myself and senator stabenow. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: i'm going to keep my remarks short, mr. president, because i know there are others who want to speak on why we need to raise the minimum wage from from $7.25 to $10.10. focusing on hawaii, in hawaii, nearly 100,000 women would get a raise if we were to do this. that's one out of five women workers in hawaii. mr. president, you and i are both from hawaii. we know the high cost of living in hawaii. minimum wage amongst about 14 -- amounts to about $14,500 a year.

the average rent for a one bedroom in hawaii is almost $1,300 a month. that is more than $15,000 a year. is that -- there is no wonder that people in hawaii have to work more than one job. in hawaii, tourism is our number-one industry. we have a lot of tip workers. they work in our restaurants. and do you know that there are many people who work in our restaurants who can't even afford to eat in the restaurants in which they work? when we raise the minimum wage, we are going to enable a lot of families not to rely on various programs such as snap. in hawaii, over 15,000 workers would no longer need these kinds of benefits. i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to include my full remarks into the record, and i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, let me say we should be

congratulating everyone who has got us to a point where we're going to be able to help people who have been working hard to find a job and still have not found a job to put food on the table for their families and pay their rent and to be able to allow them to receive emergency unemployment assistance is incredibly important, and the votes that we are doing here are very important to give people who want a job and need a job a fair shot to be able to survive until they can get a job. i also want to speak for just a moment, as so many of my colleagues have today, about what it means for women to have a pay raise through the minimum wage, because the minimum wage is very much women's -- a women's issue, as you have heard, because of the disproportionate number of folks who are earning minimum wage are, in fact, women, and it's not college students. the average age is about 30, 35

years old. so this is a critical issue for michigan families, including 416,000 women in michigan who would directly benefit by raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and another 141,000 whose wages would also increase, because this isn't just about people earning minimum wage. it's about lifting up wages, increasing purchasing power and helping businesses, large and small, be able to get more customers because people can buy things because they have got money in their pocket. let me repeat in terms of the numbers for michigan. 557,000 women in michigan who are working hard and just want a fair shot, just a fair shot to get ahead, would benefit from the legislation the senate will soon be voting on called the minimum wage fairness act.

too many people, including far too many women, are simply trying to stay afloat, let alone get ahead. the minimum wage used to be worth more. its value has eroded since it peaked back in 1968, and it's harder and harder for people to put food on the table and roofs over their family's heads. today a single mom can scrub houses for 40 hours a week and still finds she earns less than the poverty level. there is something wrong with that. if you're going to work hard 40 hours a week, you ought to be able to lift your family out of poverty. work ought to be valued in this country. in fact, for a family of three, $4,000 below the poverty line if you're working for minimum wage. just not right. and to add insult to injury, if you compare that to the average c.e.o. salary today, you could

put 933 minimum-wage workers -- 933 women working hard, and i would dare say maybe harder than the folks that are at the top as c.e.o.'s, trying to put food on the table for their kids, buying clothes, make sure that they can care for them, 933 minimum-wage workers combined equals the salary of the average c.e.o. so i would just urge that we come together and that we look at this as henry ford did 100 years ago, in 1914 when he doubled the salary of his workers to $5 a day. he lifted them up. the small businesses around his plant saw increases in their business, hired more people because more people had money in their pocket, they could come in and buy the foods and goods. we're talking about people working hard, again,

madam president, every single day. moms that are cleaning hotel rooms and on their feet all day. they're mopping floors, preparing food. they go home, they take care of their families. all they want is a fair shot to succeed and be able to make their lives and their children's lives better. let's have a strong bipartisan vote on raising the minimum wage. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, amendment numbers 2878, 2877 and 2875 are withdrawn. and under the previous order the question is on the motion to waive. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 6 0678g the nays are 36. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 2824. -- 2874. hearing no further debate, all knows in favor say aye. all those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. veemr. reid: could we've order? the presiding officer: order in the house -- in the chamber.

mr. reid:, for the knowledge of all members, we're going to have one more vote today. the next vote will be monday at 5:30. i just want to tell everyone here, sometimes people get upset at senator mcconnell and me because -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we don't know what's going on. well, i don't like to admit this, but sometimes he and i don't know what's going ofnlt it's hard to get sometimes where we are. so i appreciate even though senator mcconnell and i have a fuel little dustoffs up here in front of everybody, whenever we are in private, we work well together to do the best thipg fothing for this body. to get where we are today wasn't easy. we should have a good week next week. i know there's a lot of angst on both sides. there are things they want to get done. but everyone should be patient. we're trying to work through the process. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on h.r. 3979, act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

.

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change a vote? if not, the vote -- on this vote the yeas are 61, the nays are 35. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana.

mr. walsh: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 314, house resolution 2259, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: reserving the right to object, i just want to inform you, two of our colleagues have concerns about this legislation and would like to address those concerns with the sponsors, senators coburn and cruz, and so on their behalves, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from montana. mr. walsh: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 17, s. 255, the committee reported amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and

passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, this is the same legislation. for is same reason on behalf of senators coburn and cruz, i object. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. walsh: in the far northwestern corner of montana is one of the most special places on earth, the north fork of the flathead river. it's a gravel bed river that starts in british columbia and runs along the western half of graisher national park before arriving in flathead lake. the north fork is a world-class trout fishery with bull trout and cutthroat trout sharing the same waters that grizzly bears rely on for huckle berries. montanans have always enjoyed

rafting, hiking and fishing and hunting in it. today about two million people visit glacier national park each year bringing $170 million into the local economy and supporting 2,750 jobs. for 40 years, montanans have fought to keep the north fork pristine. my colleague, senator jon tester and i are committed to taking this across the finish line. 40 years ago, montana and british columbia reached an historic agreement to protect the river on both sides of the border border patrol agent. two years ago, canada upheld its end of the bargain. today the united states congress has the opportunity to do the same. the entire montana congressional delegation is in bipartisan agreement that the north fork deserves to be withdrawn permanently from future mineral development. montanans of all stripes have endorsed this action including

the local chambers of commerce and energy companies like conoco phillips. in fact, the primary interest in more than 80% of existing federal leases in the watershed have voluntarily been relinquished. everyone recognizes how important it is to keep the north fork pristine. it is just the right thing to do. the senate energy and natural resources committee passed the north fork watershed protection act with no opposition last june. the house passed the north fork watershed protection act by voice vote just last month. this bill is our chance to leave a jewel in the crown of the continent in better shape than we found it. i ask you to join me and all montanans in that effort. we can send this bill to the president to sign today. thank you. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from montana. mr. tester: would the junior senator from montana yield for a question? mr. walsh: i yield.

mr. tester: madam president, when this -- when your motion was objected to, the good senator from pennsylvania, senator toomey, said he wanted to have further conversation with senators coburn and senator cruz did. have you had a chance to visit with senator coburn and senator cruz about this bill? have you had the opportunity to visit with senator coburn and senator cruz about this bill? mr. walsh: yes, i have. mr. tester: that's already been done. i thank my colleague, senator walsh for bringing up the north fork watershed protection act for a vote. i echo his frustration. once again politics is trumping good policy. the north fork bill is a montana-made bill. folks who back home who support this bill are from all political sides of the spectrum. it has wide bipartisan support. members of both parties as senator walsh pointed out voted

out of energy and until resources committee and today, two people, two senators who i would challenge to find the north fork on a map decide to hold this bill up. let me remind them what this bill does. it ensures access along the north fork for hunters and anglers who contribute to montana's $6 billion outdoor economy, want to talk about economic development, this is an incredible driver. it honors a commitment to our neighbor to the north, canada. three years ago british columbia signed an gleament to retire oil and gas leases expecting us to protect the region as well. this bill guarantees we uphold our end of the bargain and pass our outdoor way of life. and exxon and conoco have given up their leases in this region. why? this drainage feeds the flathead lake, the largest body of water

west of the mississippi, it is an incredible -- an incredible ecosystem. and i think what has happened today is a loss not only for montana, not only for america's great outdoors, but for this entire country. this fight is not over. mr. president, far too long in this body have we had people who obstruct just because they can. it is time to start working together and start doing the right thing whether we're talking about conservation issues, tax issues, unemployment issues, whatever it might be. it's time to start moving the country forward because people are suffering out there. thank you, madam president. mr. walsh: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from montana. mr. walsh: i'm so disappointed my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blocking the desire of montanans to protect the north fork. this bill is a no-brainer. i invite my colleagues to montana to see the north fork for themselves. their actions today show why

washington is broken despite years of bipartisan hard work, narrow interests can trump responsible leadership. madam president, i yield my time. mr. walsh: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, is there a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be eliminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that senator begich's fellow noel bellot be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i come to the floor to in just a few minutes request unanimous consent to pass a bill that is a very small step in what will be a very long recovery process for a community in my home state of washington that was devastated by a landslide less than two weeks ago. this is the green mountain lookout bill, which will -- we'll be passing shortly. it is not going to rebuild anybody's home that needs to be done or provide desperately

needed human aid we're supporting through our recent federal aid disaster designations. but what this small bill will do is provide a glimmer of hope for the long-term recovery of this region and in particular the community of daring ton. for years with senator cantwell i have fought to pass this bill through procedural and political hurdles because i know what it means to snohomish county and that region in my county. it is more than a hiking destination. it is a cherished, historical landmark. it is a place where parents brought their kids for generations to appreciate the splendor of the great outdoors in the northwest and it is a great that has been a vital source of tourism-related income for the people who have been impacted by this deadly landslide that has struck this region. i was just up in darrington last weekend and had the opportunity to sit down with the mayor and many of the small-town officials.

we're talking about a town of about 1,200 people and they told me tremendous stories about the families that have been lost, about people that had driven to the store on a saturday morning and now only have what they wore when they left their home a few hours later. i heard about the needs that this community is going to have for a long time, the emotional impact. and after we finished sort of our official meeting, the mayor took us aside and told myself and senator can't -- cantwell and our congresswoman that the one little glimmer of hope he thought he could provide to this community was passage of this green mountain lookout bill that we are going to pass in a few moments. so i want to truly thank, heartfelt thrafrpbg -- thanks to senator landrieu and murkowski and all the members of the senate who have been helpful in the process of getting this bill to the floor today. they know what it means when communities who are large and communities who are small are

impacted by disasters and both knew the federal government needs to be there quickly to provide support. madam president, the people of oso and darrington have a long road to recovery ahead so i was pleased the president granted a major disaster declaration last night which will be vital in meeting many of the immediate human needs we're going to be facing but it's also important that these communities know we are in it for the long term as well and even a small step like this one that supports the region's tourist economy and brings that little bit of hope is really critical to showing them that all of us and the federal government will be there for them. so, as they mourn their loved ones and work hard to recover and ultimately rebuild, i want all of them to know we will not forget them. with that, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 338, s. 404. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 338, s. 404, a bill to preserve

the green mountain lookout in the glacier peak wilderness and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the committee reported amendment be agreed to, the bill as reported be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i know the town of darrington is thanking all of us as well. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. sessions: madam president, i would ask that the quorum callen dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: today the judiciary committee of which i am a member voted out the nomination of leon rodriguez to be director of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services, uscis. this agency has