a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: at the outset, let me express my sympathy to the senator from west virginia and the tragedy that took place there. our hearts and minds are with you and your citizens. mr. president, one of the sad occasions from time to time of a united states senator is to rise and pay tribute to a friend and a citizen in one's state who's passed away. it's now that occasion for me.

this past weekend, a great hero of georgia, both the university of georgia and the state of georgia, clisby clark passed away in his sleep in highlands, north carolina. he'll be laid to rest in atlanta, georgia, this coming thursday at 11:00 p.m. he wasn't just a citizen of my state, he was an extraordinary citizen of my state. a university of georgia graduate who was the head of the university of georgia, as one of the great songwriters of kansas. could tear up a piano by ear like no one you've ever seen. a talented pitchman which could make things sound good at the drop of a hat. he led his firm to unparalleled heights and for awhile i hired him to do all the public relations for our company. he married bunny from our days at the university of georgia. i remember bunny and clesby at

the s.a.a. nigh house for many,y nights, clesby at the piano, enjoying his great friendship and talent. when he retired from mccan mccann-erickson, he didn't quit working, he went to work for others. and he passed away after a very successful planning session for 750 people coming to a black-tie event which will raise over $1.5 million to raise money for veterans with ptsd. he never stopped working for those less fortunate and those who needed help and his commitment to that project is unparalleled in our city's history. when we all go to this dinner on this coming june 1 that evening and celebrate the victory for raising money for those with pstd, we'll also dedicate the evening to clesby clark.

he was always doing his lovely work for those less fortunate and in need. to his wife bunny, to his many family and friends, and to those of us who were fraternity brothers, we pay our tribute to clesby clark, a great american. may god bless his soul. and i yield back the time, mr. speaker. a senatormr. isakson: mr. presii notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. it is with a heavy heart that i rise today to honor the life and legacy of officer steven arc archell, a member of the brentwood police department who was tragically killed last night

in the line of duty. citizens across new hampshire are mourning the loss of officer archell whose bravery and courage represented the very best of our state's law enforcement community. our hearts go out to his grieving family, to his friends, and to his fellow officers, as well as to the people of the town of brentwood he served so well. we're holding them close to our hearts and keeping them all in our thoughts and our prayers during this very difficult time. for not only the brentwood community but for the entire state of new hampshire. officer are arc hench ll was an unsung hero. he went be a his extraordinary work in a quiet, humble way going above and beyond the call of duty to serve and protect the people of brentwood and the people of new hampshire.

during his 15-year career as a police officer, he touched countless lives through his selfless service to the people of brentwood, proudly carrying on a noble profession. first and foremost, officer arkell was devoted to his family. our hearts are broken for his wife heather and their two teenaged daughters. they are forced to cope with an unimaginable loss that no family should ever have to endure. we share in their sadness, we will be there to comfort them as they mourn, all of us, the entire state of new hampshire and we will always stand by their side. we are grateful to them for the sacrifice that they have made to keep us safe, for everything

that they have done, and for what they have endured, there is no way we can repay them for the sacrifice they have made to keep the state of new hampshire safe. they've lost a great dad. i'd especially like to rise officer arkell for his selfless time he took to be a great coach. he coached lacrosse, teaching a new generation about teamwork and competition. he was exactly the kind of role model that any parent would want for their son or for their daughter. officer arkell was also someone whose friendship could be counted on. he has been described as a friend who would give you the shirt off his back, a man who was kind, ethical, and very caring. he was well liked and well respected in the community that he served. sadly, this is not the first

tragedy that we've seen in rockingham county. just last year, we added greenland police chief mike maloney's name to the national law enforcement memorial here in washington, d.c. our state continues to grieve for chief maloney. unfortunately, chief maloney's death and the death last night of officer arkell reminds us of the dangerous work that our police officers do every single day on our behalf. they have no idea when they go out on nights, on weekends, on holidays when we are all safe at home with our families whether that next stop or whether that next response that they have to make will be their last. so we are grateful for the service of all of the police officers in new hampshire and

across this country who every day go out and serve our nation and keep us safe. and certainly officer arkell represented the very, very best of our law enforcement community, and we're so sad today as we mourn his loss. and as we mourn the loss of officer arkell, i'm reminded of a quote that can be found at the law enforcement memorial in washington. the quotelllly sums this up. it is not how these officers died that made them heroes. it is how they lived. that is certainly true of officer steve arkell. he was a special man who gave generously to his family, to his friends, to his community. it tragedy that has taken from us -- tragic that he

was -- tragedy that he was taken from us far too soon. this is a tragedy that no family should have to endure. and as we mourn his loss, we will pledge to forever honor his memory, his sacrifice, and the work that he did every single day on behalf of the people of brentwood and on behalf of the people of the state of new hampshire to keep us safe. we are grateful for his sacrifice, we can never repay the loss that his family has endured, nor can we ever repay the sacrifices that our police officers make every single day on our behalf to keep this country safe. thank you, mr. president.

mr. president, i would like to put the senate back into a quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

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: without objection. mrs. murray: and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without

objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, you would think now more than ever our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would recognize that the american people really want us focused squarely on jobs and the economy. it is what every poll says. it's what the vast majority of all of our constituents say, and it is absolutely what is needed at a time when families, especially working women, continue to struggle to make ends meet. but instead of working with us across the aisle to give every american a fair shot, it seems like republicans are focused on something else entirely: politics. today the senior senator from south carolina came to the floor and attempted to pass a bill that not only undermines women's access to their doctors but restricts their rights to access reproductive health services. i'm not sure what our colleagues think has changed since they last introduced this bill in november, but just as it was back then, this extreme unconstitutional abortion ban is

an absolute nonstarter. it is not going anywhere here in the senate, and they know it is a cheap political ploy. i'd like to think that over the last 41 years since the historic decision in roe v. wade that we've moved on from debating this issue. i'd like to think that after four decades many of those who want to make women's health care decisions for them have come to grips with the fact that roe v. wade is settled law. after all, many of the signs of progress are all around us. this congress, there is a record 20 women serving here in this body. in 2012, women's power and voice at the ballot box was heard pretty loud and clear. in fact, when republican candidates for office thought that rape was a political talking point, that idea and their candidacies were swiftly rejected thanks in large part to the voices of women. so sometimes it's tempting to think that the times indeed have changed, that maybe, just maybe,

politicians have finally realized that getting between a woman and her doctor is not their job. that it's possible right-wing legislators have a newfound respect for women. but the truth is that the drumbeat of politically driven, extreme and unconstitutional laws continues to get louder. in 2013 our nation saw yet another record-breaking year of state legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to abortion services. in fact, in the past three years more of these restrictions have been enacted in this country than in the previous ten years combined. and anti-choice lawmakers here in this nation's capitol filed 50 legislative attacks on reproductive rights in this congress alone. these by the way haven't just been attacks on a woman's right to choose, it's been an all-out assault on everything from

shaming pregnant women from drafting legislation intended to create geographic roadblocks for low-income and racial minorities wishing to access safe reproductive services. not surprisingly, these states that have enacted some of the most extreme and archaic restrictions are also the same states that failed to achieve even mediocre standards when it comes to critical issues like education and the economy. but despite these shortcomings some members of this body refuse to work with us to address those critical issues and instead want to distract the american public with these purely political bills and tell their small pocket of extreme audience is satisfied. mr. president, in fact, according to the senator from south carolina, debating a woman's access to her own doctor -- and i quote him -- "is a debate worthy of a great democracy." unquote. the fact is it's a debate we already had.

this is a direct attack on roe v. wade and an attack on what is already settled law. i would like to remind my colleagues today that real women's laws and the most difficult health care decisions they can ever possibly make are at stake. let me share with you the story of judy necoster, she is from my home state of washington. she bravely shared her story publicly in "the new york times." i've told her story before but it bears repeating now because we're under attack again. in an op-ed she wrote just days before the house passed a bill that was virtually identical to the one that was introduced today, judy talked about being faced with every pregnant woman's worst nightmare. in describing the news that one of the twins that she was carrying was facing a condition where only one lung chamber had formed and that it was only 20% complete, judy captured the anguish that countless other

women in similar positions have faced. "my world stopped" she wrote. "i loved being pregnant with twins and trying to figure out which one was where in my uterus. sometimes it felt like there was a party in there with eight limbs moving. the thought of losing one of these children was unbearable." and she went on to say the m.r.i. at seattle children's hospital confirmed our worst fears. the organs were pushed up into our boy's chest and not developing properly. we were in the 22nd week." mr. president, under the bill that was proposed today, the decision judy ultimately made through very painful conversations with her family and with consultation with her doctors would be illegal. the decision to make sure, as she put it -- quote -- "our son was not born only to suffer" would be taken from her and given to politicians. mr. president, i'm here today to

provide a simple reality check. we are not going back. we're not going back on settle laud like roe v. wade or the affordable care act. we're not going to take away a woman's ability to make her own decisions about her own health care and her own body. and just like the many attempts before this bill, there are those out there who would like the american public to believe that all these efforts are anything but an attack on women's health care. they try to say it's a debate about freedom. well, except of course the freedom for women to access care. it's no different than when we are told attacks on abortion rights are not an infringement on a woman's right to choose. they are about religion or states' rights. or when we're told restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting a woman's ability to make her own family planning decision. it's somehow about protecting pharmacists. or like last month when a republican state lawmaker in

missouri introduced legislation to triple the state's mandatory waiting period for abortion services, claiming it would give women more time to do their -- quote -- "research." not that we should be surprised, he went on then to compare this deeply personal choice and difficult choice to that of purchasing an automobile, saying "in making a decision to buy a car, i put research in there to find out what to do." but, mr. president, the truth is that this is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care. this is about women. instead of playing a game of political football with women and their health, republicans should consider instead joining with us in working on what women truly want. women today want to have a fair shot at success. first and foremost, that means not rolling back the clock or on

the gains we made. we took a good step forward with the affordable care act which prevents insurance companies from charging women more than men for coverage and ensuring preventive services like mammograms and contraception is could have had. increasing -- is covered. and there is no doubt that we need to make sure that women have access in this country to opportunities like getting equal pay for equal work or giving women the -- millions of women earning the minimum wage just a raise would go a long ways towards that effort. and we do need to update our tax code so that mothers who are returning to the workforce do not face a marriage penalty today. there is much more that we can be doing to address the issues of concern to women. those are the issues we ought to be focused on. how to move our country forward, not backward. so, mr. president, if it wasn't clear the last time the senior

senator from south carolina attempted this, it ought to be clear now. senators, like me are not going anywhere. advocates and doctors who treat those women every day and know their health must be protected are not going anywhere. and women who continue to believe their health care decisions are theirs and theirs alone are not going to go anywhere. and, by the way, the constitution is not going to go anywhere. and, therefore, this extreme bill that was offered today is not going anywhere. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, on monday night a tragic -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. manchin: i am a.m. sorry.

i ask for the -- i'm sorry. i ask for the quorum call to be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: on monday night, a tragic mining incident occurred in my home state of west virginia where two miners were lost at the brody mine. my deepest prayers are with the family and loved ones. gayle and i mourn the loss of these men. we grieve for the entire community as they bear this sorrowful hardship. our hearts especially go out to the families of the fallen miners, eric gelg and harry ch chapman. they will forever be remembered to their state afned nation for their unparalleled courage and unsurpassable sacrifice. they will live on forever in our hearts as family and friends deal to struggle with the

tragedy that took place, we are remiewnded as country that we must consistently search for ways to improve safety cngs because our miners' safety is the utmost importance and remains our number-one priority. we say in west virginia if it can't be mined safely, don't mine t our coal miners are some of the hardest workers in america. the loss of one miner's life is one too many. we need to improve mine safety efforts so our miners' lives are never in jeopardy. we owe this to the families and the victims. it is our responsibility to be absolutely and totally committed to the safety of every worker, which means that every worker should be able to get up in the morning and expect to come home safely to their loved ones at night. that is their right, not a privilege. my staff and i will do everything humanly possible to assist the families through this difficult time. again, we extend our deepest sympathy and most profound

condolences to the families and loved ones and we pray for their peace and comfort. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, there are reports that the majority is considering bringing to the floor the so-called

smarter sentencing act and to do that to bring it to finality. i rise again today to express my strong opposition to this bill and i want to argue against the senate taking up its time to consider it, and i'll give you a lot of reasons. this country has experienced a tremendous drop in crime over the past 30 years. we've achieved hard-won gains in reducing victimization. more effective police tactics played a very significant role in this. congress assisted with funds for law enforcement and mandatory sentencing guidelines to make dangerous offenders serve longer sentences. but after the supreme court applied novel constitutional theory, those mandatory guidelines were made advisory

and advisory only. federal judges then use their discretion to sentence defendants more leniently than the guidelines had called for. today, the only tool that congress has to make sure that federal judges do not abuse their discretion, the discretion in sentencing too leniently, is mandatory minimum sentences. so bringing us to this bill, it would cut a wide range of mandatory minimum sentences by half or more. those sentences include people convicted of manufacture, sale, possession with intent to distribute and importation of a wide range of drugs, including heroin, cocaine, p.c.p., l.s.d., ecstacy and methamphetamine. when supporters of this bill

discuss how it increases discretion for judges, and keeps current maximum sentences, what they really mean is that judges will gain discretion only to be more lenient. the bill does not increase discretion for judges to be more punitive. when supporters of this bill say that the bill only applies to nonviolent offenders, don't be misled. don't be misled into thinking it applies to people in federal prison for simple possession of marijuana. it doesn't. the offenses covered in this bill are violent. importing cocaine is violent. the whole operation turns on violence. dealing heroin also involves violence or threats of violence. and the offense for which the

offender is sentencessed -- sentenced may have even been violent. the defendant's codefendant might have used a gun. and while the bill does not apply to a drug crime for which the defendant used violence, it does apply to criminals where the defendant has a history of committing violent crime. supporters have failed to recognize that it would apply to drug dealers with a history of violent crime. supporters of the bill also raise the argument of prison overcrowding. but prison populations in this country are decreasing and have been, in fact, decreasing for several years. states have been able to reduce prison construction and sentencing as crime has thus fallen.

charles lane, in "the washington post" wrote one reason states could do this is the reduction in the fear of crime that has accompanied falling crime rates. the rate of increase in federal prison populations has fallen a great deal. in recent years, the number of new federal prisoners receiving prison sentences has declined. new policies the department has adopted with respect to clemency and its unwillingness to charge defendants for the crimes they have committed will only further reduce overcrowding and prison expenses. it is also important to recognize that drug offenders are an increasingly small portion -- proportion of the new offenders who are being sentenced to federal prison as federal law enforcement shifts

more resources away from drugs and towards immigration and weapons offenses. and the reduction in prison populations is not really so much about the cost as cost shifting from prison budgets to victim suffering. this is happening as the number of state and federal prisoners has dropped. in 2012, the last year for which statistics are available, the f.b.i.'s uniform crime report reported an increase in the number of violent crimes for the first time in many years. now, it is only one year, and the increase was less than 1%, but it represents a dramatic change in the past downward trend of crime, and it bears a vigilant watch, not support for

a reckless, wholesale, and arbitrary reduction in mandatory minimum sentences. the bill represents a particularly misguided effort in light of current conditions concerning drug use. we're in the midst of a heroin epidemic right now. deaths from heroin overdoses in pennsylvania are way up. the governor of vermont devoted the entirety of his state of the state address this year to the heroin problem. marijuana decriminalization is leading to a greater availability of marijuana at a lower price. this is causing mexican growers who formerly produced marijuana to grow opium for heroin importation into this country instead of marijuana. the obama administration says it is concerned about the heroin

epidemic, but it supports a bill that cuts heroin for importation and dealing. the administration says that. the president pro tempore: to fight -- that it wants to fight sexual assault on campuses and i think that's the right thing to do and i applaud them for doing that. but they're also supporting this bill which cuts in half the mandatory minimum sentences for dealing with ecstacy, the date rape drug. the administration's support for this bill, then, makes no sense. mr. grassley: and at least some administration officials understand that. we had the privilege of having the director of the drug enforcement agency before our committee a little while ago, michelle lenhart said -- quote -- "having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33

years and a baltimore city police officer before that, i can tell you that for me and for the agents that work for d.e.a., mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations. we depend on those as a way to ensure that the right sentences are going to the level of violator that we're going after" -- end of quote. from the ender of the d.e.a., michelle lenhart. current mandatory minimum sentences play a vital role in reducing crime. they do more than keep serious offenders in jail so that they cannot prey upon citizens. they also induce lower-level drug offenders to avoid receiving mandatory minimum sentences by implicating

higher-ups in the drug trade. as f.b.i. director stated -- quote -- "i know are from my experience that the mandatory minimums are an important tool in developing cooperators" -- end of quote. recently a bipartisan group of former justice department officials wrote to leaders reid and mcconnell. their letter expressed strong opposition to cutting mandatory minimums for drug trafficking by half or more. they warned and i quote again, "we are deeply concerned about the impact of sentencing reductions of this magnitude on public safety. we believe -- continuing the quote -- we believe the american people will be ill served by the significant reduction of sentences for federal drug trafficking crimes that involve the sale and distribution of dangerous drugs like heroin, methamphetamines and p.c.p.

we are aware of little public support for lowering the minimum required sentences for these extremely dangerous and sometimes lethal drugs" -- end of quote. now, we're all going to be supporting and noting national police week this week. officers from all over the country have traveled to washington to make their concerns known. we salute them for the work that they do and the dangers that they face. if we really respect these law enforcement people, and want to support them, then we ought to listen to what they have to say. the national narcotics officers association has written -- quote -- "as the men and women in law enforcement who confront considerable risk daily to stand between poison sellers and their victims, we cannot find a single good reason to weaken

federal consequences for the worst offenders who are directly responsible for an egregious amount of political despair, community decay, family destruction, and the expenditures of vast amounts of taxpayer dollars to clean up the messes they create" -- end of quote. the federal law enforcement officers association has also come out against the bill. they have stated -- quote -- "it is with great concern that the fleoa views any action or attempt that would alter or eliminate the current federal sentencing policy regarding mandatory minimum sentences -- sentencing, continuing to quote, the mandatory minimum sentencing standard currently in

place is essential to public safety and that of our membership" -- end of quote. now, many of us will rightfully phrase our law enforcement officers as they are in town for national police week, but what we really ought to do is listen to them. they are telling us that taking up this bill would be a slap in the face of our brave police officers who protect us from harm every day. they deserve better than that. citizens who are finally less likely to become crime victims deserve that. the respect that is due those on the front lines against wrong doars demands that the -- wrongdoers demands that the senate neither take up nor pass the so-called smarter sentencing act. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. a senator: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with and i be allowed to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i rise today to speak about a bill i'm introducing today which is the entitled the end user protection act. during the debate on dodd frank a couple of years ago, a constant concern for myself and

others in this chamber was how best to protect end users, the individuals and businesses that use futures markets both to purchase commodities and use derivatives to hedge their risk. the legislation that ultimately passed was not what i had desired, but it did specify that end users should not be treated the same as banks, and in many instances should not be subject to the same registration and margin requirements as other market participants. but that simply has not been the case. as the cftc has gone through the rule making process. mr. president, i've seen many instances where the commission in its zeal to finalize rules has not given due consideration to those farmers, ranchers and other end users who depend on our futures markets to hedge their risks. time and again end users brought

their concerns to the commission and the end user exemption i helped to author were not honored. in other instances dodd-frank created unintended consequences that must be fixed. it is for these reasons that i am introducing the end user protection act. as commodities end users have struggled through an increasing burden of reforms that were never designed for them, the effect has been an increase in their cost of doing business, and for some making the already high risks associated with farming even higher. mr. president, the bill i am introducing clarifies that unlike banks, true derivative end users are exempt from the margin requirements applied by the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act to many of the derivatives contracts they enter into. let me highlight a few of the

other reforms that are included in this bill. one of the most egregious abuses by the commodities futures trading commission has been with their cost-pweuft analysis -- cost benefit analysis. while the c.e.a. instructed them to waive regulations, throughout the dodd-frank rule making process, industry participants have relayed concerns about the cost-benefit analysis performed by the cftc. commissioners as well have sroe kalzed their -- vocalized concerns the model used is deficient in several areas. for instance in a letter to the "wall street journal" in august 2011, commissioner scott o'malley stated -- and i quote -- "with respect to our proposed rule makings, our own inspector general has called into question the quality of the cost-benefit

analysis. nevertheless, during the cost of our final rule makings i have continued to see indications that the cftc intends to persist with a one-size-fits-all qualitative approach. this approach contradicts two recent executive orders from president obama and justifiably renders our rule makings vulnerable to legal challenge. we need to be more cognizant of the effects that our rulemakings may have had on the food and energy costs of average americans. if the cftc needs to repropose rule making, so be it. given the stakes for main street and wall street, it is more important to get a rule making right than to finish it fast. close quote. as commissioner o'malley notes, getting it right is the most important part of the ave american, but not it seems for

the commission. even the cftc's inspector general detailed insufficient cost-benefit methodology in rulemakings. in some instances the commission has released interpretive guidance the senate is not in order to subvert -- in order to subv analysis altogether. president obama made clear he expects a thorough analysis and the commission should be held to the same standard as other agencies. therefore, my bill amends the commodities exchange act to require real cost-benefit analysis be performed before rulemakings. i'm asking for the commission as a rule making body to play fair, to do the right thing and ensure when they pass a rule, they know how it will affect market participants in and the industrs a whole first. mr. president, we know some companies pass risks from their affiliates to one central hedging unit in order to

consolidate their combined market risk. then they hedge that risk with the market. often the affiliate that houses the central desk is deemed a financial entity, and therefore not able to utilize the end user exception to mandatory clearing. simply put, mr. president, when one company with multiple units trades with itself, it shouldn't face the same regulatory burden as when it trades in the market. mr. president, we have also seen instances where transparency has had unintended consequences for some market participants. as their trading data is made available, some savvy market participants have been able to track their trades without even knowing the name of the company. it is important these entities not face a disadvantage in the market resulting in millions of dollars of additional costs

simply because their positions can be identified. this bill fixes that issue and ends that disadvantage. another reform this bill makes is allowances for utilities, volumetric optionality. many utilities who are purchasers of natural gas for both electricity and home heating often are unable to detail exactly how much demand they will have during a particular time frame. though they previously were able to utilize contracts that allowed this optionality to determine when and how much electricity they could purchase, these types of contracts are now effectively prohibited. by barring these utilities from being able to employ market strategies to keep costs low and ensure stability, the cost rises not only for the end user company but for the consumer as

well. we should make allowances for this volumetric optionality and the bill before us does just that. in sum, mr. president, this bill clarifies the existing end user exemption that the congress provided during the dodd-frank debate. further, it ensures that market participants who do not pose systemic risk and use our futures markets to decrease their cost to business and increase their efficiencies are able to continue those practices, ultimately to the benefit of the consumer. thank you, mr. president. and i see my friend, mr. whitehouse, is here, and i will yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'm here for the 67th time to urge my colleagues to wake up to

the growing colette of climate change -- to the growing threat of climate change and today i'm joined by my friend and colleague senator nelson of florida who is a true leader in this fight. i'd like to consent that we engage in colloquy for the next say 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: florida is slightly larger than my home state but florida and rhode island have a great deal there common like a beautiful coastline, an economy and a way of life that is tied to the sea. and as a result, risk from the ocean in a changing climate. on my recent trip down the southeast coast, i spent two days in florida and heard firsthand about the unprecedented changes taking place there. like the folks i met in north carolina, south carolina and georgia, floridians are worried about the coastal communities that they love. they're getting serious about

protecting their homes and their livelihoods, and they want their represents in congress to get serious too. senator nelson hears them. he recently took the senate commerce committee to miami beach town hall to examine the dangers posed by rising seas. here is what the "miami herald" said about his effort. i'll quote the editorial. "south florida owes senator nelson its thanks for shining a bright light on this issue. everyone from local residents to elected officials should follow his lead, turning awareness of this major environmental issue into action." it is critical, they said, "to saving our region." senator nelson, i also had a press conference at the jacksonville friendship fountain with representative corinne brown to highlight these serious

implications of climate change. so i'm grateful to senator nelson for bringing his passion and his expertise on this issue to the floor today. mr. nelson: and, mr. president, i want to thank my dear personal friend, the senator from rhode island, for his kind comments but especially thank him for his passion and his leadership on this issue. there are parts of america that it is time to wake up, and especially one part of that is the state of florida. we have, because of the nature of our state being a peninsula that sticks down into water surrounding it on most sides -- ther