sylvia burkewell and start work on mental health court bill. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. we praise you o god almighty. let heaven and earth adore you, for we are sustained by your majesty and might. bless our senators, guiding them around the many distractions our

busy world offers. lord, deliver them from the inclination to pray pedestrian and comfortable prayers. may they instead pray courageously about even the things they fear, and in your presence hear you say "don't be afraid; it is i." remove the barriers of fear, suspicion, and doubt that keep them from you. with be them every hour of this day, teaching and guiding them with your wisdom. we pray in your sacred name.

amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the presidinmr. president?offic. the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to the hagel sport sportsmen legis. the president pro tempore: clouter. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 2363, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leerksd the senate will be in a period of machine until 11:00 a.m. this morning. the majority will control the first half, the republicans the final half. at 11:00 a.m., the senate will

proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of keith harper to be united states representative to the united nations human rights council. this is postcloture time. the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. at noon then there will be two roll call votes. one on confirmation of the harper nomination, and then thee will be a cloture vote on the nomination of sharon bowen. the senate will be in recess from until 2:15 following the votes.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: four years ago washington democrats sold this country a bill of goods. like a ginsu knife pitchman, they promised obamacare would create jobs, improve the economy, and lower premiums and reduce health spending, all for the low, low price of not causing americans to lose their insurance or their doctors or the hospitals they liked. today americans know the truth. it was a sham. the lie of the year, convenient deceits to advance the far left's agenda. the people we represent just want the pain of obamacare to go away, but the democrats that run washington, they've got other ideas. and just yesterday they rolled out the red exa exert carpet fos

scwel. the newest attack is the most extreme yet. the president wants americans to believe that his national energy tax can somehow heal the planet and regulate the oceans, and he wants you to believe that it can being done without harming middle-class families, that in fact his massive regulatory scheme will actually create jobs and bring billions in economic benefits and strength. you heard that right -- strength -- america's energy bills. if you believe that i've got some obamacare to sell you. this is the same president, rememberes who boasted as a candidate that his energy tax policies would make electricity prices skyrocket. the truth is, the president's energy tax won't even have a appreciable effect on global carbon emissions anyway. president obama's last environmental protection agency head told us as much.

this is what that person said: "u.s. action alone will not impact world co2." that's quote from her. "u.s. action alone will not impact co2 levels," the previous e.p.a. administrator. because you need emission-heavy countries like india and china on board, first. that's just a scientific fact, though i suspect our friends on the left will conveniently ignore it. because the point of this whole exercise is sadly obvious. it's not really about science or global warming at all. it's all about making privileged elitists, elitists who may not feel the pifnl pinch of a higher utility bill or the pain of a lost job feel like they did nothing. and there's another reason. the president's national energy tax represents a direct attack

on the american middle class, a direct attack on the american middle class. experts say it would devastate entire swaths of our economy and could thread a loss of nearly a half a million jobs according to one afl-cio labor union estimate. in fact, the head fed that union, united mine workers of america, said this energy tax would lead to long-term and irreversible job losses. the national energy tax would also ship middle-class jobs overseas, shatter our manufacturing base, and drive up energy costs for families. it's a dagger aimed right at the heart of the american middle class. at a time when our constituents are already struggling under the weight of so many of this administration's other failed policies. so let's not forget, opportunity has already decreased for too many families under this president's watch. millions of our friends and neighbors are still out of work, and the economy is at a

standstill. and this is president obama's plan? to squeeze the middle class even harder and ship american jobs overseas and to do it by going around congress? it's clear that the president is trying to impose this national energy tax via executive order because he knows the representatives of the people would never vote for it. he knows that congress already rejected a similar national energy tax when he tried to pass it back in his first term. maybe he's avoiding legislative accountability because he knows his energy tax is too cruel, because he knows it would have an especially devastating impact on the most vulnerable members of our society: the poor, the unemployed, and seniors on fixed incomes. it's a curious thing. the same elites who like to lecture us from their privileged perches about helping others, these are often the same people

who seem to care the least -- the least -- about who their extreme policies hurt. to thernlg the american people are just hoy-palloy, who those elites think need their guidance. that's especially true when it comes to coal mining families in my state, good people who this administration hasn't even bothered to hear from. kentucky minors kno miners knowl keeps the lights on. all they want do is provide for their families and put food on the table. they've committed no crime, done nothing wrong. but the obama administration has declared a war on them all the same. a white house advisor was quoted as saying that a war on coal is -- quote -- "exactly what's needed." end quote. these are callous positions to be sure, but they're easy things to say when you live hundreds of miles away, when you don't have to live with the real-world

consequences of your ivory tower ideological faints circumstance when you don't have to see the raw human costs of your schemes. that certainly was the approach the administration took when it scheduled listening sessions to discuss its anticoal regulatio regulations. it only wanted to hear applause from fellly left-wing elites, so it didn't schedule a single listening session in coal country, not one. not one. here's what one miner said at a coal listening sessions that i hosted in eastern kentucky after the administration refused to come. quote -- "our biggest worries now are just trying too keep a roof over our hets and food on the table." he's not alone, mr. president. and he needs to know this: we're on the side of the aisle that hears them. we're not going to let this administration's antimiddle-class policies go

unchallenged. that's why today i'm introducing legislation, the coal country protection act, that would push back against the president's extreme anticoal scheme. it would require that simple but important benchmarks be met. the secretary of labor would have to certify that it would not result in any loss in the american gross domestic product. the administrator of the energy information administration would have to certify it would not increase electricity rates and the chair of the federal energy regulatory medication and the president of the north american electric reliability court of appeals corporation would have to certify that electricity delivery would remain reliable. it's just sequence and that's why i call upon the majority leader to schedule a vote on this legislation immediately and to help us pass it, because kentucky mining families are

counting on him. so are countless middle-class families in my state and across the country who stand to get hurt by this administration's cold i had lodge a tax deduction. and if the majority leader and senate democrats stand in the way of passing this bill, kentuckians and the american people will remember who stood with them and who worked against them. and i imagine they'll want to send a majority to washington that would actually work for the middle class for a change instead of hurting seniors and shipping jobs overseas. at the end of the day, it comes down to this: the president's national energy tax is obamacare 2.06789 it is a massive big-government boondoggle being marketed at something it isn't. it is an idea that won't even solve the larger problem it purports to address. and it will hurt the middle class. society president can pretend his national energy tax is about

helping the environment, but we know better. it's not going to do a thing to meaningfully control global carbon emissions. this is really about growing government. it's really about making left-waning elitists feel better about themselves, and it's really about helping political supporters in maces like california and new york while inflicting serious pain on people in places like kentucky. well, mr. president, i'm going to continue to fight. kentuckians deserve no less. i'm going to keep vigorous flighting against the obama administration's continued war on coal jobs and this extreme, extreme antimiddle-class national energy tax in particular. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate flb aered poof morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak

therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controldivided and n the leaders or their designees and with the majority controlling the first half of the time. the senator from i will i. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise in morning business to respooned to the -- respond to the republican senate leader. i preface my remarks by making a claim that i have made on the floor three different times. i'm still waiting for the first member of the other party to come in this chamber and to dispute what i am about to saivmensay.the republican partye united states of america is the only major political party in the world today that denies global warming. i've said it. i'm waiting for them to come forward and say, no, there's another one somewhere. one said, well, we think there's one in australia. really? so the entire world understands that global warming is a

challenge except for one political party: the republican party of the united states of america. and when have we seen with global warming? we've seen a change in the world we live in. weather is more extreme. things are changing. we have from time to time young people who come and visit this senate chamber and sit in the galleries. they're always welcome. but of course our debate today is about them. it's about the world they will live in and a question of whether or not it will be habitable. a world you can live in and prosper in. don't we have an obligation -- our generation -- to leave that world to them? if nothing else, a world as good as what we inherited from our parents and grandparents. that's what this debate is about. and if we're going to do that, we have to make some changes. can america make a change?

we sure can. we led the world when it comes to change. this president sat down with the automobile manufacturers after decades of resistance to the notion of more fuel-efficient vehicles hammered out an agreement that now we are driving cars and trucks that take us the same distance and burn fewer gallons of gasoline. my wife and i drive a ford fusion hybrid, 36 miles a gallon, and we can beat that with other cars, but we're pretty happy with our little ford. nobody put a gun to my head and said buy it. my wife and i thought it was a responsible thing to do, and ford made a great product and we bought it. there was a time on the floor of the senate when ford and other companies were in denial. it will never happen, they said. it is happening. america can change for the better with leadership. and i listened to the arguments from the senate republican leader today about the impact of change and the impact of doing something about carbon pollution on poor people and working

families. i had to come to the floor. i listened to the plaintive pleas of the republican leader to think about poor people working and the impact it has on them, and i kept remembering it's his political party that has opposed the increase in the minimum wage, an increase in the wage that these poor people are earning. they oppose it; one exception, maybe two. their party opposes the increase to the minimum wage and comes to the floor and says we can't do anything that could hurt poor working families. well, first, let them join us in a bipartisan effort to raise the minimum wage. and secondly, i can tell you one thing that global warming and carbon pollution is producing today. it is producing the number-one complaint of children brought to the emergency rooms across america. what is the health problem, the most common health problem bringing children to emergency

rooms? trauma? no. what is it? asthma. i go to classrooms across my state, and i say to the children who are there, hold up your hand if you know anyone who has asthma. i'm telling you, mr. president, rural schools, urban schools, it's all the same. hands go up across the classroom. these problems are created by the air that we are forced to breathe. are we going to do something about it? we should. our colleague, max baucus, from montana, recently took on the position as ambassador to china. he and his wife were headed over, and we said half jokingly, i hope the air is clean enough to breathe over there. because if you've been to china, you know it's a challenge every single day. are we going to take a different approach in america? are we going to set a different example in america when it comes to public health? this is our opportunity. if you truly care about working

families and their children, how can you ignore what's happening? as the air gets worse and carbon pollution increases and asthma increases, health care costs go up, lives are compromised. i don't want to see that happen. so if you truly care about working families, care about their children and the health of their children -- and i might also add care about providing these families with health insurance. time and again the same party that comes to the floor this morning telling us about working people has opposed our efforts to extend the protection of health insurance to working families. you know, one of the most successful states in the union in signing people up when it comes to our new health insurance plan, the so-called obamacare, the most successful, one of the most successful per capita states in the nation happens to be the commonwealth of kentucky, represented by the senator who just spoke on the other side of the aisle.

hundreds of thousands of people in kentucky now have health insurance through the president's plan, including thousands under medicaid. so when we're talking about who's sensitive to the need of working families, whether it's minimum wage or basic health insurance, i think our approach is one that has proven to be right. over six million americans have now signed up for health insurance. in my state of illinois, over 100,000 in cook county alone now have health insurance, and i've met some of them. roya romanosky, great chicago name. roy, great barrel-chested poe -- polish musician. he is sitting next to me and said senator, never had health insurance, i've got it now. now he's signed up for medicaid, low-income guy, takes jobs that come along. he's got health insurance. he's about 60 years old, happy to have it. when we talk about standing up for working people, this is part

of it. finally let me close -- i see my colleague from michigan here. let me close by telling you, yes, it's a challenge when we face change. we're a coal-producing state in illinois. we're going to have to sit down as a state and make a plan that's going to deal with reducing the pollution that is changing our planet. we can do it. i'm sure we can. and america should lead the world. how many times our colleagues on the other side talk about exceptionalism, america is such a different and great country? i don't quarrel with that. i don't want to be braggadocious but i don't quarrel with it. but when it comes to a challenge like this, like cleaning up the environment, shouldn't america be a leader? of course. that's what president obama is asking us to do. state by state figure out a plan that reduces carbon pollution, reduces the public health hazards that children and families are facing because of this pollution, reduces the damage that is taking place in

this environment that is changing the world we live in today. that is what a leader does. and it is time for us to try to come together and work together to find a solution. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. mr. president, first let me say i want to thank our leader, senator durbin, for speaking on a number of subjects that actually all add up to the fact that we believe every american ought to have a fair shot at making it, whether it's jobs and a new clean energy economy. when i think about the fact that we won't have a middle class, we won't have an economy unless we make things and grow things, and that's what we do in michigan; when i think about our new clean energy opportunities there,'s 8,000 parts in a big wind turbine, and somebody's got to make those things, and we can

make those in michigan actually. when we talk about doing the right thing so we can breathe the air, drink the water, it's also about creating new opportunities for good-paying jobs for people. and it's about making sure our economy works for everybody and that everybody has a fair shot to make it. that's the best of america. mr. president, we have before us in the senate three nominations for the commodities futures trading commission and we're going to be voting on one of them in a few hours, and they came out of the agriculture committee, which i'm honored to chair, and so i wanted to speak about them for a moment. this independent agency, the commodities futures trading commission, is entrusted with the important mission of protecting investors in the derivatives market from fraud, manipulation and other abuses. that means farmers and ranchers. it means consumers. it means businesses large and

small. it means a way to create capital so it can be invested in new jobs. and the oversight of this agency is incredibly important. given this responsibility, it's imperative that we select commissioners who have demonstrated not only expertise in global financial markets, but the integrity and the judgment necessary to lead the implementation of reforms contained in the dodd-frank financial reform law. this is a five-member commission, through some changes, folks moving on to other things in their career, we have two members right now, one democrat, one republican, and so we have a responsibility of now filling all five. we have this week -- at some point throughout the week all three of the folks that came out of our committee we'll have in front of us. we have three nominees before us

that i think fit of having expertise and integrity in judgment. the first is republican nominee christopher giancarlo. we have two democratic nominees, tim massett who has been nominated to chair the cftc. and sharon bowen, all approved by the agriculture committee on a voice vote. right now i want to focus on ms. bowen who we'll be voting on in a little bit. within the dodd-frank wall street reforms, individual agencies were directed to establish an office of minority and women inclusion. this action was taken to address the lack of diversity of qualified men and women in federal agencies involved in financial regulation, but also subcontractors, contractors who receive billions of dollars from

the government. the cftc itself should lead by example when it comes to diversity as well as expertise, so i'm especially pleased that president obama selected sharon bowen as a nominee for the commission. she will be the first african-american woman to serve on the cftc and will be the only woman serving at this point in time on the five-member commission. and she has the kper tease and the -- the expertise and the experience to be an excellent commissioner. during her testimony before the agriculture committee, ms. bowen told of her upbringing as the youngest of five children in a small town of saint julian's creek in virginia. during ms. bowen's youth, saint julian's creek was a segregated town and her family had modest means. but these challenges forged her character. ms. bowen developed a knack for

understanding the perspective of people who have a stake in public policy decisions but no voice, and how those decisions are made. this background has served her well throughout her years as an attorney, as a partner in the new york firm of latham and watkins, ms. bowen represented clients in a range of complex financial transactions. so her knowledge of derivatives and global markets is based on real-world experience. she's been select bid one publication as one of america's top black lawyers and chosen as the lawyer of the year by the metropolitan black bar association. recognizing ms. bowen's talents, president obama nominated her to be vice chair, then acting chair of the securities investor protection corporation, a very important nonprofit which helps

protect investors whose brothers have failed them. -- whose pwoebg verse -- whose brokers failed them. ms. bowen was confirmed by the senate at that time unanimously. sharon bowen has worked tirelessly to fulfill what's called cipics mandate, the securities investor protection corporation, helping thousands of small investors faced with the failure of their brokerage firms. during ms. bowen's tenure on the board, sipc returned $24.5 billion to over 9,000 investors. this, by all her accomplishments through the years, it was evident from ms. bowen's testimony on the agriculture committee that she remains grounded via sensibility for how markets are affected far beyond investors. they affect consumers. they affect each of us. they affect farmers, ranchers,

manufacturers and others who create jobs. she recognizes the urgency of protecting these individuals from excessive speculation and manipulation. she told our committee -- quote -- "i understand the importance of being the voice of the underrepresented and small business owners who have not had a seat at the table as i do today." the cftc needs a commissioner of ms. bowen's background and skill set. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting ms. bowen's nomination and to quickly move forward with the nominations of mr. giancarlo and mr. massett who i will i will be speaking about more as their nominations come before us, so they can get to work protecting investors and every american who is vulnerable to abuses in the futures in swaps markets. we need those markets to work to

create capital and also to manage risk for those who are using the markets in order to be able to manage their own risk. and we need a full five-member cftc of competent, qualified people in order to get that done. and that's what we're about doing today with the vote. and then as we move forward this week, hopefully by the end of the week, we will have the full complement of the cftc in place. thank you, mr. president. and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate any quorum call, if one is under way. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today in strong opposition to sharon bowen's nomination to be a commissioner of the commodity futures trading commission. and, frankly, mr. chairman, it amaze me that we're here today discussing basically a possible promotion of ms. bowen. given my experience with her in her current job as acting chair of the security investor protection corporation, sipc, and before that she was vice chair, i can tell you, quite frankly, she does not deserve any promotion, because she has not successfully safeguarded

consumers -- her job, her mission. instead, she's fought to safeguard wall street money from just compensation to the legitimate victims of the allen stanford $7.2 billion ponzi scheme. i've been involved in this stanford issue for quite a while because it affects a lot of folks in louisiana, but it affects a lot of folks in every state of the country as well. these folks, first and foremost, were victims of allen stanford and his completely fraudulent activity, his ponzi scheme, which literally defrauded hardworking americans from $7.2 billion. but, mr. chairman, they were victimized again, quite frankly, by federal agencies that didn't

do their job; first by the s.e.c., which knew about this activity for four years before saying anything publicly, before warning anyone out there, before taking any action; and then by sipc, including sharon bowen at sipc, by refusing to take appropriate action for the victims and, instead, acting like their job, their duty was to safeguard wall street money, not to properly compensate victims under the law. if you read the letters and talk to the stanford victims, as i have many, many times, it just breaks your heart. as charles cook of batton rouge has said, "my family as well as others who have placed their

family savings in brokers' hands, face now face essential ruining because our government appointed regulators did not perform their jobs protecting us. these savings include savings accounts, trusts for chronically ill family members, college funds and pension plans." byron radcliffe, also of pat ton rouge, "congress needs to be aware that the agency created by congress to protect investors is using their fund to defy the federal government for the sake of denying protection to investors they helped defraud. we need your help now more than ever to block this ridiculous effort by sipc. this is criminal." gilbert goss link, also of louisiana, "has it changed our lifestyle? yes, tremendously. not only my wife and i have been deprived of our lifetime savings, but my five children

have worked alongside with us have been unfairly deprived of their inheritance." carolyn smith in baton rouge to the core of the mavment "i cannot believe this. this is killing me and my family." now fraudulent schemes, unfortunately, go on all the time. but, again, mr. chairman, what makes this so, so heartbreaking is the victimization upon victimization. first came the original fraud, then came the s.e.c., and saw this going on and did not act and did not give victims and potential victims any lts for four years, and then after the s.e.c. acted, after the s.e.c. ordered sipc to compensate victims, sipc, sharon bowen

included, in an unprecedent the move refused to follow that maintained by the federal election commission requiring them-to-sue sipc, which is now tied up in court and toins this day. that gets us back to the issue here at hand, ms. bowen. the name of her current employer is supposed to be about investor protection: the securities investor protection corporation, sipc. but she and her colleagues have acted in the direction of wall street protection. the fund is funded by companies who pay into it. they pay their dues to give potential investors peace of mind, and that confidence helps build a vibrant and positive marketplace. make no mistake that those wall street member companies do not want sipc to compensate these

victims because they're worried their dues will increase. well, that's fine for them to have their concern. it's not fine for sharon bowen to make those concerns win out over the law and over the facts, to ignore a mandate from the s.e.c. and to not properly compensate the victims of the stanford scandal. and if congress, after all of this, gives ms. bowen a promotion, condones her actions here today, votes to support her, that will certainly be yet another slap to the face of these victims and an action that will certainly undermine investor confidence and encourage more to follow ms. bowen's career path and the way she ran the security investor protection commission, advancing themselves, advancing member companies rather than her

real victim of following -- her real mission of following the law and properly compensating victims. now, mr. president, this isn't a partisan grudge match. this isn't partisan at all. i'm opposing ms. bowen's confirmation for one simple reason. i think she's proved she's not qualified for the job based on her track record at sipc as well as her performance at her confirmation hearing. let me underscore the way in which this is not partisan at all, because there are many, many folks who have been following this stanford case who are directly involved, who have written senators on both sides of the aisle urging, urging the strongest terms possible opposition to this nomination.

let's just take a letter written by a self-proclaimed and lifelong democrat from ann arbor, michigan, a constituent of senator stabenow. she wrote her. senator stabenow is chair of the agriculture committee. that has significant role in this nomination. quote -- "i've been writing you in the past days regarding the growing opposition of the nomination of sharon bowen to the cftc. i'm writing to stress this is not merely another republican effort to block another obama the senator from tphaoefplt as as -- another obama nominee. as a long long democrat i would not get behind the initiative if that's what it was. simply put, it makes no sense to appoint a regulator who is being sued by another regulator. s.e.c. vs. sipc. in this climate of growing cynicism toward our financial

regulators, can we really afford to put one more fox outside the hen house?" close quote. in a similar way, a constituent of senator nelson of florida wrote senator nelson -- quote -- "we hope you will vote against confirming ms. bowen as a cftc commissioner, as she does not support protecting investors. sharon bowen's loyalty to wall street instead of hardworking people like us has devastated our lives because her actions have resulted in us not being able to recover our savings." close quote. a constituent of senator pryor wrote him in a very similar vein -- quote -- "based on the facts set forth below, i certainly hope you will vote against confirming ms. bowen as a cftc commissioner in order to protect the investors who rely on the cftc's regulatory supervision." close quote. and in a similar way, madoff

victims have also weighed strongly into this matter. they have written their senators urging them to oppose the bowen nomination. as one wrote -- quote -- "sipc chairwoman sharon bowen is neither a qualified or appropriate nominee to the all-important commodities futures trading commission. a sipc board member, sipc chairwoman and attorney representing members of the financial industry, ms. bowen has demonstrated repeatedly that her interest is in protecting wall street's interests." close quote. again, frauds happen all the time. it's always tragic, but they do happen. but what makes this case so tripley tragic is the victims of the original alan stanford fraud were victimized again by failed bureaucracies, by regulators that failed to do their job and

continue to fail to carry out their true mandate of protecting investors. first, the s.e.c. dragged its feet, took way too long to take any action in this matter or to give anyone in the real world notice of what was clearly happening in the stanford case, four years-plus. and then the s.e.c. finally acted and finally agreed that these victims required compensation under the law. they told sipc to set about giving them this compensation, and in a completely, completely unprecedented way -- never before, never since -- sharon bowen, sipc said no, we're not saying -- we're not doing what the s.e.c. has told us to do. we're refusing to do that. they had to be sued by the

s.e.c., and that legal matter is system tangled up in court -- and that legal matter is still tangled up in court with the victims still with no compensation. mr. president, we can't prevent every bad thing from happening in the world, but surely, surely we can ensure that agencies in washington, regulatory bodies do their job, follow their mandate, follow their mission and work for investors, citizens, not be captured by narrow interests; in this case wall street interests. surely we can do that. and that ultimately is what this vote is all about. are we going to do that? or are we going to promote someone who's failed at her current job? are we going to promote someone who's proved in her current job that she doesn't have the right

mind-set, the right understanding of a proinvestor, proconsumer mission to handle that job or any other. mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues, republicans and democrats, nothing partisan about this to, oppose this sharon bowen nomination. the victims of the stanford scandal need some justice. they need to see that someone cares, that someone is fighting on their behalf. the victims of the madoff scandal need exactly the same thing and feel exactly the same way. please oppose this nomination. please vote for those consumers, those americans, those investors. please vote to begin to right the ship and fix the regulatory system. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lift and that i be allowed to speak for up to 12 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, everywhere middle-class americans look, they're facing higher prices. over the past five and a half years of the obama presidency, the price of everything from milk to the refrigerator to put it in has risen. tuition costs have soared. gas prices have almost doubled. food prices have shot up. and then of course there's health care. the president claimed that health care premiums would fall by $2,500 under his health care law. instead they've risen by almost $3,700 during the president's administration, and they're still going up. the president's health care law has driven up the price of almost every aspect of health care from premiums to pacemakers. and, mr. president, americans are ill-equipped to meet these higher costs.

household income has declined by more than $3,500 on the president's watch. nearly ten million americans are unemployed. more than a third of them for six months or longer. 19.4 million americans have been forced to join the food stamp program since the president took office. and our economy is simply not posting the kind of growth we need to open up opportunities for middle-class families. economic growth actually declined -- declined last quarter. and job creation is sluggish, at best. furthermore, the jobs that we are creating are not the kind of jobs americans need to get ahead. 78% of the jobs that were lost during the recession were high or midway jobs. but just 56% of the jobs recovered have been the same. that means, mr. president, that almost half of the jobs that we're creating are low-wage

jobs. not the kind that will get americans to a more secure financial future. mr. president, americans have had a tough time over the past five and a half years. and if the president has his way, it's about to get much, much worse. this week the president's environmental protection agency announced a national energy tax that will drive up americans' energy bills and destroy jobs while essentially doing nothing for the environment. mr. president, coal is responsible for approximately 40% of our country's energy production. and it is a significant part of the economies of several states. currently there are nearly 560 coal-fired power plants in the united states. but if the administration's new greenhouse gas regulations go into effect, the majority of them will close and no new plants will be built. and that means energy companies are going to have to scramble

for new sources of energy. with utilities faced with fewer and more expensive sources of energy, electricity rates will soar to unprecedented levels. and that will lead millions of americans struggling to afford their energy bills. mr. president, what the administration has proposed this week is nothing short -- make no mistake about it -- is nothing short of a national energy tax, and it will hit low-income families and seniors who live on fixed incomes and already devote a large share of their income to electricity bills, the hardest. in my home state of south dakota, low-income families already spent almost a quarter of their income on energy bills. there's no way that they can afford to spend hundreds more to pay for president obama's national energy tax. that is, of course, if they can even get electricity. the polar vortex that covers large portions of the united

states with extreme cold and snow this past winter pushed the electricity grid to its limits. the chairman of the federal energy regulatory commission described the grid as -- and i quote -- "close to the edge." end quote. with coal-fired power plants running at 90% capacity to keep houses warm during an historically cold winter. mr. president, these are the very plants that are being targeted by this administration. closing these power plants which provide affordable power throughout the year will severely jeopardize our ability to produce reliable electricity and heat during times of peak power demand. this will be particularly dangerous in winter months when an overstressed grid could leave thousands and thousands of americans without a source of heat for their homes. mr. president, driving up energy bills and compromising the energy grid would be sufficient reason to reject the president's new carbon dioxide regulations,

but that is not all that these regulations will do. the president's new regulations will also destroy tens of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs , firs first, of course, there e the thousands of americans who will lose their jobs when the coal-fired plants that they work for close their doors. then there are the manufacturing jobs that will be lost if these regulations go into effect. u.s. manufacturing is currently enjoying a renaissance, thanks to the abundant, affordable energy that the united states offers. manufacturers are actually moving production from overseas to the united states, investing billions of dollars in our economy in the process. but if we drive up the cost of energy here at home, manufacturers will no longer have the same incentive to locate jobs here in america. instead, manufacturers will send jobs overseas. mr. president, given the terrible cost of these

regulations, one would assume that the payoff would be huge, a drastic reduction in global carbon dioxide concentration levels. but the truth is, the president is proposing to devastate american families and destroy our economy for nothing. because, mr. president, the president's proposals would have essentially no impact, no impact, on concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. even the president's own former e.p.a. administrator admitted that, and i quote, "u.s. action alone will not impact world c co2 levels." as long as the united states is acting unilaterally, global emissions will not be reduced in any meaningful way. the president's proposals could actually drive up emissions in other countries, as manufacturers send jobs from the united states to some of the

world's top polluters, like india and china. manufacturers in the united states are already reducing emissions. u.s. manufacturing and other industrial carbon dioxide emissions are down 13% since 2005. in the meantime, however, china's co2 emissions have grown by 69%, while india's have grown by 53%. mr. president, after five and a half years in the obama economy, americans are struggling, struggling to pay for health care, college tuition, for food, and for gas, and they're wondering where the promised recovery is. and how long they're going to have to live paycheck to paycheck, flag the praying thatn avoid unexpected bills. too many of them are wondering if they'll ever be able to find a job to replaits one they lost. others are wondering if they'll

ever find the better-paying job that they've been waiting for. now the president is prepared to hike electricity prices for everyone of these americans -- every one of these americans. worst, he's prepared to eliminate thousands of their jobs. and for what? for a significant reduction in global carbon dioxide concentration levels? no. he's prepared to damage their budgets and destroy their jobs just so he can appear to be doing something about global warming. he's willing to overlook the economic havoc these regulations will create as long as his extreme environmental base isen co tent. mr. president, news reports have suggested that the president has backed these new carbon regulations because he believes they will be an impressive assistinaddition to his legacy. a record of lost jobs and struggling families is not the kind of legacy the president would want to leave. i hope in the coming days we'll hear from the president's party

on this issue, and i challenge my democrat colleagues in the united states senate to stand up and to tell the american people where they stand. do they stand with american jobs and american familieses or do they stand with their party's environmental fringe? mr. president, the american people deserve to know. their jobs, their standard of living, their future hangs in the balance. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is h closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, keith m. harper of maryland for the rank ambassador as united states representative to the u.n. human rights council. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided and controlled in the ususual form.

who yields time? if no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides. mr. king: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to address the senate for approximately ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: mr. president, i believe in markets and i believe in transparency, and that's what i want to talk about today. i think that markets generally are the best allocators of goods and services, but in order for markets to work, people who purchase -- consumers -- need information, and i want to address one small piece of a very partne important market to.

i have had an opportunity to look at not only the current budget but projections of future budgets. i think it is important to emphasize that virtually all the growth, all the growth in future federal budgets is attributable to health care. all the growth. it is not pell grants. it is not national parks. it is not national defense. it is not the national security administration. it's -- it is all in health care. and there are several ways that we can control those costs. one way, which has been suggested, is to simply shift those costs off to other people, to the states, to elderly, to other citizens and say, it's not the federal government's problem; it's someone else's problem. i would suggest, mr. president, thea's that that's not the answer. we need to be focused on the issue of health care costs generally, for everyone -- for the federal government as a

consumer, as it is in medicare and medicaid; but also for all of us as health care consumers across the country. so the standard response around here to growing health care costs is to cut programs, cut recipients, reduce payments to states or reduce payments to providers. that does nothing about the fundamental issue. i can tell you that none of these steps has anything to do with r reducing the demand for services or the cost of those phservices. we have to spend the money that we have more responsibly. now, there have been discussions recently about repealing the medical device tax, which was passed as part of the affordable care act and the theory was that the affordable care act would produce, as it has, millions of new customers both for the private insurance industry but also for all of those who participate in the health care system, including those who

manufacture medical devices. the affordable care act has produced new customers, and the theory is as i understand it -- i wasn't here when the bill was originally passed. but the theory was the industry, the businesses that will profit by the production of new customers through new people gaining insurance who've never had it before was that part of that would be paid back to support the overall system. that was the idea of the tax on medical devices. now, i realize that it is a controversial tax and that strong arguments can be made that it should be modified or reduced. but the repeal of the medical device tax would cost the government $29 billion over the next ten years. that's money, as we all know, that had a t has to be replaced somewhere else. so i think that's a

consideration that has to be taken into account as we discuss this matter, which is under consideration as part of the tax extenders package. but as i looked into this issue and thought about the medical device industry, i was surprised to find that it's very difficult to find out the price of an implantable medical device. one of the vns tha reasons is te hospitals, who are the purchasers of these devices, are often prevented by agreements by the medical device company from revealing the price that they pavement in other wordspay. there's no transparency about the price of these devices. imagine for a moment that you were going in to buy a new car. there were no advertising about the prices of the cars. you couldn't go on the internet and determine the prices of the cars. you couldn't compare the prizes from one dealer to the other. but you go in and somebody behind a closed door says, ork

the surprise $20,200 but you're not allowed to tell anybody the price you paid and you have to sign an agreement that you will keep that price screvment imaginsecret.imagine that systee what would happen to the price of cars. i don't think it is gross speculation to assume that the prices would go up because there is no transparency. so i've submitted an amendment to the tax extenders package -- it is amendment 3802 to h.r. 3474, which is the tax extenders bill that's pending -- that simply says, when a medical device is being sold, the -- they cannot -- the manufacturer cannot impose a secrecy provision on the hospitals that purchase these devices and also have to report median prices to the secretary of health and human services on a regular basis. in 2012, the g.a.o. did a report

on medicare and one of the pieces of the report was entitled "lack of price transparency may hamper hospital'hospital'shospital's a" the expliewtion contained in the title. "may hamper hospital's ability to be prudent purchasers." if hospital can't be prudent purchasers, we who are paying the bills quite often through medicare and medicaid are not able to get the best prices. who pays? all of us pay. this amendment would prohibit medical device manufacturers from acquiring hospitals and buyers to sign purchasing agreements that contain confidentiality clauses, that would restrict them from revealing the prices paz paid paid for medical devices to third parties. in addition, as i mentioned, the

amendment would require these manufacturers to submit the average and median sales prices of covered devices to the secretary of health and human senioservices on a quarterly ba. in the 20 0r7bgs my good friend, senator grassley from iowa, sponsored a bipartisan bill to create a process of reporting this kind of price data to h.h.s. and i believe it is time to do just that. to the extent that the prices of implantable medical devices which are very expensive generally are not disclosed, the ability of hospitals to bring price information to bear in negotiations and decisions is clearly limited. so i believe that if we're going it talk about repealing the medical device tax, we should also talk about calling upon the industry to provide to consumers and policy-makers greater transparency in order to better control cost. in a world of limited resources,

we have to spend the money we have most wisely. it is very difficult to spend money wisely if prices and comparative prices and prices to your various components of the health systemly september secret. this is a simple amendment of it is simply based upon the fundamental idea that markets work but they only work when consumers -- in this case, hospitals -- have the information necessary to make good purchasing decisions. i think markets, as i said at the beginning, are the best way to aakilo indicate goods and services but that information is necessary for markets to work and that's the purpose of this amendment of mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum.

i withdraw my suggestion of the absence of a quorum. i ask unanimous consent that all time dwee between now and 12:00e equally divided. and that a -- and that we should -- the time between the quorum call should be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i would ask the quorum call be

vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this morning just before the noon hour to talk about our children, a topic which doesn't get nearly enough attention here in washington. i will try to focus just on one issue today, but both parties in this -- in this body and in the other body indicate on a pretty frequent basis that they are in favor of supporting strategies to protect our children and help our children, but not enough attention is paid to what that strategy should be and what the elements of it should be. i believe it should at least have four major component parts. one is to make sure the children have every opportunity for more early learning. in addition to that, we need to make sure that more children are covered by health insurance and that they get quality health

care. we made a lot of strides in that the last couple of decades, but we still have a ways to go on that. we need to make sure that children are protected, an issue that i will speak about today in particular, and obviously we want to put in place better strategies to make sure that children have enough to eat and are eating food that is nutritious. and so today i will focus on the question of protection. we know that in the last -- i should say as we head into the last couple of days of the school year, children are starting to look forward to -- to summer activities like camp and other summer sports and other activities. that's the good news. the bad news is that that can create opportunities for people that would do them harm. it's important i think to reiterate the responsibility that adults have in -- generally

but in particular at this time of the year, that adults have an abiding responsibility to protect children from harm and to speak up literally, to speak up when they suspect that a child is a victim of abuse or neglect. we know that many cases of abuse and neglect go unreported, sometimes for years, sometimes even until a child has died or suffered either other terrible consequences as a result of years of neglect or abuse. for example, in -- in the year 2012, in pennsylvania, 3,565 substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect and across the nation 678,047 children were victims of abuse and neglect in the country as a whole. i think it's important to point out, though, the number that i

read for pennsylvania, 3,565 substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect. that means two things. it was reported, and we know that the overwhelming number don't get reported. so even among the category of those that were reported, they had to be substantiateed reports of abuse and neglect. i believe that the number -- if you had just a broad category of children in our state and true of a lot of other states as well that are the victims of abuse and neglect, it would far, far exceed 3,565 cases. but that number alone is horrific and should cause us to do a lot more than we're doing right now, not just in pennsylvania but around the country. we saw in pennsylvania a horrific example. many people read the news about penn state over the last couple

of years. in that case, children being abused by an individual they are supposed to be able to trust, an authority figure, and other authority figures did little about it to report it. there is a significant variation, we know, across the country in the types of -- or categories of adults who are required by law to report suspected or known child abuse and neglect. not all states require, for example, camp counselors to be so-called mandated reporters, mandated reporters under the law, meaning an adult that has a legal duty by statute to report on child abuse or suspected child abuse. some states have a long list of categories. some states have shorter lists. we know that not all states require camp counselors or even coaches to report instances.

so we need to do something about that, and that's why i have introduced legislation to directly address it. the speak up to protect every abused kid act, which is more simply known as the speak up act. this act would require all states to pass and enforce a law requiring adults with a professional responsibility to children to report instances of known or suspected child abuse in order for states to receive funding through the child abuse prevention and treatment act, so-called capta legislation, the federal statute that focuses on child abuse, neglect, prevention and response. so if you're going to have the benefit of those federal dollars, you have got to do more to protect children. that's what we're saying to states. the legislation will close a loophole that allows abusers to get away with heinous crimes and emphasize the responsibility of

all adults to protect children from abuse and neglect. states have a wide variety of standards, as i mentioned, for who they designate as so-called mandated reporters. some states require all medical professionals to be mandated reporters. others only specify certain types of health care providers. under the speak-up act states would have to require all of these adults to be mandated reporters or forfeit their federal funding under the so-called captaina act, child abuse and prevention act. the speak-up hacts requires these mandated reporters give their reports directly to state authorities responsible for investigating child abuse and neglect. in some states, in pennsylvania i'm happy to report, there is a unified system of reporting which is called the child line

that accepts all reports. in this case, in pennsylvania you can call an 800 number and you could report child abuse and neglect. i have asked myself and i'm not sure we'll ever get the answer to this, but what if, what if not only in a random set of cases but what if in the case of penn state if one adult or more than one adult had called an 800 number early in -- early in the case history, even with a suspicion, a suspicion, grounded in fact, but a suspicion or direct evidence of child abuse. what if they had called that number. could children have been protected, could child abuse have been prevented? i don't know the answer to that. but i think if more people use that kind of a method, they

might be able to prevent a lot more cases of abuse. so other states may require reporting to law enforcement or so-called child protective agencies. finally, the act itself, the speak-up act closes a loophole in existing law that can leave children in danger because their abuser is from another state or because the child was visiting another state when he or she was abused. in the summer this becomes especially relevant when children may be attending camps where they're not just going back and forth from the camp, it's a camp where they stay overnight, night after night, or other programs that they might have access to or be enrolled in i should say in another state. under the speak-up act, we make it clear that the state or the -- where the incident occurred, the state where the incident occurred has the obligation to investigate the incident and other states must help out if necessary.

so that gives a further protection to children that's not on the law today. the legislation, the speak-up act will provide as well standard reporting requirements across all states. while still allowing states to go beyond what is required if they seek to do that. i don't know why we don't have this in law already. why should we have a variety of measures in place to protect children? we should standardize that. every state should meet a certain minimum standard when it comes to protecting children. if states wants to add people to their mandated reporter list, require more adults or more categories of adults to be listed, they can do that but there should be a standard reporting requirement across the country. so as we combine the summer -- begin the summer, i would urge adults who work with children to remember their responsibility to speak up, to speak up and to act to protect children, to

make sure they know how to report abuse and neglect if necessary. so if you're -- if you're in that category of mandated reporters already, you obviously not only have a legal duty to report but i think have you a responsibility to find out, find out today how you report, what method will you employ, what resource will you access to report instances of child abuse or suspected child abuse. but even if you're not sure that you're in that category of mandated reporter, if you're an adult and you have an obligation or your job entails working with children, i believe you have an obligation to find out not only whether you're a mandated reporter but how you can report suspected cases of abuse and neglect. if you're an adult that may not be legally required, it doesn't, of course, foreclose the possibility that you

could -- you could and should report instances of abuse and neglect, even if you don't have a legal duty. i believe every adult has some kind of duty, maybe not in law, but certainly a duty as a citizen and as an adult to be vigilant, to keep your eyes open, to focus your attention on protecting children. we all have i think an an abiding obligation. so this is a time of the year when children have -- have a lot of time away from school and they have a lot of enjoyment of the summer. we should make sure we're being very vigilant, though, at this time of the year to speak up and to protect our children. mr. president, with that i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i would first ask for suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: secondly, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by the majority and minority majority and and i would ask i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i want to take a moment, my colleague from louisiana was down here a while ago referring to one of the nominees that we will have coming up for a cloture vote in a moment to the commodities futures trading commission which is so significant and i want to correct the record on a few things for my colleagues. and first of all, remind

everyone that ms. bowen, who will be the nominee in front of us, was unanimously, unanimously confirmed by the senate to be director of the securities investment protection corporation where she has honorably served after 25 years of representing clients in complex financial transactions, being a partner of a major international firm. the issue that has been raised on the floor relates to a decision that was made unanimously by the board that she chairs that relates to a particular case where there is no question that there were citizens who were ripped off, were ripped off in a ponzi scheme. that stanford ponzi steam, in fact. the question that came before

this board that covers certain kinds of losses is whether or not what happened is something that could be covered under this particular entity, the securities investor protection corporation. based on legal advice and outside counsel and review, the board unanimously looked at this and said that, unfortunately, due to the law, which was written by congress, that this particular board could not cover the fraud victims in this particular case. this subsequently went to the federal district court, the district of columbia which concluded the current law does not authorize them to cover these particular fraud victims. this has now gone on to the court of appeals.

cpic and ms. bowen has indicated if the court of appeals rules in favor of the victims they are more than happy to include them and to reimburse them for this terrible situation that they all found themselves in. this is a legal question of whether or not this particular fund is allowed to reimburse these particular victims of fraud. there have been over 9,000, i believe it is, victims that have been reimbursed through this fund in a lot of different situations, but it's a legal question. and the way this has been interpreted by our colleague from louisiana is somehow that this is something personal that ms. bowen is involved in, to try to stop these people, these victims from being able to be reimbursed and made whole. which is just absolutely false.

again, this is an issue in the court. if the court rules in favor of those who were victims of this ponzi scheme, then the group -- the agency, the securities investor protection corporation has indicated they will move forward and include them under the scope of their responsibility and reimburse them. certainly what happened to people in this situation is terrible, and i understand their concerns and wanting to find a way to be able to be made whole. but this is a legal question that was unanimously decided by a board of directors of which ms. bowen is now the chair, but

unanimously decided by everyone on the board. it was represented by outside counsel -- recommended by outside counsel, it was also something held up by the federal district court, is now in the court of appeals. if the court of appeals changes and reverses the lower court, then they will act accordingly. mr. chairman, what we should not have is a situation where a very qualified member, a nominee for this very important oversight agency of the futures industry would be held responsible or somehow be caught up in the politics of all of this. i appreciate the legitimate concerns, but to lay those at the feet of this woman at this point is just simply not fair. again, she was on her qualification, unanimously confirmed by this senate once

already, and i would urge colleagues to join together to support moving forward on this nomination with the cloture vote and ultimately support her. she has strong support from throughout the country and is known for standing up for victims, and i think will play a very important role and have a very important voice going forward with the commodities futures trading commission. i would yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, what the presiding officer: the time until noon is equally divided on the harper nomination. mr. leahy: is that time expired? the presiding officer: the hour of 12:00 noon having arrived, all postcloture time is expired. and the question is on the harper nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the lions are ordered. the clerk will call the roll.