much as we all love our parents. but because of student debt, because of high interest rates of student debt, people are forced to do that. so, mr. president, again, i want to thank all my colleagues that have joined in our fair shot efforts, our fair shot effort on page, fair shot effort on pay equity, our fair shot effort on college affordability. and we will continue to fight as hard as we can to see that the average middle-class family is finally given a fair shot. we hope, we hope, we pray our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not stand in the way. and with that, i know my colleague from minnesota who has been a great leader on this, and very few in america let alone in this senate have such an understanding of the needs of the average families and the middle class than the senator from arizona. so i'm happy to yield the floor so she may say a few of what i'm sure will be very prescient

words. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i appreciate the words of the senator from new york and also his keen focus on these issues for the middle class, giving everyone a fair shot. i rise today to talk about the problems of student debt in this country and the effect that it has on millions of americans. and i think we all know that it's not just students as much as that is the first that i think that we think about is students. it is also their parents. those are the ones i hear from a lot and how hard it is and how they have that next kid coming. and while they were able maybe to put together and patch together loans and some income to help one kid go through college, the second one comes along and it is incredibly difficult. and they literally have a sophie's choice about which kid are they going to send to college or what are they going to do with the third kid. and it shouldn't be happening in america today. i want to thank senators

blumenthal and baldwin for bringing us together on the floor, as well as senators harkin, warren, and durbin for their leadership on this issue. in the united states, we appreciate the value of education. we know it leads to higher-paying jobs, better health and even longer lives. i know the value of education. my grandpa worked 1,500 feet under ground in the mines in arizona. he wasn't able to go to high school because when his parents dyed the two oldest boys had to work this the mines. they were only 15 years old. they were taoeubl keep the entire family together. the youngest girl had to go to orphanage in duluth for awhile and they were able to bring her back because those two oldest boys never got to graduate from high school, never got to go to college, worked in the mines for the rest of their lives at a dangerous time in our country when a siren would go off and

they wouldn't know whose family had been lived. that is what my grandpa did. he wanted a better life for my dad. he literally saved money in a coffee can so he could make a better life for my dad. my dad became a newspaper reporter. my mom during the same period growing up during the depression, ended up going to milwaukee's teachers college and came to minnesota and was a teacher. here i'm standing here today on the united states senate floor, the daughter of a teacher and the daughter of a newspaperman and the granddaughter of an iron ore miner and it wouldn't have happened without education, it wouldn't have happened without my mom stprug tkpwelg to make sure -- struggling she went to college and my dad saving money in a coffee can after working in the mine and never being able to go to school himself. that is what i know about education. and the story we hear again and

again from people in this country. higher education provides students with the skills they need to be competitive in today's global economy. at a time when more and more jobs require some form of postsecondary school, we can't allow costs to be a barrier to that opportunity. we can't allow only the wealthy to be able to send their kids to college. it is really that simple. this country was built on the middle class. this country was built on this idea that no matter where you come from, if you're in a little iron ore mining town in northern minnesota, that there is a chance that your kid could go to college. my dad didn't start out at some fancy college. my dad went to a community college which is now vermillion community college which was in ally junior college and got twhaoeus-year degree -- got his two-y degree. then he went to college and send his laundry to my grandma and she would do his laundry and

send it back. he went on to become a journalist and interview everyone from ginger rogers to mike did it -- mike ditka to ronald reagan all starting out in that hard scrabble mining yard. that is what education is about in this country. outstanding student loans now are not like something you can fit in a coffee can. outstanding student loans now total more than $1 trillion, affecting 40 million americans. one in seven borrowers default on federal student loans within three years of beginning repayment. other borrowers are struggling through 30% of federal student loan dollars are in deferment. it costs a lot of money. if there aren't high-paying jobs when kids come out of school or maybe they're in a job where they'll eventually get money, they'll have trouble paying off

their loans. student loan debt impacts everyone, not just students. it hangs around the neck of students like an anchor. graduates with high debt may delay key investments like saving for retirement or getting married or buying a home. student debt may impact a person's career choices by deferring some graduates, deterring them from taking jobs in crucial fields like education. according to a report i released as chair of the joint economic committee on the senate side, minnesota actually has one of the highest rates of student debt in the country, 70% of the recent graduates in minnesota have loan debt compared to 68% nationally. so it means a lot in our state. the good news is that -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. klobuchar: if i could have another 30 seconds? there are actions we can take and last summer we acted to prevent the interest rates from doubling. we've also introduced the bank

on student emergency loan financing act. and i urge the senate to consider this very important bill so more students can manage the debt and build a better future for themselves and their family. i'm proud to support this bill. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would request unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we need to rethink financial aid in this country, and we need urgent action if we are to reform our system to return to the roots, the ideals that made college affordable for generations past and hopefully for this generation and generations to come. back in the 1970's and 1980's, when several members of today's united states senate were

college students, the pell grant, which is the cornerstone of our federal student aid programs, covered as much as 72% of the cost of attendance at a four-year college. 72%. for the 2014-2015 academic year the maximum grant is expected to cover less than one-third of the cost. investing in things like pell grants is critical to ensuring the doors to higher education remain open to all students with the talent and desire to pursue a college degree. young people today deserve the same fair shake that members of this body got when we were undergraduate students, when there was an 80% roughly grant available, not lending and borrowing up to 80% of your tuition. now i was fortunate enough at 17 to join the army and attend west point, so i didn't have to face the rigors of financing college education.

but everyone i know in my generation will tell you it was easier then because it was a strong federal commitment to supporting men and women of talent and desire to go on to college. every rising costs today are just pricing out a whole generation from college education. we see more and more hardworking young people and their families falling behind as they try to pay for the degrees that were supposed to help them get ahead. in fact, an analysis of student loan debt predicts today over $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt will lead to a total lifetime wealth loss of $4 billion. their earning potential, their ability to move forward limits their ability to earn. and so it's a much deeper hole than even the initial debt. student loan debt is jeopardized

in the next generation's ability to buy a home, start a business, to start a family, to do things that my generations have took for granted after getting out of college. for the last 30 years tuition increases outpaced inflation. outstanding student loan debt quadrupled since 2003. it is time f -- it is time now for action. time now. first we must provide relief for borrowers who are currently repaying their loans. we must ensure that student loan services are held accountable for providing borrowers with accurate and clear information and the full range of borrower benefits that they're due. that is why i was pleased to join senator durbin in introducing the student loan borrower bill of rights 689 even more important -- bill of rights. even more important to borrowers' bottom line is to reduce their overall payments and debt burden. we should allow borrowers with high fixed-rate loans to refinance to the lowest rates approved on a bipartisan basis under the bipartisan student

loan certainty act that became law last year. that is the premise of senator warren's bank on students emergency student loan refinancing act that i'm also very proud to cosponsor. i hope that my colleagues will let us vote on this proposal so that we can provide relief to millions of americans struggling under the weight of student de debt. now, we also have to demand more responsibility from colleges and universities. while student loan debt skyrockets, we're also seeing college executive salaries climb even higher. clearly, institutions need to have more skin in the game when it comes to student loans and that is why i introduced, along with many colleagues, the protect student borrowers act. specifically, with senator durbin and senator warren. the protect student borrowers act will hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan defaults by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. as the percentage of students who default rises, the

institution's risk share payment will rise. essentially, they will now have a interest, a real interest, in ensuring that their students take out appropriate loans, that they have course work that leads to remumerative employment after they grad wait. graduate. and frankly, it's a spotty record. some are very good. some are indifferent. some are very bad. the protect student borrowers act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debts and reduce default rates. institutions can reduce or eliminate the repayments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan. again, if they talk to their students, it they advise them what to do, if they help them manage this debt. the risk share payments will be invested helping struggling borrowers, preventing future fault and delinquency and reducing shortfalls in the pell grant program. so this money will stay in the system to help other students.

with the steak stakes for studed taxpayers, it's only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program. and i would argue the basic premise that they will do a lot better as custodians and managers and advisors to students when they have money at risk. right now it's the student and the family that bears it all, and the government, if default. is and as and as a result, you e the active participation at the institutional level that could make a real difference. in many respects, this is a less an thaless -- lesson that we led at very expensive cost during the financial crisis in the mortgage markets, where mortgage makers had no interest in who was borrowing their money, they couldn't care if they could pay it back because the minute the papers were signed, they sold it off to the secondary market, they walked away to the next closing. we can't have that attitude pervasive in higher education.

we know that there are many forces that are driving increases in costs at higher education. one of the costs is, frankly, the falloff on state contributions to public education. it's reached it's lowest point in 25 years in 2011. i've introduced the partnership for affordability for students success act to reinvigorate the federal-state partnership in higher education with an emphasis on need-based financial aid. back in the 1960's and 1970's, 80% of the financing was a grant. didn't have to pay it back. you had a chance to get an education and start off without a lot of debt. simply put, i believe the states have to begin and renew their reinvestment in college education at the college level for public colleges. so i urge the senate to come together with a sense of real urgency at finding solutions to all these issues and to move forward and give this generation and the next generation the same

opportunity that many of us here took for granted in the 1960's and the 1970's and the 1980's. and with that, mr. president, i would yield back my time and the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from rhode island, who has been such a champion and a leader in these efforts over so many years, well before i came to the united states senate. he was there working and fighting for more affordable loans to our students. the comments that have been heard on the senate floor over the past hour reflect a growing awareness and worry in the country, a worry about what

happens to america in the future, whether we will leave a lesser america and whether the american dream will be not only deferred but denied to so many students who are wondering and worrying right now about their personal futures as well as the future of the country. these comments and this conversation will be extended over this day and the days to come as we prepare for a crucial vote this week on this bill. one of the chief authors of this bill, senator warren, is to be thanked and commended and she will be here on the floor later today or tomorrow to speak for herself, but she has shown through her career how often

people who most need this kind of help, whose finances most cry out for this assistance are impacted and, in fact, constrained in their futures by the big banks and lending institutions that take advantage of them. and in this case, even the united states government itself that is profiting off their backs. billions of dollars in profit at the expense of our students when we should be investing in them. we have an obligation and a historic opportunity to make things right for young people and older people whose present lives are impacted and whose futures are constrained by the

daunting and financially crippling overhang of debt. it's an overhang that impacts our economy because it prevents the entrepreneurs from taking risks. it prevents young people from buying homes and starting families. it financially cripples our economy as well as those individual lives. and so enlightened self-interest ought to argue for all of us to support this legislation. for myself, i'm going to be listening to those students who discussed their futures with me. at ens novembesonia high schoole commencements where i spoke and the college students who spoke to me at quinnipiac or the law school students there who talked to me about how their present lives and their spirit, their

hope for public service as well as for gaining for themselves the promise of their futures will be impacted and maybe put out of reach by the debt that they have. not just hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars but tens of thousands of dollars and for some, hundreds of thousands of dollars. we can do better for them and for ourselves if we enable them to refinance. right now student debt is not only one of the few debts that is nondischargable in bankruptcy but it's one of the few debts that is nonrefinancable. and let's treat these students as we would other debtors. in fact, let's give them a fair shot. let's give our country a fair shot. i'm proud to support this legislation and i want to thank all of my colleagues who are here today and all who will support it, i hope on both sides

of the aisle, in this vote that we will have later this week. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i

rise for a moment to talk about sylvia burwell, her nomination pending confirmation to be secretary of labor-h.h.s. and also to talk about the affordable care act, because you can't separate the two. i have the good fortune of being on the health, education, labor and pension committee and the finance committee. the good fortune of that allowed me to twice be able to interrogate -- and i use the word "interrogate" understanding its definition -- miss burwell over issues that were important to me both in the health, education, labor and pension committee as well as on the finance committee. i found her to be articulate, forthright, straightforward and candid. something we really haven't had from the secretary of labor-h.h.s. for the last year or so and so i'm looking forward to having somebody in there that's going to be able to answer the hard questions. i might not like the answer, i might not agree with the solutions but i like having somebody who has the intellect and the capability and the willingness to be communicating with the members of congress, regardless of their party. so i will vote for sylvia burwell to be confirmed as

secretary of labor-h.h.s. and i wish her the best. no one should confuse that vote, however, for being a vote in support of the affordable care act or what it's doing to health care in the united states today. and i want to talk about that for a second. some of these things i'm going to talk about are questions i asked miss burwell in the confirmation hearing. you know, when i was on the health, education, labor and pension committee and we did the markup in terms of the health care bill, we met for 69 1/2 hours. i heard every debate on every amendment, i heard every debate on every philosophy, i heard every proposal that was made and it game quite clear to me that the premise of that legislation, based on the president's recommendation, was diametrically opposed to my personally philosophy in terms of where government's role should be. i think the president wanted to and it's been said by the leader, harry reid recently, that he thought a single-payer health care service the right way to go. i think the affordable care act is designed to drive america to a single-payer health care system. for me, i'd vary a competitive private-sector system that's on

a playing field that the government makes sure is fair and level but that the winners and losers become those who compete the best in terms of quality and service. in fact, the intent of the obamacare act and the affordable care act has directed a lot of things to happen. three of them are not good. premiums have gone up, the costs to the consumer have gone up, principally because of taxes levied on the insurance industry. that's number one. access has been more limited and more restricted based on the bronze plan, the silver plan and the gold plan and the differences between the exchanges. and, third and foremost, there's a great uncertainty in america about what happens next, where health care is going because the president has selectively given waivers and put off the impact of certain provisions of the law while lifting up and actually repealing with the suture of his own signature and his own pen provisions that were in the law. so there's a lot of uncertainty there. two things i want to focus on from the cost stand pointed. one of them -- cost stand pointed. one of them is called the hit tax, the health insurance tax,

which went into effect this year. this year, $8 billion in taxes were levied against small and medium-sized group providers in exchanges for health care. it's an arbitrary number that was used to pay for a pay-for for the affordable care act and it's the success of the market share of the cms. the. the united states government is taxing health insurance providers based on their market share of health insurance and adding that cost, where? to the premium that's paid by the consumer. it's been estimated that the premium cost is going to go up about $512 a year for the average consumer just in order for the moderate -- the small and medium-size group provider to pay the fine or pay their share of the tax of $8 billion. that $8 billion in 2014, in 2019 goes to $14.3 billion and will go up add infinitum, which means costs will continue to climb. access has been restricted because a lot of people aren't playing in the system. a lot of specialty hospitals

have chosen not to join the plans. specialty care to children and adults is not available. available. the other problem we've had is with navigators, it fundamentally underscores my belief in the private sector. for years i ran a business, it was a business where we employed some employees but mostly had independent contractors. we provided group medical benefits for our employees but only access to salesmen who would sell group health plans for independent contractors. they got a commission when they solded plan, when they provided the services and the employee or the independent contractor in my company decided to buy. well, what we did in the affordable care act on what the affordable care act did and those who voted for it did, it basically did away with all the salesmen in the country who were selling to individuals and small businesses. why? because it had a medical loss ratio maximum of 80% or 85%, meaning your medical costs had to be 80% to 85% of the premium, administrative costs could only

be 15% to 20% and it counted the commission for selling the product as an administrative cost, which he meant the commissions weren't available to be paid. so what happened? all the people in sales in terms of medical group insurance got out of the business and went to selling something else. what happened because of that is the navigators came about. we ended up hiring a bunch of unqualified, unknowledgeable, limited talent people as navigators to offer to try and sell insurance under the new exchanges created by the obamacare act. and what happened is sales of those policies were not very robust. in fact, it was very difficult for the president to get his minimum goal of seven million people being covered. why? because the navigators weren't salesmen, number one. number two, they weren't as well educated as they should have been, and number three, the states did not really embrace it. so that's the private sector solution that had been used for years and years and years in our country, and that is independent agents making sales of independent insurance products to the independent contractors that's now gone away. they have got to go find an employee who is a navigator who has no incentive because they are on a salary and not a

commission to drive the plan or to sell the plan. they merely are there to collect their paycheck and offer information if, in fact, somebody can find them. so my point is this -- ms. burwell is taking on a serious challenge in terms of labor-h.h.s. the affordable care act presents tremendous problems in terms of access, in terms of costs and in terms of quality of health care for the american people that will only get greater as the years go by. we're going to take somebody of her competence and her candid nature to help us join together to see to it that what has become a major problem that looms for our country, and that is the affordable care act, is revisited to look at a new way to go back to the private sector, go back to competition, go back to a level playing field and out of the business of selective taxation, less access, more costs and more bureaucracy. that's what we have with the affordable care act right now. that's what's untenable. i wish ms. burwell the best. i intend to be very aggressive and active in my work on the health, education and labor and pension committee and the finance committee to try to get to the bottom of some of the

questions that have gone unanswered from the department. i wish her the best, and i hope i get the answers to those questions when she is confirmed as the new secretary of h.h.s. and i yield the rest of my time. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: let me first congratulate my colleague, senator isakson, for doing a good job of summarizing exactly where we are with the affordable care act, the problems that we are experiencing, the complexity, the hope that the new secretary will be responsive, as you so ultimately pointed out when you questioned her when she came before the committee. i thank you for making an excellent speech, making excellent points, and i will endeavor to do the same and that we're talking about the same subject. mr. president, my remarks are

once again on the affordable care act. now, i know we have other issues. many important issues. the veterans' affairs, the release of difficulties and the change. but it is equally important that we continue to shed light on the many failings of this law. it was back during the debate, the very first debate on the affordable care act, i distinctly remember comparing this rush to government health care akin to riding hell for leather into a box canyon, only to find the alternative would be to turn around and ride back out and get on a more realistic market-oriented health reform trail. i put it another way. i said there was a lot of cactus

out there. we didn't have to sit on every one of them. we never even saw the bill before we voted on it. i think everybody understands that. i voted no. so did every republican senator. so did every member of congress. this was not a bipartisan effort. i regret to say to my colleagues that i told you so and here we are in a box canyon, and until the administration provides us more details to the contrary, we have to assume that more americans are losing the care they liked through cancellation notices than they have enrolled in the exchanges. they are in a box canyon. it is now estimated that obamacare will cost the nation nearly $2 trillion and has created higher premiums, higher taxes, less choice and confusion and delays and problems after problems. unfortunately, the president and his allies in the congress continue to protect this law

despite its toll on our economy and our patients and our providers. the president promised, as we all remember, we'll lower premiums for a typical family by $2,500 per year. well, valerie from wichita, kansas, just sent me a letter and she wanted to share her story on this promise, and she writes -- "i wanted to let you know that i had to drop my company health insurance due to the affordable care act." my premium before the act was $250 a month, and my employer paid $100 a month toward this premium. my insurance here expired april 1, and the new year is under the a.c.a. health insurance. the new plan is now much higher at $565 a month, and my employer can only afford to pitch in $150 a month. bottom line, i had to drop my

plan due to unaffordability. i could not pay the $415 a month. well, the president also promised, highly publicized, if you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period, and if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. this law has significantly disrupted the individual health insurance market by imposing mandates and causing at least five million americans to lose the insurance they had or have. doug also from wichita wrote to share his personal story on this one. he says i'm a small business owner who just got my family's health insurance canceled. i talked it through with the insurance company. at a minimum, i will be paying 63% more per month for coverage that has a deductible three times greater than what i had and my doctor may or may not be in the network.

and doug continued to say the only topic that matters in washington -- he puts it right to the point -- is stopping the insanity of obamacare. most importantly, the president promised i will protect medicare. this law cuts over $700 billion from medicare to pay for obamacare. part of those cuts come from the establishment, the establishment of the independent payment advisory board. what a wonderful acronym for this board, ipab. this board is supposed to be made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will decide which treatments in medicare coverage should be taken away with regard to medicare reimbursements. as i have stated on the senate floor before, the ipab has no accountability, and their decisions are practically impossible to overturn.

the administration continues to give us piecemeal data on exchange, enrollments, delays, provisions of the law that they can't implement on time or simply want to delay. a large serving of politics involved. and providing exclusive waivers and special deals to unions and others from the yoke of obamacare. in fact, the nonpartisan congressional research service confirmed that the administration has missed half, half of the mandated deadlines of this law. and most recently, press reports have indicated that the government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than one million americans for their health plans in the new federal insurance exchanges, and they have so far been unable to fix the errors. obviously, this poses a lot of problems for a lot of people. unfortunately, the president and his allies in congress continue to protect this law despite its

toll on our economy, patience and providers. a new health and human services secretary has been nominated. senator isakson referred to that. sylvia matthews burwell. -- but the point i'm trying to make is with obamacare, nothing is going to alter. we're headed for socialized medicine. obamacare is the president's legacy. the president will unilaterally change what suits him best. the hardworking taxpayers who are paying for this law in large part from the 21 tax increases contained in it have a right to some answers. that's right. i said 21 tax increases. just some of these taxes include the following. the individual mandate tax where you have to pay the government for not having insurance, even if you can't afford it. the employer mandate tax where your employer pays a tax because

they may have chosen to forgo providing insurance to their employees instead of having to lay off workers. the health insurance tax which will be passed along to individuals in the form of higher premiums. the medical device tax. i could go on and on. many of these taxes have bipartisan support to be repealed, but we can't even get a vote on those. with a $1.8 trillion price tag, this bill is so far-reaching that it is difficult to find a federal agency that doesn't have a hand in this pot. from your doctor's office to your wallet to your privacy, that is why i am interested in introducing today, mr. president, a bill to require a special inspector general for monitoring the affordable care act. we call it the sigma act. that's the special inspector general for monitoring the

affordable health care act. while all of the federal agencies charged with implementing the affordable care act have offices of the inspector general, and they do, they are all investigating this law in their own area. where have we heard that before with the problems with the federal government? the health and human services inspector general isn't talking to the department of labor i.g. or the homeland security i.g. or any one of those with each other. this bill would give appropriate authority to investigate and to audit any programs or activities related to this law across the many departments, state exchanges and private contractors. the legislation will require a report to be submitted to congress and the american people six months after enactment and quarterly reports for the duration of time that the affordable care act is on the books. every quarter.

they have broad authority to review all aspects of the law. things like changes in the health insurance marketplace, the amount of folks who have seen their premiums and out-of-pocket costs increased, shrinking physician and other provider networks. we have a right to know that. the employer mandate, its effects on worker hours, employers, hiring and the number of businesses subjected to the penalty. we have a right to know that. the health care.gov web site has security, functionality and verification systems. we have read a lot about that but we have a right to know it. duties of the internal revenue service, plans for calculating subsidy, overpayments, underpayments, how they will notify these individuals and what their plans are for recapturing these overpayments and medicare cuts via the ipab. they would provide animals of the impact on such medical

outcomes for our seniors as a result of these cuts. we should know that. all of these questions should and could be answered by a special inspector general. the bill would equip a special i.g. with the same investigative and law enforcement authority as standing inspectors in general, including the subpoena and audit powers to compel responses from the administration. president obama has claimed that his -- his is the most transparent administration in history. and that his administration is submitted to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. well, given these statements, i think the president should embrace the idea of a special inspector general for his health care law. after all, we need to know the outcomes of the 41 changes he has already made to the law. it would provide increased transparency so the general

public has a better understanding about this law. it would protect taxpayers' dollars and providing an independent analysis of this law, it will allow the administration and congress to make more informed decisions, work together on how we move forward with reforms to our health care system. i believe we need to do everything possible to repeal and replace this law with real health care reforms. reforms that lower cost and restore the all-important relationship between a patient and a doctor. however, as long as this law is on the books, we need a watchdog or a special inspector general to investigate the implementation of this law and ensure that our scarce taxpayer dollars are being spent in an appropriate manner. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and calling for increased oversight of the affordable or unaffordable health care law.

let's ride out of the box canyon. let's get on a better health care reform trail and on the way, we certainly don't have to sit on every cactus that comes along. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, it appears to me after a careful count that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call

of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, just this last fall, environmental protection agency administrator gina mccarthy embarked upon a national listening tour to gather feedback on possible new energy regulations through the environmental protection agency's regulatory power. notably absent for her tour across the nation to hear from those in terms of what their reactions would be relative to proposed rules regulating the use of certain energy sources, that listening tour surprisingly didn't stop at any of the major coal producing production or user states. now, my state was notably

absent from that despite our request that she listen to what hoosiers have to say about their source of energy and what it does for their economy, how it helps attract jobs to our state and how it helps our residents to keep utility bills in line. and so we were very disappointed that we were not included in that listening tour. as other states surprisingly -- maybe not surprisingly -- who were also coal producing energy states were also bypassed. apparently they didn't want to hear from us. i think on monday we found out just exactly why it was done that way. because in the latest installment of the administration's ongoing war on coal, as they describe it, administrator mccarthy announced the e.p.a., the environmental protection agency, is putting forward new rules on existing fossil fuel power plants. these new proposed regulations

are essentially an energy tax that will damage our national economy as well as the economy of indiana and hike electric bills for every hoosier. as the seventh highest coal producing state in the nation, indiana relies on coal fired electricity to meet well over 80% of our energy needs. our industry provides thousands of jobs and contributes $.75 billion to the indiana economy. because coal helps fuel our state's economy, this e.p.a. proposed rule will place a choke hold on indiana's primary and most affordable energy source, driving up utility costs and putting our state at a disadvantage in terms of competing with other states to

lure companies to attract residents to our state because of our affordable energy prices. now, it's worth noting that the e.p.a.'s announcement ignores the progress utility industry has made in recent years. in fact, in recent decades. energy providers in indiana and across the country have spent tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars in capital investment for air plus controls that have resulted in significant declines in emissions. in fact, what has happened across our country i think for the positive is that we have significantly cleaned our air and cleaned our water through environmental regulation and through capital investment to produce an environment that is the envy of many, many nations.

all at a potential competitive disadvantage to our companies because we're competing in a global economy, and we know that nations such as china, india and others not have made the same commitment that americans have in terms of controlling their emissions and in particular their co2 emissions. we have also been a leader in indiana in reclamation and restoration on the mining fronts so those who say it's a desecration of the land to extract coal need to come and look at what we've done in terms of reclamation. instead of baron hillsides -- barren hillsides or stones instead of grass and trees, you find lush pastures of grass and a scenic view that you would never know that the mining had taken place. but penalizing hoosier energy

producers with unattainable environmental restrictions believe is a wrong approach. it's a back door way for un unelected bureaucrats to impose the cap-and-trade scheme previously pushed by the white house. not only did a totally democrat controlled congress fail to pass this similar proposal in 2010, i think it's clear there won't even be 50 votes for the e.p.a.'s proposed regulations in the senate today much less the 60 required for he passage. the president realize this so what does he do, bypasses congress which is an unconstitutional means of enforce wag ought to be done through legislation, debated and passed by those who are elected and responsible to the people who elected them, and bypasses that by essentially moving it to an agency and

saying you do it by rule making and unelected bureaucrats making decisions that we ought to be making here in this congress. now, this is not the first time the country has had to limit one type of energy to the detriment of energy growth and the pocketbooks of hardworking families. these new sweeping rules on coal-fired power plants brought to find my friends in western europe. as the u.s. ambassador to germany from 2001 to 2005, i had a front row seat for the similar transition away from fossil fuels that most germans now regret. when the german legislature passed a renewable energy law in 2000, germany gave solar and wind producers 20 years of fixed high prices and preferable access to the electricity grid. they have also following a fashionable green wave of the moment, the main political

parties in germany reached a hasty decision to phase out all 17 of the country's -- that country's nuclear power plants. german leaders vowed to eliminate clean nuclear power while simultaneously aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 80% to 95% by 2050. these overly ambitious and seemingly contradictory targets would be achieved by an extravagant government plan to encourage the development of renewable energy production methods. under the plan, the so-called energy venda or energy transition, renewables, mostly solar and wind would supply, they said, 80% of germany's electricity and 60% of the country's total energy requirements. now, if those goals look impossible, it's because it has been impossible for them to reach it and they realize that.

germany's ongoing subsidization of alternative industry means germans pay higher prices, significantly higher prices for energy than the global average, putting their industries at a competitive disadvantage and putting their consumers at some of the highest electricity rates in the world. earlier this year, the german government revealed that nearly seven million families are -- quote -- "-- and they only have 80 million in the country -- are in energy poverty." meaning they have to receive major subsidies from the government in order to pay their electric bills. today german citizens and their businesses and manufacturing entities complain loudly about these extra costs that americans and most other european nations do not face. it has triggered a potential

crisis from an economic standpoint. companies are threatening to move offshore, elsewhere in europe or to the united states or to other places. users, residents, are complaining loudly about the fact that they're subsidizing an unworkable plan. when government subsidies finance inefficient technologies, the government obsesses about -- and government object obsesses about emissions goals, germany ramped up its coal use to 45% of electricity generation. think about this for a minute. a government plan to mandate and subsidize alternative energy sources, to close the nuclear plants, to cease using

coal-fired plants to provide power, has now put germany in a situation where 45% of its energy is provided by the import of coal. high sulfur coal with high emissions because that's what burns the hottest. now, the question here is, can we learn some lessons from this? so what we are embarking on here essentially is a plan very similar to what has been already tried and failed. this is a cost too high for our economy here in the united states. and without a course correction, i think president obama's war on coal will produce the same results as germany's or perhaps even worse. higher prices and real potential for electricity supply disruptions. now, i've talked to a number of the electric companies that

derive from coal a source of energy that provides a reliable base load. base load is what you absolutely have to have to keep the lights on and to run the factories and to keep energy flowing. their concern is that the current plans will disrupt that base load to the point where we cannot guarantee through the grid energy that will reach homes at a time when, say, these polar cortexes put down and put people at subzero freezing temperatures, which draw heavily against that base load, or those sweltering days in the summer when the temperatures climb to triple digits and the air conditioners are cranking out at full blast. these base loads canno baseloade

reached by turning windmills. and in my state and others, the sun is not shining. it is not a dependable source for providing the baseload that is necessary, particularly at times of stress on the system. president obama often has seen elements of european socialism as something he would like to impose on americans. well, mr. president, this is one time when i think the president should learn from european socialism and european mistakes and avoid duplicating the situation in germany by simply letting proven energy providers do their jobs and produce the energy that is needed. once again, i want to say that the united states has a pretty commendable record of addressing these issues through emissions. we all want clean air. we all want clean water. we all want to have a safe environment for ourselves and

for our children and for the future. hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been spent over the years trying to control those emissions, and we have a pretty good record. can we go further? absolutely. can we do more? absolutely. can we put ourselves on a much more sustainable path toward even cleaner environment with less emissions? absolutely. but setting a mandatory number in terms of percentage and a mandatory deadline in terms of reaching something that is proven to be unreachable, something that threatens our ability to provide sustained energy to our businesses and to our residents is something that we need to take careful assessment of before we rush into an arbitrary setting of a rule that bypasses the debate that would take place in congress, bypasses the positions of our elected members of this

congress, and done through a process that the constitution has established in terms of how we make decisions. and so i am urging my colleagues and i'm urging the president to take a second look at what the possible consequences could be. it is nothing but pie in the sky ideologically driven rules and regulations that are driving this, and it is not -- and we need to look at -- and here we have a model, a model of a major industrial nation, that has taken similar steps and that is seen those steps fail. so i urge my colleagues to look very carefully at what is happening through this proposed rule and i hope we'll be able to address this situation in a responsible way. with that, i see my colleague from tennessee is preapped to remark on this and -- is

prepared to remark on this and something else. no one is better able to remark on alternative energy than my colleague, senator alexander. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i am delighted that i had the opportunity to be on the floor to hear the distinguished senator from indiana tell the story of germany, which has gotten itself into what can only be described as an energy mess. he summed it up pretty well. they adopted the policies that the president seems to be suggesting and where did they end up? they closed their nuclear plants and they're buying nuclear power from france. they subsidized wind and solar, and they're buying natural gas from russia, of all unreliable people. and they have ended up having to build coal plants as a result of all this. and i remember -- i think i was with the ambassador in germany. i asked an economic minister, well, this has produce add

situation where you've gotten nearly the highest electricity prices in the union european. what do you tell a manufacturer when they say they want to come to germany? the minister said, i tell them to go someplace else. so we thank him for his subpoenas. tomorrow we'll be voting on the nomination of sylvia mathews burwell. i intend to vote "yes" on the nomination. ms. burwell has a reputation for competence, and she's going to need it. she is being asked to oversee a big mess that this administration has created in health care, and so far it's lacked the leadership to clean it up. republicans know how to clean it up. we want to take our health care system in a different direction, and we need to be able to work with ms. burwell to do it. i'm going to spell out two things today in a few minutes.

first, what ms. burwell could do to avoid the mistakes of their predecessor and, second, what republicans would like to do with our health care system. this is what we would like for her to work with us on. here are the five things i'd like to suggest. number one, end the secrecy. i said last year that the n.s.a. could have learned something from secretary sebelius because getting information about the obamacare exchanges was next to impossible for members of congress. the administration owes the american taxpayers and their elected representatives under the constitution information about how the administration is spending our money. we should not have to real estate lie on ammon -- rely on anonymous news sources. number two, work with congress. this administration has made at least 22 unilateral changes in the new health care law, many of which should have been made by congress.

at this rate, the president may be invited to speak at the next convention for having done the most to change his own health care law enforcement but our founders did not want a -- health care law. but our founders did not want a king. i don't think any president has gone as far as this one. he appointed more czars than the romanoffs. he has made recess appointments when the senate was in session. he has turned his education secretary into a national school board. this president has swung the furthest from the kind of president that george washington modeled and that our constitution proscribed. will ms. burwell seek to work within the framework of the constitution in i hope she does. number three, please don't solicit from companies that you regulate. the former secretary solicited from companies she regulated. she shouldn't have. this kind of behavior should

leave with her. four, be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. apparently the president is set to spend more than $1 billion in technology costs on the obamacare web site. we know that nearly a half billion dollars were wasted on four failed state exchanges. this kind of waste makes american taxpayers furious. they earned those dollars, paid those taxes, and don't deserve to see that money flushed down the drain by washington bureaucrats. unanimounumber five, show amerie respect. don't announce major policy changes in backlog posts. if secretary sebelius had been up front about the web site problems before the rollout, we might have saved americans precious time and money. and most important, recognize

that the majority of americans disapprove of the new health care law and start taking a look at republican health care proposals as a way to repair the damage done by obamacare. in ms. burwell's hearing, i laid out again what republicans would do if we could, what we would like to do with our health care system. we've been saying this since 2010 when the legislation was first introduced. mr. president, when i was a boy, my grandfather was a railroad engineer in newton, kansas. he drove a big steam locomotive. he would drive a switch engine into a roundhouse onto a turntable. it might be headed to santa fe. then he'd turn it around and head it off in another direction. maybe to denver or houston. it is hard to turn a big train. that's wh what they had those bg turntables for.

ms. burwell understands this. she is from a railroad town in west virginia. that's what republicans would like to do with our health care system. we'd like to turn it around and head it off in a different direction. not back, but a different direction. we want to repair the damage that obamacare has done p. we want to prevent future damage as responsibly and rapidly as we can. we'd like to move in a different direction to put in place health care proposals that would increase freedom, increase choices, and lower costs. we trust americans to make those decisions, to make them ourselves. we believe that is the american way. four years ago congress and the president made what we believe was an historic mistake. congress passed a 2,700-page bill. republicans said, we don't believe in that, that we're wise

enough here to rewrite the whole health care system. let's go step by step to create more freedom, more choices, lower costs. let me take you back to the health care summit at the blair house four years ago. the president invited three dozen members of congress. he spent six hours with us, all on national television sms . i was asked to speak first for the republicans. i said what i thought was wrong with the president's plan. i said it would increase health care costs, and it has. "usa today" reported that health care spending in the first quarter of this year rose at the fastest pace in 35 years. the "hill" newspaper reported that insurance executives say premiums in the new exchanges will double or triple in parts of the country the next year. even with subsidies, many americans are finding that deductibles, co-payments, and out-of-pocket expenses are so high they can't afford health

insurance. we said people would lose their choice of doctors, and many have. we said obamacare would cancel policies, and it has. at least 2.6 million americans have had their individual plans outlawed by obamacare. i think of emily in lawrenceburg, ten terntion who had a $50-a-month policy. she has lupus. it was scold. now she is in the exchange. $400 a month. more coverage than i need, she said, and i can't afford it. and millions of americans who get their health care through small businesses will find the same thing is happening to them later this year. we said jobs would be lost, and they have. the president of costa rica is hosting jobs fairs welcoming medical device companies that have been driven out of the u.s. by the tax on revenues. we said beneficiaries would be hurt and they have. the average cut per medicare

advantage besh will be $317 between this year and next. we said the only bipartisan thing would be opposition to it? and it is. 54% of americans are opposed to the law. i said during the debate that every senator who voted for the new health care law ought to be sentenced to go home and serve as governor in their home state and try to implement it. and there are 16 governors struggling with that today who won't implement the medicaid expansion because they worry about costs down the road, and they should. when i was governor of tennessee, costs were 8% of the state budget, medicaid costs. that was in the 1980's. today it is 30%. what will it be? 10 years, she is governors are - what will it be in 10 years, she is governors are wondering? we said let's go step by step in a different direction. and our democratic friends said, wait a second. that's not a comprehensive plan.

you're rievment w right. we don't believe in comprehensive. if you're expecting mitch mcconnell to wheel in here with a 2,700-page bill, you are a going to be waiting for the moon. we don't believe we're wise enough to write a 2,700-page bill. we outlined our steps. senator johnson has a proposal that would allow more americans to keep their insurance plans as the president promised. senator mccain has a proposal that allows to you buy insurance in another state if it fits your budget and your needs. senator enzi has a proposal for small business employers so that he or she can combine purchasing power with other employers and offer employees lower-cost insurance. senators burr, coburnings and 45*67 hatch have a proposal to aallow you to buy a minimum wage medical plan to insure you against a catastrophe in a

health savings account to pay for everyday expenses. i have a proposal to make it easier, not harder, for employers to reward employees ho to live a healthy lifestyle. that's what we mean by doing what my grandfather did with that train, turning it around and heading it off in a different and correct direction. as r-pdly and -- as rapidly and responsibly as we can, we would like to repair the damage that obamacare has done. we would like to prevent future damage. we want to move in a different direction that provides more freedom, more choices and lower costs. we trust americans to make decisions for ourselves. that is the american way. and since president obama still will be in office for the next two years, if ms. burwell is confirmed, as i fully expect she will be by a good vote, we will need her help to accomplish that. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to discuss important veterans and v.a. issues, something we're all properly focused on like a laser beam right now, and i will be joined over the next several minutes by senators rubio and inhofe and heller, who share all

of my concerns. mr. president, i've been coming to the floor pretty relentlessly because apparently that's what's necessary, to talk about one specific priority with regard to veterans in louisiana. and that's moving as no good reason we can't move on outpatient clinics, expanded outpatient clinics that are overdue in 27 locations and in 18 states, including two new expanded outpatient clinics in louisiana, specifically in lafayette and lake charles. now, mr. president, these have been planned for on the books, paid for for several years now. they're not being built. they're not being moved into purely because of an administrative glitch at the v.a. that delayed that whole

process by a year. and then in that intervening year, a so-called new scoring issue that came up here on capitol hill at the c.b.o. we've blown through all of that. we've solved those problems finally; a lot of delay. but we've solved those problems. and now there's absolutely no reason we can't take up a bill that has been passed by the house, put a simple amendment on the bill and pass it through the senate and get on with building these new and necessary expanded v.a. clinics. 27 locations around the country, 18 states, obviously including the state of louisiana, two locations there, as i mentioned, in lafayette and lake charles. and i again take the floor in the context of this much broader v.a. scandal to urge us to come together and act in this simple

but important way. i've been coming to the floor to urge this action for months now, well before this current v.a. scandal erupted. but i think that new context of this national v.a. scandal makes bipartisan action on this and anything else we can agree on more necessary than ever. so i again urge all of my colleagues to come together to get this simple but important thing done and to continue to work on all of the other very necessary changes we need at the v.a. now, in terms of these 27 outpatient clinics, mr. president, there is no disagreement about this. a bill has been passed through the house with one dissenting vote to get this done. it sits in the well of the senate. there is no objection to the

merits of that bill as long as we have one perfecting amendment that has been worked out with every member of the u.s. senate. there is no substantive objection about it. however, it has been held up and objected to by senator sanders, the head of the veterans' committee, purely because he wants to use it as leverage to pass his much broader veterans bill on a host of other topics. as i've said many times before, mr. president, those other topics are very important. those broader topics have only been underscored in the last few weeks with this developing v.a. scandal. we need to address many areas, but we shouldn't hold veterans hostage and we shouldn't hold up progress in any area that we can agree on simply to create a hostage to try to forge movement in these other areas. and, in fact, in terms of that

general propgz, i think -- general proposition, i think senator sanders agreed with me. back in 2013, november 19 of 2013, senator sanders adopted and endorsed this approach with regard to other matters. there was another set of work on other veterans' issues, and issues were worked out so that a specific proposal could move forward by unanimous consent. and senator sanders came to the floor and basically said, yes, let's agree on what we can agree on. let's move forward with what we can move forward on. quote -- i'm i'm happy to tell you that i think that was a concern of his," talking about another senator and his other veterans issues. "we got that u.c.'d last night, so we moved that pretty quickly. and i want to try to do those things. where we have agreement, let's move it." close quote.

mr. president, i'm urging us particularly in the context of the overall v.a. scandal and v.a. mess, let's start acting. and where we have agreement, let's move it. we're not going to solve every veterans problem in one bill overnight, but we can start a bite at a time, a step at a time. we can start to do positive things. and these 27 clinics in 18 states are very positive, concrete things. so where we have agreement -- and we have complete agreement in this area -- let's move it, quote unquote. a direct quote from senator sanders from late last year. i'm sorry to say senator sanders is not allowing us to move it. we have absolute agreement on the substance of these clinics. we can call that bill off the calendar right now. we can put the perfecting amendment on there as absolute

universal agreement on the substance of that bill with that amendment. but we're not moving it apparently because he wants to use that as some sort of leverage for other v.a. proposals. well, i want to work on those proposals, but where we have agreement let's move it. veterans want us to come together in a bipartisan way, want us to act not in a month or a year. not after more and more studies, but want us to start to act now where we can, where we have agreement. i think it's very important that we act. and i think it's very important that we do so in a bipartisan way. this is one focused area where that is possible immediately today. and so i urge us all to do that. now, mr. president, there are other areas that we need to act on. senator sanders is in discussions with many of us being led on the republican side

by senators burr and mccain. i hope that broader agreement comes together. i hope it comes together very, very soon. i've been assured by both sides -- senator sanders on the democratic side; senators burr and mccain on the republican side -- that certainly this clinic issue will be included in any such agreement. but let's come together now, here and now, where we have agreement -- and we do on these clinics. let's act for veterans as soon as we can. and we can right now with regard to these clinics. and so i urge us to adopt that positive, commonsense approach. act where we have agreement immediately. build consensus. continue to work on those areas where there is continuing discussion, and act and build agreement and build consensus as quickly as we can in those other areas. and i urge us to do that as soon

as we can, wherever we can, whenever we can. and that can start today, if senator sanders would let us with regard to these 27 expanded outpatient clinics in 18 states. i see senator heller has joined us on the floor, and i will defer to him and also look forward to the comments of senators rubio and inhofe about the broader veterans and v.a. challenge as well as this specific clinics issue. thank you, mr. president. mr. heller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. i first want to thank my good friend from louisiana for putting together a proposal that would ultimately increase veterans access to care. like him, i believe our veterans are entitled to a v.a. system that provides them with the services that they were promised, not only promised but to receive it in a timely manner. like my colleague has mentioned

tpr-rbgs oklahoma -- mentioned from oklahoma, i support his idea to authorize 27 v.a. clinics and cannot understand why the senate is not acting on this proposal. i also like my other friend, senator rubio from florida, fighting to bring some accountability to the v.a. his bipartisan, bicameral proposal is a much-needed step in the right direction to give the v.a. the tools to fire v.a. executives that are not doing their jobs. unfortunately, after talking extensively with veterans in nevada, i believe these problems of management, of accountability, and of efficiency extend well beyond the veterans health administration. the veterans benefits administration continues to struggle to eliminate veterans' disability claims backlog as it operates on what i consider to be a 1940's system here in the

21st century. there are more than 3,600 veterans in nevada, nearly 300,000 nationwide, that are stuck in the v.a.'s disability claims backlog. my home state of nevada has the longest wait in the nation at 348 days for a claim to be processed. what veterans need is the congress to take action to reform a broken, outdated claim processing system. this is why senator casey and i came together a year ago to address this issue with a targeted approach to fix the claims process. so here's what we introduced, mr. president. the v.a. backlog working group, this march 2014 report. these solutions that we're just talking about are included in our 21st century veterans benefit delivery act which we -- senator casey and myself -- introduced in march. our legislation addresses three main areas of the claims

process: submission, v.a. regional office practices, and the agency's response to v.a. requests. i recognize that the claims process is complex, and there's no silver bullet that will solve this problem. but the v.a. current efforts will not eliminate this backlog. i think my colleagues here today would agree that this is a bipartisan issue. there isn't a member of the senate whose state is not impacted by the v.a. claims backlog. yet, this bipartisan legislation remains in the backlog of bills yet to be considered by the united states senate. it's past time for congress to give this issue the attention it deserves. congress needs to reform the v.a., and when doing so cannot ignore the problems that plague its benefits administration. thank you, mr. president. and with that, i yield back. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i want to applaud the work of the senator from

nevada and echo his sentiments. i'm a member of this bipartisan working group on the claims backlog. i'm a coauthor of the legislation he helped spearhead, bipartisan legislation along with senator casey. and it's another very good example of a bipartisan consensus where we can act, we can move it. so let's come together and let's act in a responsible bipartisan way, and let's move it. that is what veterans want. that's what veterans tell me all across louisiana. that's what the veterans service organizations are saying. this crisis demands action. it demands bipartisan action. this is an area where we can act now and act effectively. we should. the clinics that i talked about are an area where we can act now and act effectively in a

bipartisan way. we should. i also applaud senator inhofe who may be coming to the floor for his leadership on this clinics issue. we need to authorize those, move on with them, get that done. and also senator rubio, he'll be speaking later about the legislation he has that's already passed the house to give the leadership, the new leadership -- thank goodness -- of the v.a. the authority they need to take dramatic action when necessary to clear house when necessary, and get people in place who are going to make a difference in that broken, broken bureaucracy. so let's act now in a bipartisan way where we can. and, again, that is absolutely possible in these areas, including these 27 outpatient clinics, 18 states, two in louisiana that i discussed.

we have complete agreement in the united states senate on the substance of these clinics. we have legislation that has already passed the house so, please, senator sanders, release your obstacle, release your blockade. let's move forward. let's agree where we can agree. let's act where we can act here and now and continue to work on those other vital areas where we also need agreement. you know, mr. president, there is a common saying, time is money. with the, in terms of what we're talking about, time can be lost lives. we've seen cases of that, documented cases of that with regard to veterans who are waiting for so long that they die.

time in health care can be lost lives. this past week, as i've traveled louisiana, i had a town-hall meeting in new orleans, among other places. and a new orleans police officer, fema police officer came and told me about the case of her father, who because of lack of attention and time lapsed in the v.a. system, died. literally died directly related to that. her name is gwen moidy nolan, and though she's lost her father, she wants to make sure that that doesn't happen to any other veterans' family, that what happened to richard moidy doesn't happen to others. now, her case was looked at by the v.a. and they admitted fault. they admitted negligence and they actually reached a substantial settlement with her over their lack of attention to her father.

but she really wants to make sure that that doesn't happen to any other veterans' family and she came to me pleading can you make sure they have taken the necessary steps to fix those problems in the new orleans v.a. and so i've writt -- and so i've written the v.a. and i've said, i want to see the results of that discretion. you say you've taken corrective afntle i want to understand exactly what that corrective action is. time is money. no. in this case, time can be lost lives. the lives of richard moriarty, the lives much veterans in arizona, the lives of veterans around the country for whom inattention, delay, lack of responsiveness in the v.a. system meant lost lives. so let's not delay here in the

senate, where we have agreement, let's move, let's act. we have agreement on these clinics. we have agreement on action to address the v.a. backlog that senator heller talked about. let's act, let's move because delay can lead to serious, serious consequences in health care, even the loss of life. thank you, mr. president. i also want to thank for their determined work senators inhofe and rubio, who may be coming to the floor to talk about these issues later. but i look forward to moving on this issue. i look forward to senator sanders either reaching agreement on a broader set of proposals, including in clinics issue, in the very near future, and if not, i will be back to the floor demanding action on these clinics within a few days. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the president pro tempore is recognized. hay lay mr. president, there isn't a -- mr. leahy: mr. president, there isn't a quorum call. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. leahy: i thank the chair. following the resignation of secretary shinseki last week, it really is time for some deep soul-searching for the department ofuture ofthe departs affairs. i'm struck by disturbing aspect of organizational culture within the v.a., prioritizing meeting

goals and checking boxes instead of providing true quality care for veterans. secretary shinseki himself was a decorated veteran, and i'm sure he must be as frustrated as all of us to find some of the things that were happening. so overwhelming rushing toward the path of least resistance for reporting care for the men and women who served this nation admirably and with dedication. we shouldn't lose sight of the hard work and commitment of the many men and women working in the v.a. system every day striving to provide effective and timely care to veterans. you know, we have to tell ourselves, there's really no shortcut to quality care for veterans. the v.a. has rightly been under intense pressure and scrutiny to

live up to the promise we made to veterans when they agreed to serve. we have many people in this body and the other body who voted for a war that i think the historians will call a disaster, the war in iraq. we did it for the first time in american history, they voted for a war and did not do mig to payd not do anything to pay for it. no tax to pay for it or anything else. ten years later, however, they say we have to watch the cost of v.a. health care and all that. we have to find the money. well, that didn't bother them when they sent these men and women to war. let's take care of them now. most v.a. employees are tireless servants. many are veterans themselves. for those men and women who give their all for the veterans, it is becoming evident that the

system's incentives and disincentives may have worked against them. there should be no shortcut to quality care. earlier this year my distinguished colleague from vermont, senator sanders, introduced an expansive collection of many needed reforms here in the senate. unfortunately, like so many bills we've tried to consider this year, partisan objection stalled progress based on procedural rather than substantive matters. some of the same people that have been so critical of this administration and the v.a. were the same ones who voted to block going forward with needed reforms. the senate is going to get another opportunity to consider a comprehensive collection of reforms. it must prompt some meaningful bipartisan action here in the senate.

let's not play gotcha. let's play help you to the veterans. that's what we need to do. my wife began her nursing career as a brand-new registered nurse in a v.a. hospital. i know how hard she worked and those around her. they were veterans of a different generation, but they needed help and care just as much as everybody else. so i look afford to the senate's consideration of legislation naffed yesterday by senator sanders. i am proud to cosponsor it is. many reforms are needed within the v.a. the restoring veterans trust act takes important steps towards achieving these changes. and of course additional reforms are he haare needed. today i'm introducing legislation to address one shortfall of the v.a. that's existed far too long. current law provides a disincentive to cost effective

oon-site medical solutions when operative rooms are rebuilt within a v.a. facility. because the v.a. must report any major medical facility costs exceeding $10 million to congress be, the v.a. encouraged to pay for veterans care at outside facility f.a.a. silts, including travel to on the one hand from the facilities out of a medical services account. that's robbing peter to pay paul. that's a different pot of money. so that way they don't have to have an extensive report. but the best solution for veterans and the bottom line may very well be a temporary on-site facility. the bill is simple. it attempts to take the lure of a shortcut away by ensuring the expense of temporary offcare site is calculated and reported. senator sanders, chairman of the vents affairs committee, has

said you think it's too expensive to take care of our veterans, don't send them to war. he's right. we've been paying for two unfunded wars on a credit card. now it is time we invest in those who put themselves in harm's way to protect our security. it is time to worry about some of the things we need to do here at hoavment home. it's time. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and the attachments thereto. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. #*s. mr. leahy: mr. president, i don't see anybody seeking recognition, so i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: assuming that the senate is now in a quorum call, may i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: thanks, mr. president. i'm here for the 69th straight consecutive week that the senate has been in session to try to wake us up to the harm that carbon pollution causes to our oceans, to our communities, to our ecosystems and to our health. the effects of climate change are all around us, from our melting glaciers in our national parks to our drought-stricken land across the american southwest to rising seas along my eastern seaboard. washington, d.c.'s iconic cherry blossoms are blooming earlier. snook, native to south florida, are being caught off the coast

of charleston. tarpon and grouper off the coast of rhode island. this is all happening now. not tomorrow, not some time in the distant future, but now, right now. and projections show that it will get much worse in the coming years unless we wake up and take real action. happily, this week, the environmental protection agency used its clean air act authority as established by congress and affirmed by the u.s. supreme court to propose carbon pollution standards for the country's existing power plants. before this, there were no carbon pollution limits, believe it or not, none. and as you can see on this chart, these 50 dirtiest u.s.

power plants. this is the whole u.s. power plant fleet. this is just the 50 dirtiest u.s. power plants. they put out more carbon than korea, which is a pretty industrialized country. they put out more carbon than canada, our neighbor to the north. i congratulate the administration on developing these smart, sensible limits that will put our nation on a better path economically and on a better path environmentally, and thank you to the scientists, the engineers, the staffers, the attorneys and the experts who invested so much time and energy in developing this historic standard. through an unprecedented public engagement, the e.p.a. held more than 300 public meetings, working with stakeholders of all kinds and all across the

political spectrum. the result -- e.p.a. has put the states in the driver's seat to come up with their own plans to meet state-specific targets. states and power companies will have a wide variety of options to achieve carbon reductions like boosting renewable energy, establishing energy savings targets, investing in efficiency or joining one of the existing cap-and-trade programs. states can develop plans that create jobs, plans that cut electricity costs by boosting efficiency, plans that achieve major pollution reduction. what is not to like? already a diverse array of groups support the new e.p.a. pollution standards. the u.s. conference of catholic bishops in a letter to administrator mccarthy wrote these standards should protect

the health and welfare of all people, especially children, the elderly, as well as poor and vulnerable communities. from harmful pollution emitted from power plants and from the impacts of climate change. the catholic bishops went on to point out that, i will quote them again, the best evidence indicates that power plants are the largest stationary source of carbon emissions in the united states and a major contributor to climate change. we're also hearing from 600 state and local elected officials who recently sent a letter to the president in support of the e.p.a. plan. these are the mayors, council members, state legislators for whom climate change is a day-to-day reality, at home, right there in their communities. the letter is signed by officials from both red states

and blue, including texas, iowa, arizona and the ground zero of climate change in this country, the state of florida. the business community has weighed in. over 125 companies, including american giants like nike, levi's and starbucks sent a letter of support for the new rule. our support is firmly grounded in economic reality, it reads. the new standards will reinforce what leading companies already know. climate change poses real financial risks and substantial economic opportunities, and we must act now. v.f. corporation is an american apparel manufacturer in north carolina whose grandz include the north -- brands include the north face, timberland, wrangler and many others. as a company that makes

innovative apparel and footwear for people who love the outdoors, we know how important addressing climate change is to our consumers, and therefore our business, said leticia webster, v.f.'s director of global sustainability. today's rules provide the long-term certainty that v.f. needs to continue to invest in clean energy solutions so that we can do our part to reduce the impacts of climate change. major utilities are behind the new rule. tom king, the president of national grid, which serves my home state of rhode island, said the obama administration, through the good work of e.p.a. administrator gina mccarthy and her staff has worked in a transparent manner to craft regulation that promotes environmental and human health through a host of clean energy

options. rather than picking winners, this proposed rule supports market-based solutions. and major public health groups agree. here is what harold wimmer, the national president and c.e.o. of the american lung association, had to say. for the 147 million, nearly half of all americans already living in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution, curbing carbon pollution emissions is a critical step forward. for protecting public health from the impacts of climate change happening today. as widespread and broad as the support is for this rule, not everyone is applauding. big polluters have enjoyed a

long and happy holiday from responsibility for the carbon pollution they have dumped into our atmosphere and oceans. this free pollution that they have enjoyed emitting is a market failure, a market failure recognized even by groups as conservative as the american enterprise institute. a market failure which allowed these polluters to dump billions of dollars in costs and harm on their fellow americans. they did this to their fellow americans without apparent shame or regret, and they are fighting desperately to preserve this loophole. they don't want you to know that we can achieve these reductions

responsibly. they don't want you to know that we can do this and help our economy. indeed, before the proposed rule was even available to examine, the climate deniers at the so-called u.s. chamber of commerce said it would cost electricity customers hundreds of billions of dollars and sap the u.s. economy of tens of billions in g.d.p. and hundreds of thousands of jobs. don't believe it. these claims are exaggerated at best and flat-out false at worst. and don't just take my word for it. republicans citing the chamber's report -- of course, some of our colleagues jump to cite that report, and when they did, they earned a politifact false and

four pinocchios from "the washington post" fact checker. the problem with the big polluters is that they only look at one side of the ledger. they ignore the costs of carbon pollution on the rest of us, and these costs are real. people see them in their lives, in real lives at home and our communities. damage to coastal homes and roads and businesses from rising seas and erosion. asthma attacks in children triggered by smog, sending them to the emergency room. forests dying from beetle infestations and swept by unprecedented wildfire seasons. farms ravaged by worsened drought and flooding. mr. president, our side of the ledger counts, too. if the big polluters were

accountants and they filed financial statements that only looked at one side of the ledger, they'd go to prison. but this is politics, so without consequence or shame or regret, they just ignore the harm they cause the rest of us. if the chamber of commerce and the big polluters want to talk about jobs, let's not forget about the jobs they hurt by their carbon pollution. fishermen in rhode island have seen their winter fiscal house in flounder catch nearly disappear in recent decades as the winter water temperature in our narragansett bay has risen three to four degrees. that is an ecosystem shift for these species. actually, their now more jobs in clean, green energy than in oil and gas. more jobs in solar than in coal

mining. this rule is a job creator in innovation and clean energy. the polluters just won't count that side of the ledger. it's an old story -- tobacco, seat belts in cars, acid rain, lead paint, ozone depletion, and more. same old strategy. muddle the science, manufacture doubt, exaggerate the costs, and ignore the economic benefits. the clean air act, according to a 2011 e.p.a. assessment, will benefit americans more than its costs by a ratio of 30-1.

30-1. $30 of value in preventing hospital visits and premature deaths, avoiding missed work and school days, improving environmental quality, helping people live healthier, more productive lines, $30 in value to americans for every $1 they had to pay in cleanup costs. opponents of clean air standards have been proven wrong time and again. here's the bottom line -- excessive carbon pollution is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and bad for our economy. even bad for our national security, if you read the department of defense's own quadrennial defense reviews. and the largest source of carbon pollution in the united states is power plants. until now, there were no limits

on the carbon pollution these plants could spew into our atmosphere and oceans. this week changes that. if the big polluters don't like the change, many of us will work with them on a legislative alternative. perhaps as many republicans support an economywide price on carbon pollution, which could generate a financial benefit for taxpayers and even provide transition assistance to affected industries. but they can't just keep dumping their pollution on the rest of us. doing so might be free for them, but the costs are too high for us. their long holiday from responsibility has to come to an

end. it is time for them to wake up. a number of my republican colleagues have come to the senate floor to respond to the administration's proposal. those of us seeking to stave off the worst effects of climate change welcome this opportunity to engage in a bipartisan discussion on the challenges of climate change. in the past, republican colleagues have coauthored and voted for bipartisan climate change legislation. they have spoken out in favor of a carbon fee, and, of course, our republican colleagues represent states like florida that are every bit as at risk from the effects of climate change -- climate change as states represented by democrats. so we think our republican colleagues could have a lot to

offer if they wish to join us in exploring solutions. so, a number of us have requested that time after votes on monday, june 9 -- monday, june 9, next monday -- be reserved for us to engage in a robust bipartisan exchange of views about carbon pollution. and we invite all our colleagues, republican and democrat, to join us then on the floor. we hope to find that the republican party in the united states senate is not a uniform mon owe list of -- monolith of climate denial. we earnestly believe the costs of failing to exercise american leadership and solve this carbon pollution problem are very

high, terribly high. with ramifications for our health and safety, our economic well-being, our food and water supplies, and our national security and standing. i look forward to a vigorous discussion on monday. i hope my colleagues show up, and i yield the floor. i'll note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: today i'd like to discuss the nomination of sylvia burwell to be secretary of health and human services. i'm going to make some criticisms of her performance and the background that she lacks in taking on this huge agency. i have met with her, worked with her some as o.m.b. director and like her and she is courteous and capable so i'm not talking personally in any bad way about her, but this is an important agency, one of the most important agencies in our nation. the secretary of health and human services oversees several of the largest programs in the entire federal government.

crucially, the secretary is also the person tasked with implementing the president's health care law. it is essential that anyone who fills this position possess great skill, relevant experience, proven managerial experience and who will act with independence and the best interests of the american public, one who at this critical time puts country over politics, they cannot be just a political loyalist but they must be someone of stature, integrity, and sound judgment who is willing to tell the president no if asked to circumvent the law, provide false information or otherwise act dependence the public interest. from the president's own perspective, he needs desperately, really, someone who is able to evaluate these major programs like obamacare with wisdom and tell him and help him, particularly tell the american people the truth.

mrs. burwell does not have the background one associates with a position of this magnitude. she just does not. nor does she possess the experience and skills crucially needed today. the o.m.b. office that she now holds has 500 employees. h.h.s. has 72,000. aside from her short tenure at office of management and budget, which is really just been 13 months, she is just now red wing to find her way around, presumably, that office, she has never run any major department, any health care department, a department or an agency, a major business, a significant city or state. there are many very capable people in this country who would be much more ready to assume the august responsibilities of this

job. so it appears her most significant health care role prior to this was serving as a board member, part-time board member of a local university medical center. in fact, just two months ago in a budget committee hearing, ms. burwell declined to answer a basic health care question until she said she would seek secretary inteel yus' expertise on the matter. -- inteel yus' expertise. so her time as director of the office of management and budget was controversial. the budget plan that she submitted to congress plainly violated the spending caps that congress and the president agreed to and passed into law. she produced a budget plan that would increase spending by nearly $791 billion over ten

years. that's above the ryan-murray agreement that passed in congress that set these spending limits. just a few weeks before. including in that budget was a proposal to increase spending by $56 billion over the budget just next year. so to my dismay and as the ranking republican on the budget committee, i've been involved in this and observing it, to my dismay she went through enormous lengths during her testimony before the committee to try to conceal this increase in spending. it was really amazing to me. so on the day the president's budget was submitted, the associated press reported that the plan that mrs. burwell authored -- quote -- "lays waste to the spending caps that the white house and congress agreed to late last year."

also at the same time the -- "the hill" reported the budget this way. obama's $3.7 trillion budget busts spending limits. remember, ms. burwell was the director of the the office of management and budget. her staff produces the budget and defended the budget. it goes on to say in the first paragraph here, the truth of the situation, president obama on tuesday released a $3.9 trillion election-year budget blueprint that would bust the bipartisan budget ceiling agreed to in december with $56 billion in new stimulus spending. so this is 10 weeks after they agreed to one level of spending she walks in and produces a budget that has -- is $700 billion almost more in spending over the budget and $56 billion

more the next year. so -- now, when i asked her about that, apparently it was politically sensitive. apparently they decided they didn't want to admit they were spending more money. the associated press said they did. "politico" said they did. the budget they submitted that was in law, laid before the budget committee plainly demonstrated it spent more than they agreed to spend. so i asked her about it. it went something like this. very long exchange, frustrating for me, i'll quote from -- i think we need to understand these issues. so i asked her about the spending excess. sessions, so you're proposing we at ryan-murray -- that's the law that set new spending limits, allowed more spending than we had previously agreed to but it's continued to set some

limits. so that we alter ryan-murray so you can spend $56 billion more next year alone. yes or no, is that correct? burwell, we propose a pay-for initiative. sess -- sessions: can't you ask that question, yes or no, do you plan to spend $56 billion more than ryan-murray allows. burwell: senator, we do propose a change in the law that would be fully paid for that would invest in things that we believe are necessary for the economic health of the nation. sessions: do you want to spend more than the president agreed to when he signed the ryan-murray 10 weeks ago? burwell: senator, we signed ryan-murray. sessions: now, i'm just asking, yes or no, are you spending more or less? burwell: senator, i think

there's some questions that are not simply yes-or-no questions. sessions: this is one that's a yes-or-no question. you're refusing to answer it. so i simply asked a public servant who's paid by the taxpayers, are you spending more money than the ryan-murray budget that we'd agreed to and the president signed? and she refused to say so. and it was really frustrating to me but i think that's indicative of the fact that they were allowing politics to interject itself here because they did not want to admit, the white house didn't, and she went down and stupid for the white house and wouldn't admit it. but it was plainly, as "the politico" says, plainly was true, that they were spending more. so rather than acting as an independent steward of the taxpayers' dollars and simply telling the plain truth to a simple question, she acted as an

extension of the president's campaign arm, advancing their spin without acknowledging honestly the clear and plain facts to the american public, asked by a representative of the people of the united states. there's just no doubt that they spent more money than ryan-murray proposed -- would allow. so the director of office and management and budget is more than a political position. director serves the president, yes. but it is at bottom an important public servant and the person who holds that job, must hold it as a disciplined manager of taxpayers' dollars and do so with clarity and openness. the director is managing the world's largest budget. however, mrs. burwell submitted a financial plan that would have increased spending more than $700 billion above the current agreed-upon in law budget limits

while amazingly suggesting her plan reduced spending. it was a tax-and-spend budget that would have added $8 trillion to our debt while doing little, virtually nothing to reform the entitlement programs heading for impending insolvency. it completely busted the budget law the president signed. it was a grossly irresponsible plan. according to miss burwell's own budget submission, the plan would have caused interest payments -- get this -- interest payments on the debt to nearly quadruple, from $221 billion in interest we paid last year alone, $221 billion, they would increase according to her own budget plan, the document she produced for us, to more than $800 billion in one year, according to the budget 10 years from now. so this is really a serious

matter. there is no attempt to balance the budget in her plan. even over 10 years. indeed, it flatly rejected the very idea of a balanced budget. additionally, despite her public commitment during her confirmation that she would deliver the budget in accordance with the legal deadlines the president's budget was again delivered more than a month late. and, importantly, miss burwell failed to comply with federal law requiring her to submit medicare improvement legislation after the medicare trustees issued a funding warning. medicare is heading to financial ruin. the law says if medicare reaches a pointed where its future is financially in doubt, it must notify the president and the president, through his office of management and budget director, is supposed to submit to congress a plan to get medicare

off the path to disaster. it was submitted to president bush. he submitted a plan to congress to fix medicare. but the president has steadfastly refused to do so and so did mrs. burwell as his office of management and budget director. it says within two weeks of a budget submission, legislation must be sent to congress to comply with this medicare trigger. it requires a plan to fix the program. so during her confirmation as o.m.b. director, she was asked about this duty she was going to have, and she made a commitment to respond and produce a medicare trigger. specifically, she said she would -- quote -- "do everything in her power to comply with the federal law, bringing an end, in effect, to the president's -- to the administration's several-year-long defiance of plain law." as the president's budget director under 31 u.s.c. 1105,

sylvia burwell was the person responsible for complying with the federal law. having willfully violated this requirement, it is ironic now that if confirmed as health and human services secretary, she will serve on the board of trustees of medicare and the medicare trust funds. she will be responsible for overseeing their finances, and she will be issuing to her former office, o.m.b., the same funding warnings that the administration received and ignored while she served as budget director. so miss burwell also has violated law and denied congress's need for transparency with respect to the doubled health care law. specifically, the omnibus appropriations bill signed into law in january required h.h.s. to include in the fiscal year

2015 budget a detailed accounting of spending to implement the health law. fair enough. but neither the budget miss burwell delivered nor the agency justification that later joined it satisfied that requirement of law. they should do that. they're public servants, they should tell us how to handle the problems of financing in the health care law. and as o.m.b. director, the budget submitted to congress by mrs. burwell reclassified the budgetary treatment of the obamacare risk carda program without statutory authority to do so. under this approach, it's an attempt, it appears, to escape congressional accountability for the use of certain funds. so this is a clear violation of the congressional power to appropriate money, and they --

it's pretty clear to fund this program, they're going to have to ask congress to fund it. but by moving this around, they're attempting to spend money without asking congress to appropriate it, against the constitution. regrettably, miss burwell followed a consistent pattern. rather than using osmgh o.m.b. a central agency to reform this massive, out-of-control spending government, to stop wasteful spending and tame the debt -- as former o.m.b. director like mitch daniels and rob portman did. now senator portman submitted a balanced budget when he was o.m.b. director under president bush. she has not submitted any reforms really to bring our government under control. and o.m.b., and one of the concerns i had about her

appointment was that it's such a critical part of our government. you have to have a strong o.m.b. director to control this massive government and control wasteful spending. that's the president's right a arm. that's the person who brings the cabinet secretaries in and say, "you're spending money. i hear complaints about waste. i hear about duplication. the president wants you to fix this." we should be -- we saw none of that under her leadership. so her tenure at o.m.b. evidenced no drive to even tackle the magnitude of our financial challenges. she proposed to bust the spending caps that congress and the president agreed to. she proposed to bust the spending caps that congress and the president agreed to while trying to suggest otherwise. she ignored the medicare trigg

trigger. she tried to put positive spin on a dangerous financial plan. instead of trying to actually solve the serious financial challenges that face our y couny today. with obamacare in chaos and disarray, threatening the very economy and the health care of americans by the millions, what we need desperately in this key position is someone who will be independent, forthright, honest, someone who will resist political pressure from the white house, someone who knows what they're doing. this position demands we find one of the best, most respected health care experts in the world. that's what we should be looking for. miss burwell, nice that she is, sadly just is not that person. she does not have those skills. obamacare was passed into law on

a series of egregious falsehoods. the american people understood it. they intuitively recognized this was an overreach and would not work. and the american people are now paying the steepest of prices for this complex, failed piece of legislation. one of the falsehoods was that it would not add to the debt. not a dime, the president said. but we now know it would add more than $6 trillion to our long-term debt of the united states. that's a huge amount of money. a secretary of health and human services must tell the american people the truth about the law's finances. and if they fail to do so, if this secretary were not to acknowledge truth and the challenge that our finances place, then the entire future financially of america is at risk. so i believe miss burwell is a good and well-meaning person.

senators from west virginia, like senator manchin and rockefeller, they like her and -- and senator wyden at the finance committee, and i like her. but i cannot support her bid to control the health care future of millions of hardworking americans by placing her in charge of this massive agency that so desperately needs mature, aggressive, strong leadership, somebody who understands these issues before they take the job. so i'll vote "no" on her nomination for secretary of health and human services. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from massachusetts is recognized. mrs. warren: mr. president, outstanding student loans now total more than $1.2 trillion. millions of young people are struggling to keep up with their payments. but we have a chance to give those borrowers immediate relief by cutting the interest rate on existing student loans.

make no mistake, this is an emergency. federal watch-dog agencies like the federal reserve, the consumer financial protection bureau, and the treasury department, are already sounding the alarm. 40 million americans are saddled with student loan debt. it's holding them back and it's holding our economy back too. crushing student loan debt is keeping many young people from moving out of their parents' homes, from saving for a down payment. from buying homes, buying cars, starting small businesses, saving for retirement or making the purchases that grow our economy. it doesn't to be this way. congress set artificially high interest rates on old student loans that generate extra money for the government. the g.a.o. recently projected that just the slice of federal student loans issued between 2007 and 2012 will generate $6

$66 billion for the united states government. those are the kinds of profits that would make a fortune 500 c.e.o. proud. now, these young people didn't go to the mall and run up charges on a credit card. they worked hard and they learned new skills that will benefit this country and help us bring a stronger america. they deserve a fair shot at of at an affordable education. we can give them a fair shot by cutting those interest rates and cutting those government profits. along with more than 306 my colleagues, i've introduced the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act to do just that. the idea is simple. with interest rates near historic lose, homeowners, businesses and even local governments have refinanced their debts. but a graduate who took out an unsubsidized loan before july 1 of last year is locked into an

interest rate of nearly 7%. older loans run 8%, 9%, 10% and even higher. we need to bring those rates down and we need to do it now. the b -- the bank on students bill would allow student borrowers the opportunity to lower their interest rates on old loans to match the rates that the government offers to new borrowers today. that's 3.86% for undergraduate loans, 5.41% for graduate loans and 6.41% for plus loans. now, i want to be clear, these rates are still higher than what it costs the government to run the student loan program. the government won't be subsidizing student loans. in fact, the government will be making a profit on these loans, just a much, much, much smaller profit. and let's be clear, our work is

not done until we eliminate all of the profits from the student loan program. but this is a step that both republicans and democrats can easily support right now. last year nearly every republican in congress in both the house and the senate voted for the exact same loan rates that are in this legislation. now, if republicans believe that 3.86% is good enough for new undergraduate borrowers, then it should be good enough for all the existing undergraduate borrowers. there's no reason on earth to say that some kids can get a better deal than others when they all worked hard to do exactly what we wanted them to do, get an education. passing this bill would have a real impact for people who are struggling to make it. for college students, for young graduates who are only starting

to build their lives, for parents who are juggling their own student loans and trying to figure out how they're going to pay for their kids' education, and for parents who guaranteed their kids' student loans. student loan refinancing can save real money for millions of americans, and they're voicing their support. letters and e-mails and phone calls are already pouring in, and petitions for the bill's passage have already garnered hundreds of thousands of signatures. think tanks like demos and the center for american progress, student groups like young invincibles, teachers groups like the a.f.t. and n.e.a. have all come forward and endorsed this proposal. and today the congressional budget office announced that the bill actually saves billions of dollars and reduces the federal deficit. that's because the refinancing proposal is fully paid for by

implementing the buffett rule which limits the ability of millionaires and billionaires to exploit tax loopholes and pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families. later today we will introduce an updated version of this legislation in the hopes that we'll be able to consider it on the floor of the senate very soon. i'm encouraged by the fact that some republicans have also come forward to say they're open to considering a refinancing proposal, and i want to be clear, this should not be a partisan issue. i'm eager to work with any of my colleagues, regardless of party, who believe that we need to do something about this growing debt crisis. if they have issues with the proposal, if they want to suggest different offsets or policy changes, they should bring their ideas forward. we're ready to hear them. what we can't do is continue to ignore this problem and hope

that it will go away on its own. congress made this mess by setting artificially high interest rates that are crushing our kids, and it's congress's responsibility to clean it up. refinancing won't fix everything that's broken with our higher education system, but the need for comprehensive reform must not blind us to the urgency of addressing the massive debt that's already crushing young people. this is personal for me. i grew up in an america that made it a priority to invest in young people, and it opened a million dollars for me. i will keep fighting to make sure that every kid who works hard and plays by the rules gets a fair shot. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. student loan borrowers don't have armies of lobbyists to fight for them, but they have their voices, and they are

asking for our support. let's give it to them. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: last week during memorial day week, i spent much, much of the last week traveling ohio with a retired -- retired navy corpsman and columbus resident who served with marines in afghanistan from 2010-2011. his son zack is serving with marine corps tank, the first tank battalion deployed to the middle east. based on his combat experience and his concerns for other veterans and the suicide of a friend of his, a fellow veteran,

mr. fairman came to my office with an idea about how we can help both service members and veterans, veterans like alexander powell at the university of toledo joined us in northwest ohio. he was deployed in 2006 when his gun truck was struck by an i.e.d. he had no visible injuries. he went back to duty the next day and he began experiencing blackouts and dizzy spells. it wasn't until 2009 when he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and hospitalized to begin treatment. mr. powell isn't alone. the v.a. reports some 300,000 veterans struggle with post traumatic stress. the defense department reports out of an estimated tbi injuries, there are 20,000 cases of what they call mild traumatic brain injuries because mild t.b.i. is an invisible injury. think of an nfl player getting a

series of concussions events, a concussion one after another after another over a period of a career. think of a soldier getting what a number of soldiers said to me, marines, airmen and women and soldiers and sailors talk about getting "my bell rung" when they get a head injury. not serious enough for an nfl player to sit them down, not serious enough for a soldier to be sent home, perhaps not even serious enough that that soldier gets any medical treatment at all. but one of a series of concussive events, of invisible or minor head injuries that lead to problems a number of years later. when veterans or service members seek service-connected disabilities for related injuries, they often don't have the necessary documents needed to establish connection between their military service and their claim with the v.a. that was the case for mr. powell.

he told me last week "it was my job after returning -- after returning home" he said "it was my job to gather up any proof that i had to show them my truck was hit by an i.e.d. and gather statements from people who were there to corroborate the story. that is a task if not done immediately after the incident, that is a task that is almost impossible to accomplish. five years, six years, seven years later mr. powell is back in toledo, ohio, trying to piece together a series of these head injuries, what exactly happened, finding witnesses, finding his unit commander and comrades to be able to prove to the v.a. that his disability is earned, is warranted, and trying to explain to his doctor what his head injuries might have entailed. so the burden is on the veteran to provide the v.a. with information establishing the connection between their claim and their service. this can lead to denied claims. it can lead to improper medical

care and increases in the disability claims backlog. we're all concerned, even though the v.a. has shrunk that backlog by 50% in the last year or so, we also know one of the reasons for the backlog at the v.a. is it takes so much more time for the v.a. employee and the soldier to try to piece together the record of injuries that might have taken place five years ago, a decade ago, a decade and a half ago. that's why i introduced the significant event tracker act which mr. fairman helped to create. this bill will improve the claims process for our veterans and our service members. i would add that mr. fairman also visited a number of other senate offices and house offices. the only other one to respond was, was actually senator cornyn's office from texas. he and i have talked about this bill, and we both understand how important this can be to veterans. this, first let me explain the bill.

it would allow unit commanders to document events such as a roadside bombing that each service member and their command is exposed to and which might later be connected to these, quote unquote, invisible injuries. recording this information on an individual basis will help military medical officers better diagnose and treat serving -- and treat military members that have had mental health concerns. finally for veterans and military retirees, this act will help them to file better initial claims, claims with supporting documentation from d.o.d. in other words, veterans most crucially, mr. president, veterans should be able to focus on their recovery, not on having to prove the cause of their injury. let me say that again. a soldier going to the v.a. in dayton, ohio, or cincinnati, or in -- or a veterans clinic in mans field, that soldier should be able to focus on her recovery, not having to prove the cause of her injury.

this bill puts the responsibility on the army, on the marines, on the defense department, not on the veteran to track and connect significant events to individual service members that would later potentially lead to post traumatic stress or to traumatic brain injury. the legislation tells commanders -- the commanders already report major injuries. we want simply commanders to report about individual service members who were involved in any kind of, quote unquote, minor or invisible head injury. this is an idea -- as i said this was a big idea that came to me from michael fairman. he visited a number of senate offices and house offices. senator cornyn showed interest in it. my office has written the legislation with michael fairman. this is something that this nation is rightfully proud of our veterans, this idea came from a veteran. this idea deserves to be

seriously entertained by this senate and, frankly, by the defense department as we work with them on finding ways to implement some of these ideas. mr. president, if i could ask unanimous consent to place a different -- in a different place in the record the following remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise to commemorate an event that happened 25 years ago today not just in beijing, not just in chin -- not just in beijing but in other places in china when millions of people across that country, tiananmen square and other places, rallied in support of democracy, human rights and an end to corruption. like many americans i was inspired at the time. i wasn't a member of congress. living in ohio, i was inspired and moved by the courage and pursuit of individual and fundamental freedoms, freedoms that we hold dear in this country and freedoms not always granted -- not always, sometimes taken for granted here and not

always granted in other countries in the world. i recall the optimism of that moment, how it was crushed when the tanks rolled in. today we assess -- and i would like to for a moment assess what the last 25 years have meant for the chinese, but, frankly, more importantly to us, to our u.s.-china relations and what our policy towards china should be. china's made tremendous leaps forward in the past 40 years since normalization. following tiananmen square, we missed opportunity after opportunity to integrate china into the global world-based community of nations to protect our economic interests, to move china in the right direction on political reform. not an easy task, but 25 years later china is still fundamentally undemocratic. it too often refuses to play by the rules, rules that would benefit china short term and long term. the question now is whether china will address the challenges facing it tor it will continue its doctrine heir and

hard line stance, one that undermines the progress china made. in many respects, china has reaped the benefits of open trade with the rest of the world while avoiding many of its obligations. our trade deficit with china at the time of tiananmen square 25 years ago today, our trade deficit that year was $6 billion. in other words, we bought from china $6 billion in goods more than we sold to china. today or last year the trade deficit had grown 50 times. $318 billion, the highest ever. that means almost every single day of the year that on the average every single day of the year, we buy from china $900 million more in goods than we sell to china. that trade deficit, china's currency manipulation have cost americans millions of jobs and significantly reduced our federal budget. i know what trade with unbalanced, unfair, not played on a level playing field trade

with china has done to places like springfield, ohio; and marion, ohio, and chillicothe and lima, all over my state, all over the midwest, all over the country. in the end we compromise as a nation too much. we bought into the myth that china's economic integration at tiananmen square would inevitably bring about human rights and respect for international rules. that's not what's happened. the question is how do we fashion a better policy toward china? the commission that i chair, we've tried to honor the members -- of tiananmen by make making sure china's obligations to human rights and the rule of law resident forgotten. -- are t forgotten. cyber threats, threats to democracy in hong kong, illegal unfair trade practices, denial of visas or threats of denial of visas to foreign journalists, food safety, environmental, public health concerns, a crackdown on human rights activists, including plam ti, a

peaceful activist for the wieger minority group in tibet. it's my hope we have an open and transparent debate about our china policy. whether it be on trade agreements, where we continue to be on the short end every single year, or whether it's about growing chinese foreign investment in this country. this debate must be given proper weight rather than ignore our concerns over human rights, the rule of law, labor, public health, and the environment. above all, the debate about u.s. policy towards china must include all segments of our society, not the way we typically do trade agreements in this country, supported by newspaper publishers, supported by economists at harvard, but not fundamentally supported by the american people, by the public. from our workers and small businesses need to be included, n.g.o.'s, human rights groups instead of being led by powerful interest groups such as large corporations. debate needs to be inclusive, it needs to draw up on the interests and aspirations of all parts of american society.

more must be done as we honor 25 years the memory of tiananmen square. the world must continue to seek improvements in china's record on human rights and the rule of law. more must be done only by recognizing legitimate aspirations of its people and the obligations of the international system can china assume the role befitting its history and its size. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, in the wake of some recent supreme court decisions touching on our system of campaign finance, there has arisen in this senate

the, frankly, bizarre notion that we're going to amend the constitution to undo the bill of rights and particularly the first amendment and its protection of freedom of speech. of course, they don't describe it that way. the proponents don't. to hear the majority leader, who testified before the senate judiciary committee yesterday, he said, they're merely trying to keep what he called dark money out of american politics. but by giving congress the ability to regulate political speech and the means by which that is paid for and disseminated, this amendment would invite all matters -- or all manner of partisan mischief and abuses and it would effectively dismantle one of the most fundamental liberties secured by our constitution, something that really makes america the envy of the world and makes us in many ways uniq

unique. that we protect freedom of speech without regard to the content of that speech, without regard to the identity the speaker, whether they be rich, poor or a member of the middle class, whether they -- that opinion's informed or particularly -- are not necessarily well informed. we believe in the marketplace of ideas, where the american people are the only judge as to what they believe the truth is. we don't try to stifle or squelch speakers, particularly in the political process. as our good friend, the republican leader, said yesterday, if incumbent politicians were in charge of political speech, a majority could design the rules to benefit itself and diminish its opponents. and when the roles were reversed, you could expect the new majority to try to disadvantage the other half of the country, and on it would go. so this power that the majority

leader has proposed, to amend the constitution so that congress could regulate political speech, could be an instrument of incumbent protection, where the party in power could use that as a weapon against the minority, trying to persuade the country that they should be restored to the majority rather than linger as a minority. is this really the kind of system that our colleagues who are proposing this constitutional amendment want? well, you have to ask whether they have any realistic belief that this will actually become law. and, of course, it would have to pass both houses of the congress by a two-thirds vote and then have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. so i think it's not an overstatement to say that they have no chance of this becoming law. so why in the world is such an outlandish proposal being made by somebody like the

distinguished majority leader of the united states senate and other folks in his party? well, it's no exaggeration to say that this proposed amendment would undermine american democracy as we know it, so there has to be some other reason other than the substance of the amendment that they're trying 20 ge to get at. lest we forget the whole purpose of the first amendment is to ensure that all politica all fit speech, in fact, all speech period, is protected. when our country was first born, there was a serious debate about whether that was needed. or whether we had a government of checked balances with our shared balance between the president, the judicial and congressional branch. but "the federalists" said no,

we're not going to settle for that. we want an explicit protection of those rights that are not derived from government but which precede government, which don't come from government but which come from our creator. under the logic used by the proponents, the government should change this provision in the bill of rights that's been the law of the land for more than 200 years and now start regulating how much money newspapers, magazines, and web sites are allowed to spend on articles concerning politics and public policy. after all, when media outlets publish this information, they are using their financial advantage over ordinary citizens to be able to get their views out to the public. and, of course, they are trying to persuade citizens and voters and trying to affect political outcomes, both in terms of public policy choices and elections. now, the majority leader, if he were on the floor, might say, well, we've got a provision in

here that we would not grant congress the power to abridge freedom of the press. well, if you could turn off and on the money by which the press disseminates its point of view, if you can regulate perhaps even to the point of zero the part of political actors and their ability to disseminate the views in the public or influence voters before the election, this carve-out is effectively meaningless. it would most certainly grant congress the power to bridge the free speech of individuals and groups as disparate as the american civil liberties union, the national rifle association and the sierra club, which obviously have different views but they enjoy and are entitled to the same free -- freedom to speak their views and to persuade people to their point of view as anybody else. but it would also granted congres -- grant congressto abrh

as freedom of assembly and the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. and it would allow states to run roughshod even freedom of the press. so you have to wonder, why in the world would -- would intelligent, highly educated, experienced senators, people who are knowledgeable about all of the matters i've talked about, why in the world would they propose such a wrongheaded idea and one that they know will never become the law of the land? well, this is, unfortunately, part of a -- an effort to intimidate and to stigmatize people for participating in the political process. we know the majority leader comes out to the floor and talks daily about the koch brothers, who he happens to disagree with. and he disagrees with their right and their ability to participate in the political process and to affect elections.

he doesn't talk about other political actors, like organized labor, who essentially have been carved out of the limitations on political contributions in political spending. he doesn't talk about people like tom steyer, stormer hedge fund manager who says he's going to spend a hundred million dollars against anyone who supports the keystone pipeline or anyone opposes his views on climate change. so this rather cherry-picking in terms of trying to intimidate people and to squelch political speech is pretty apparent. it becomes apparent because obviously the majority leader is very worried about the upcoming midterm election and what might happen when we see the pushback from the voters in senate races all across the country at the last five years. and this great, huge growth in government and its intrusiveness in their lives.

but here's the bottom line. free speech is free speech, period. to quote a recent supreme court decision, there is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders, closed quote. as they said, nothing more basic. well, as i mentioned a moment ago, thankfully the founders were wise enough not only to give up the bill of rights and our constitution but to make it very difficult to amend it in the first place. so we know that the majority leader's amendment has no chance of actually passing. yet its mere introduction, the fact that a major political party in the majority in the senate apparently believes in shrinking the first amendment in order to weaken their political opponents, should be a cause of broad spread concern in the country. and people ought to ask the question, why in the world would you propose to do something as draconian and as damaging as

that? well, it's the kind of amendment we would expect to see not in the greatest deliberative body in the united -- in the world, certainly not in the united states senate, but maybe some banana republic, maybe some country that does not have our experience or our foundation in constitutional self-government. therefore, it's not merely enough to reject this amendment and then quickly move on to something else. we need to send a clear, unambiguous message that the bill of rights is not up for debate. we need to send a clear, unambiguous message that our first amendment freedoms represent the bedrock of american democracy. and we will not agree to undermine that, damage it or otherwise impair it on ou on our watch. i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president, if my

friend from wyoming wishes to speak, we'll go through the process here of just three or four minutes and i'll -- you c can -- we'll put you on what we call automact pilot if you care to speak. a senator: less than 15 minutes. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, on thursday, 1:45, all postcloture time be expired, the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of calendar number 798. further that following the vote on that nomination, which is burwell, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 519 and the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination. further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order to the no mom nation, any statements appear in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: with this agreement, there will be as many as two roll call votes beginning at 1:45. mr. president, we're rolling this up because we have 10 or so

senators who are going to go to the 7th anniversary of the normandy invasion. i ask unanimous consent now we preto a period of morning business, senators be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 218. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 2 218, honoring the legacy of a. phillip randolph and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous us consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 463. the presiding officer: the clerk will reportmenthe clerkwill rep. the clerk: senate resolution 643, honoring the accomplishments and legacy of billy frank jr. and so forth.

the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table with no intervening action or debated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 467. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 467, recognizing the 100th anniversary of fisherman's terminal in the port of seattle and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: s. res. 2432, it's my understanding, was introduced earlier today and is due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2432, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 to provide for the refinancing of certain federal student loans, and for other

purposes. mr. reid: i ask for a second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: the bill will receive the second reading in the next legislative session. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, june 5. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 1:45 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes, the republicans the second 30 minutes and the final 20 minutes be equally divided and controlled between senators wyden and hatch, with senator wyden controlling the final 10 minutes. at 1:45 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: as i mentioned, there will be up to two roll call votes at 1:45 tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask

following the remarks of the distinguished senator from wyoming, the junior senator from wyoming be recognized for up to seven minutes, i ask that following that, the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today marks the 25th anniversary of the tiananmen square massacre. the violent suppression of -- and forcible dispersion in tiananmen square by the government of china resulted in the death and injury of peaceful demonstrators. i worked with members of the senate from both sides of the aisle through the foreign relations committee, both sides of the aisle on a resolution expressing sympathy to the families of those killed, those tortured and those imprisoned due to their participation in the peaceful democracy movement in tiananmen square. our resolution also calls out the government of china for submitting its citizens to physical attacks, to harassment,

to detention for attempting to discuss or commemorate the events of june of 1989. the chinese authorities to this day continue to block and censor public discussions and events marking the anniversary of tiananmen square. the resolution also condemns the ongoing human rights abuses by the government of china. the united states has a long record of championing liberty and freedom around the world. the united states senate must stand up and support those individuals who have in the past and continue to this very day to demand their rights in china. and so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to calendar number 383, senate resolution 451. i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the

motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned under the previous order until "politico."omorrowt for byron tau, what was the hearing about and why? >> the hearing in the senate judiciary committee called to

examine and discuss a proposal by senator tom udall of new essentiallywould amend the constitution to permit congress to regulate campaign-finance. the proposal is neutral on the policy congress would adopt, but would put the authority and give constitutional muster to any campaign-finance effort that congress might want to pass. host: why do the democrats want this amendment? democrats are increasingly concerned about the amount of money that is pouring into the political process. enough money is pouring in on both sides, i should add. reid notedr harry this fact, the democrats have their own billionaires. the argument should not descend to whose billionaires are correct. that theybelieve

mccutchen versus fec case were poorly deced the more recent mccutchen versus fcc case in a number of other campaign-finance regulations decided until to the campaign finance plan towards the wealthy. >> host: but listen to what the majority leader, harry reid had to say at this hearing yesterday. >> outside groups spent more than $1 billion. that is a conservative estimate. that is about as much money as was spent in the previous 12 elections. but this bike in the amount of shadowy money being pumped into elections isn't surprising. recent decisions rendered by the united states supreme court, i've mentioned citizens united, mccutchen, have eviscerated our campaign-finance laws and open the floodgates for special

interests. the sonics may scoff at us working together on an issue as critical as good government. but it wasn't all that long ago the issue of campaign finance reform enjoys support from both democrats and republicans. >> host: so what is the likelihood or when would this amendment be voted on? what is the process here? >> well, can't no amendments are a huge undertaking. they require two thirds of the house above congresses as well as those in three fourths of the state legislatures and it's no surprise the constitution has not been amended very many times in our history. this is a huge uphill battle for supporters. we've even heard senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, who also appeared on the panel next to senator reid saying this is a political stunt that this will never pass into law and this is more designed to help turn out voters in the november

elections, rather than actual legislating. to be fair to senator mcconnell, this is a huge undertaking and unlikely to happen anytime soon. >> host: but listen. let's show our viewers what senator mcconnell had to say it is so worse. >> americans of all walks of life under strain how extraordinarily special the first amendment is. like the founders come and they know the free exchange of ideas and the ability to criticize their government are necessary for our democracy to survive. benjamin franklin noted that quote whoever would overthrow the nation must begin by sid doing the free massive speech. the first amendment is the constitutional guarantee about freedom and it is never, never been amended, albert. attempts to weaken the first amendment such as the proposals before this committee should

therefore pass the highest scrutiny. senate joint resolution team falls far, far ashore of that high bar. it would empower incumbent politicians in congress and in the state to read the rules on who gets to speak and who doesn't. and the american people should eat concerned. >> host: telecenter mitch mcconnell on capitol hill before the senate judiciary committee yesterday. our cameras were there. if you missed the hearing on the campaign-finance amendment to the constitution, but her website website, c-span.org. jordan on the phone is byron tau, reporter for "politico." byron tau, you heard for the minority leader. democrats are promising a boat ride this summer. politically what is going on here? >> guest: well, you know, listening to democratic rhetoric this winter and spring seems the democrats are positioning major

republican donors says sorry to the villains in the fall election of those on the constitutional men is sort of dovetails political agenda. senator reid, in particular has been very vocal in their criticism of two republican donors, charles and david koch. he brought the floor remarks to accuse them of trying to buy the political process. and though, the politics of this are interesting for the democrats. they would like to rally their small donors, their grassroots supporters to come out and vote and give money in small amounts to try to counter the effects of sort of the money pouring into the republican side and to be fair to the republicans, democrats have their own billionaires who are given lots of money to super super pacs. there is one with an eye towards

november and towards turning out grassroots reporters. >> host: byron tau, why did senator mitch mcconnell agreed to testify? >> guest: well, mcconnell had a huge opponent of further campaign-finance restrictions. he sued a number of times. he is doesn't his briefs with the court and a number of major cases and has long positioned himself on this issue by someone that firmly believes that money is speech. it's a protected act dignity under the first amendment that, you know, at times by democrats to regulate our attempts to curtail the first amendment. it is quite passionate about this issue. he speaks away frequently on it. he speaks with a lot of authority on and he's been involved in these issues for the better part of a decade or two decades. that was kind of the reason for his disappearance yesterday.

>> host: well, the papers noting this morning it's been over a decade before the majority leader and minority leader appeared together to testify before a committee on a policy matter. so, byron tau with "politico," thank you are your time. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> next, here in a minute or regulatory commission efforts to implement the recommendations of the task was created after the 2011th fukushima daiichi nuclear power plant accident in japan. commissioners appeared before

the senate environment committee and discussed the closure of several u.s. plan, waivers granted by the commission to facilities concerning evacuation plan and documents that the nrc refuses to reply to the kitty about an investigation of the nuclear plan. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. today dpw committee is holding its ninth oversight hearing at the feet for the earthquakes in on me and nuclear meltdown in

japan. it's been more than three years since the fukushima disaster in japan is still struggling to clean up the site. the massive underground ice while intended to prevent radioactivity water from flowing into the sea will take a year to finish and cost more than $309. the facilities and the united date. today, i am going to continue to focus on minute the nrc has done that. it is vitally important that the nrc remained committed to its position, which is said and i quote, to ensure the safe use of the materials for beneficial civilian purposes, while protecting people and the environment. based on review of the progress made since the fukushima disaster and on what additional steps need to be taken by nrc to ensure the safety of the people and the environment, which is

your charge, i am afraid he may have lost sight of your mission. if you could she not near-term task force made up of nrc senior staff recommended 12 measures to upgrade safety in the wake of the fukushima meltdowns. in august 2011, the former nrc chairman testified before the committee that the nrc should be able to act on those recommendations within 90 days and that they could be implemented within five years. as of today, any think i have a chart here. the nrc has failed to require reactor operators to complete implementation of a single one -- a single one of the post-fukushima safety measures. this is scandalous. some reactor operators are not in compliance with the safety requirements that were in place before fukushima. and the nrc has only completed its own action on four of the 12 task force recommendations. now, your team, that you praise

all the time, told you you've got to do this. this is unacceptable this delay and puts the safety of the american people at risk. thank you. we have this just in case. i'm sure you know what desire, but we have this for you. i also have serious concerns about the safe use spent nuclear fuel. nrc's own study shows the consequences of a fire at his band nuclear fuel pool can be as serious as a severe accident and an operating reactor. not only does the above the field to beat stored indefinitely, and rcs can do during request from decommissioning reactor operators for exemptions from the merchant a response measures designed to protect nearby communities. while the nuclear energy institute claimed in a letter sent to me yesterday that these exemptions are granted only when quote, special circumstances,

unquote exist in a facility, the truth is never has the nrc denied even one waiver request. it rubberstamps and every single time a reactor shuts down. i've introduced three bills with matters marquis and panders on spent nuclear fuel and the decommissioning process. these are not theoretical concerns. on the same day, the same day that this committee held a hearing on this topic last month, an out-of-control wildfire was burden and a a mile away from us via i know i nuclear plant. those are the people of california. millions and millions of them. this is the. and this plant is asking for a waivers so they don't have to deal with any type of emergency response. my concern about nrc's commitment to identify and remedy safety problems is also

highlighted by an investigation into the installation of defective equipped and. for example, i learned that the nrc staff was preparing to allow the restart of one of the reactors before it had received a single answer to any of the technical safety questions asked of the california at inches admit, continuing of the pattern of doing everything they're asked to do by the industry. this oversight investigation that i conduct gain is important not only to get to the problems at san onofre. i feel whistleblowers have no resource but to contact congress report safety problems and that is what they are doing, ladies and gentlemen. nrc's internal procedures for addressing concerns are broken. remarkably, nrc is continuing to obstruct an investigation by withholding documents that the committee has a right to receive. let me be clear. the nrc has no legal right

whatsoever to refuse to provide the committee with these documents and today i will make available a comprehensive list of this lucian. in order for the nuclear industry to maintain the confidence that the people -- we have a lot of people here who are very strong supporters of the new. this trait -- i believe it is critical that you step up to the plate on safety. nrc's recent track record does not inspire confidence and that does not bode well because at the end of the day of the american people don't want another reactor near them because of these problems, then the industry is just not going to be there in the future and there's a lot of people on this committee that want to see the industry in the future. so i do look forward to asking is the is the more questions than it that i call on senator federer. >> thank you, chairman boxer for convening today's hearing and i want to thank our enters the commissioners for your work,

your dedication and for being here to testify. lately, various numbers on this committee has been very active and fundamentally attend and how they can ours the managers at self in our nations nuclear powered electricity generating facilities. in recent months, we've seen legislation letter since payments from some of my colleagues in favor of new and costly and in my view usually unnecessary regulations. today want to urge our commissioners to be precise and direct with your thoughts on these initiatives. you and your staff are the x birds. we are not. we depend on your x or tease. and so, i urge you to be committed to using the best available science and fact to ensure that any new rules and regulations are necessary and appropriate for her fleet, happens to have a long track record of safety.

there exists a baseline standard that the commission should meet when considering new regulations. i want to commend the recent vote to eliminate further generic assessments to expedite the transfer on thaksin sale signs. while some of my colleagues may disagree with the commission and myself on this issue, it is important to note that the nrc staff recommended the elimination of these generic assessments have extensively studied issue and compiled all the available data to make the best possible recommendation. as most of you are aware this past monday, epa administrator gina mccarthy and president obama released a regulations for carbon emissions from existing power plants as part of the president's climate action plan. other presidents efforts to kill coal-fired generation are obvious and already underway, i am really concerned about

another and somewhat more subversive and undercover effort to really crippled the nuclear industry, which is ongoing. when he first announced the climate action plan, the president victoriously stated that he supports in all of the above approach. i think the really disingenuous nature of this claim requires only a cursory review of the recent actions by the administration, including the nuclear site. further nuclear site during the work being done to undermine fabrice confidence rule and to kill the yak about the project is a clear example of a long-term strategy to shut down most or all of our nations nuclear power. another example is the recent 316 b. rule for cooling water intake systems. although epa's rule this time around may not look like it will have a critical impact, and many in the environmental community had hoped, it will certainly be

litigated and whatever deal the epa cut behind closed errors in that process will assuredly be where's. i firmly believe that the nuclear sector should play a role in meeting our domestic energy name safely and with the confidence of the american people. however, i am can earn some senate democrats are using these hearings to provide cover for efforts quite frankly to kill nuclear generation, which is only there to decrease the output incapacity of our nations reliable nuclear fleet. ironically, the shutdowns will increase greenhouse gas emissions as states struggle to find other base load power. finally, i want to state my concern on the lack of communication from the nrc in the about the renomination of commissioner apostolakis whose term is up at the end of the month as well as they

replacement for commissioner magwood 20 vacate the seat later this year. keeping these positions still a qualified individuals must remain a priority to ensure the safety of arc to joanne and foreign nations economy. i urge the administration to act on this quickly so the commission can continue his important work without interruption or distractions. again, thanks very much for being here. thanks for your work. i look forward to your expert testimony. >> thank you, senator. senator carper -- i mean, senator cardin. >> is picked up a spot in seniority. mind share, thank you for connecting the steering and thank you for the commissioners for being here. thank you for your public service. just to follow-up on senator vitter's point, i do think we can have a less pollution in our air, reduce carbon. we can do it in a way that will help public health and we can do

it in a way that will create more jobs than we can do it with nuclear energy in a safe way. i think all of the above are very important in this hearing is a timely hearing for many reasons. the chairman pointed out by others on stability regards to public safety to make sure the nuclear regulatory commission is operating in a way that his top priorities to protect the public safety and the people in our community. but it is also timely because of the administration's announcement on their powerplant rules about our commitment to reduce our carbon emissions in nuclear energy is an important part of that. so i think that comes together in today's hearing and i very much appreciate this opportunity. nuclear energy is an extremely important part of our energy supply in this country. 20% of our electricity is a nuclear power. 60% of our carbon free energy electricity is produced through the nuclear energy.

so it's a critical part of our energy sufficiency is in this country and therefore we need to do this in a way that is mindful of the safety of the people of our country. we have about 100 reactors today. to turn it are clover close and in maryland and major concern to me. the nuclear regulatory commission is home to my state of maryland and we are very proud of the people who work there. it is consistently ranked as one of the best places to work, which i think reflects the management of the nuclear regulatory commission and we're proud of that. as we conduct this hearing, let me point out a couple trends. first come is gone through a difficult time of sequestration, government shutdowns, pay freezes. that's had an impact on your

workforce and we expect the very best to be in this field. so i'm concerned about the fact of the recent government policies on the budget has had a near capacity to get the best people come to retain best people so that we can carry out the mission of public safety in this country. i welcome your comments countenance views as where we are and your ability to to retract and retain the very best in order to ensure the safety of the people of this country and be at the forefront of nuclear technology. senator vitter say we take information to do what is right. on the other side of the equation, there has been a change in your mission over the period of the last couple decades. a number of nuclear reactors are now but we had predicted them to be. that affects your overall emission and how if you adjusted to the realities of the number

of react or is that we are having in our country. the handling of the nuclear threat materials has changed magically over the next couple decades. what has been your adjustment to your mission in order to make sure that you have adequate resources to carry out its missions. so i welcome this hearing so we can carry out our responsibility of oversight to make sure you've got the tools necessary to not only provide the best for our country, but we know we are the leaders in the world and what we are doing a nuclear regulation. and secondly, because of the change in mission we should look at a different way of making sure you have the adequate tools to carry out your responsibility. i look forward to your testimony and i thank you all for being here. >> thank you, senator. next, senator sessions. >> thank you, chairman boxer and

ranking member vitter. none of chairman, i know you are concerned about safety and that's an issue and you'll be challenged to meet those standards that we expect a the board. but the nuclear industry, i've got eight, represents a vital part of our energy mix. it produces no carbon emissions on a week the president has unveiled a 30% reduction from 2005 levels of co2 by 2030 we surely should be discussing the role and clear power can play in reaching those goals. and in fact, we've had an excellent safety record. i do believe it should never be forgot that despite all the other dangerous and lives lost in other energies or is this, we have never had an individual was killed as a nuclear power generating accident.

zero. and on that inmate kicked my knowledge. this is a tremendous safety record and a tremendous environmental record. the risk involved in the safe management of nuclear power has been reduced in this commission has been responsible for that. you've been watching this carefully. your professionals are experienced than you have a right and a duty to hold these industries -- businesses to account, but you also have a duty in this on stability to listen to god and if they provide good information that helps to make the plant safer at less cost, you should feel to listen to that in response to it. according to the energy information agent b., the energy produced is 20% of all of our electricity, but it produces exceed% of all carbon free electricity. the continued work of the the through the d.c. circuit courts of order in akin county regarding the license and of sub

five mountain is of vital importance. as the court stated because congress did not enact legislation and because congress has the policy, not the commission regarding the storage of nuclear waste, it is clear the commission must promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process or disposal of waste. ..

so i'm really concerned that the power station wisconsin closed vermont yankee clothes, crystal river unit three in florida closed, units two and three in california closed and oyster creek in new jersey to close by 2019. we only have local in georgia and some in south carolina being developed so this is a serious concern. safety is a priority but clean responsible baseload nuclear power at a reasonable rate is so important for america. so madam chairman i appreciate the hearing. i know this commission and its staff needs to be held to account but they have been doing a good job. we had a problem with the prior leader and he is gone now.

ms. macfarlane is leading collegially and they think affectively. the board is working together effectively. i'm proud of what they are doing and i believe we need to be asking ourselves how it is, what can we do reasonably and safely to deal with what appears to be not a growth in nuclear power but a decline. i think that would be a real tragedy for the people of the country. thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you chairman and thank you to the ranking member for holding this important hearing on maintaining the safety of our nuclear facilities. a primary function of the nuclear regulatory commission is to ensure that active and retired reactors are safe and secure. safety concerns have been raised about on-site storage of nuclear material at decommissioned and operating plans alike. the 2011 meltdown at japan's lucaccini daiichi plant was a stark reminder of the hazard of

large-scale nuclear disaster. that episode prompted the nrc to establish a near-term task force that outlined 12 safety recommendations to reduce vulnerabilities for american nuclear plants. in 2012 the nrc ordered nuclear plants to set up the first-ever commission which included updates to main cooling during ex-general events upgrades to reactor containment venting and better monitoring of spent fuel pools during accidents. ability of our temporary nuclear waste storage to withstand natural disasters or other emergencies is of particular importance and role eyed and paired although we don't have any nuclear power plants within our borders we are within a 50-mile exposure pathway of connecticut's millstone powerstation and massachusetts program power station raided both facilities sit on atlantic coast and face heightened risk from extreme weather events coastal flooding and sea level rise. given rhode island's exposure i

joined with several colleagues and asking the accountability office to investigate the nrc's oversight of emergency preparedness at and near our nation's nuclear power plants. the latest fukushima safety reports say the technology at the facilities has remained largely stagnant over the last 60 years despite the availability of a number of significant advances. listing nuclear plant security will require taking advantage of innovative approaches. there's at least one advanced reactor that doesn't require water for cooling so could be built away from the shoreline in the coastal elements. our current nuclear fleet is aging and as you have heard from my colleagues many reactors are going off-line. last year for nuclear reactors closed in the u.s. and vermont yankee nuclear power station was decommissioned by the end of this year. when energy produced by these reactors disappears from the grid other sources have to fill the gap.

to achieve the greenhouse reductions outlined in the president's climate action plan we need to explore all potential options and technologies for zero carbon baseload power. investing more in advance nuclear more in advance nuclear technologies things like small modular reactors and we have reactors may be a way to produce more greenhouse gas free energy while generating less waste. as we work to address the safety of our existing fleet and provide reliable baseload power and cost-effective rates we should apply the lessons of disasters like fukushima in researching and developing advanced nuclear technologies. as chairman of subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety appreciate the opportunity to hear from all the nrc commissioners on this critical issue and i once again thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this important hearing. >> thank you senator. i am happy d.c. senator inhofe. welcome. >> thank you. it's nice to be here.

when i first became chairman and you will remember this well of the era air nuclear subcommittee in 1997 ms. svinicki we had not had an oversight hearing in 10 years and of course we started having them and now we of course we are having to in a matter of weeks about the same topic decommissioning. since 1997 we have increased our oversight hearings successfully and i'm not worried about that. oversight is a good thing but the aim of the committee seems to be to put the committee out of business to ensure that the nrc is conducting appropriate oversight or the nrc rightly looked into the issue of expediting spent fuel pools to dry cast following the fukushima disaster. the staff ultimately determined the united states fleet risk of radiological release from the compromise of the spent fuel pool and i'm quoting now is very

low, about one time in 10 million years or lower and the study predicted no early fatalities attributable to radiation exposure. now that was the report of the staff and i think the majority of the commissioners. according to researchers at nasa that means it's less than a likelihood the earth will be struck by its civilization threatening meteor which has a risk of occurring only once every 4 million years. appropriately the nrc staff concluded and i'm quoting again, expediting movement of spent fuel from the pool does not provide a substantial safety enhancement. and when you consider that mandating this would cost the industry an additional $4 billion it is right for the commissioners to vote in favor of the staff's position. i'm disappointed however the nrc is going to spend even more time and resources studying this topic.

it will only serve to waste additional taxpayers dollars. nevertheless i have full competence and the ability of the nrc to enter the decommissioning process and i find it concerning that the majority's intent to undermine the public's confidence on this topic. just this week the president released his global warming regulations for existing power plants and their costs would be enormous, $51 billion in lost economic activity per year which translates to about 224,000 jobs while while the president's plan treats nuclear plants more favorably than others i am not naïve enough to believe that he and his environmental friends actually like the nuclear industry. as we all know the president's model country for his green dream is germany. environmental is there successfully used the disaster are fukushima to enact a ban on nuclear power plants.

many environmentalists and members on the other side of the aisle are similarly positioned for suing every regulatory impulse to enact a cumulative cost of compliance while prohibiting the final construction of yucca mountain leaving room for folks like the nrdc and others to challenge the issuance of additional licensing due to the ways confidence issue. let's keep in mind in germany what happened as a result of all of this in a relatively short. back of time the cost per kilowatt hour has doubled in germany from 18 to 36 and germany currently has three times the cost per kilowatt hours as we do in this country. we have a lot of people we represent who are very interested in that and it should be a major consideration. the nuclear power industry provides 20% of our total electricity generation here in america and a fan barman to left is successful in shutting down this inexpensive domestic source of energy than the american

people will be the ones who will suffer. the problem is the administration is internally inconsistent in its energy policy. as gina mccarthy touts greater reliance on nuclear generation to offset cold in the esp is the esp as roma and they nrc is pushing the industry down the compliance rabbit hole with of new regulation. i'm talking about 316 bea the flood and seismic and several others that would actually have the effect of putting the air out of business. sometimes i just wish that the ferc and the narc and the epa in the nrc and the democrats would sit down in a room and talk to each other about how we should power this machine called america. if they are successful in these endeavors. thank you madam chairman. >> thank you and now we turn to the commissioners.

>> and chair? >> senator, you came in so quietly. >> it's so unusual on my behalf. >> welcome and please proceed. >> thank you so much madam chair i appreciate you scheduling a hearing today and welcome the commissioners. madam chairwoman the nuclear regulatory commission is vital to ensuring nuclear safety and it's important for this committee to make sure that their mission is carried out effectively. although there are some that may question policy decisions made by the commission i believe we have come a long way or more of the commission was just a few years ago. on the commission is made a decision to recognize nuclear power plants need flexibility and when they can move spent fuel from what's pools to dry cast storage and i believe storing nuclear waste and what pools is safe. as we know storing in pools -- eventually this fuel must be put into the dry cask so it can be shipped to yucca mountain or

whatever facility is chosen to store the nuclear waste. the commission is currently working on the safety assessment for yucca mountain or it unfortunately the commission is not requesting supplemental funds for yucca mountain related activities and there's a concern for those of us on the committee who believe yucca mountain is a viable option for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. i'm also concerned madam chairwoman that the progress of the nrc has made could be undone if we do not have qualified individuals in all the commissioners spots on the commission. for example commission or a apostolic us his term is ending at the end of the month yet the industry's newest most failed to renominate him for this commission. i don't understand the rationale. the commissioner has years of experience and i suggest the president renominated him as soon as possible so we can maintain a full commission that continues to protect her committees by ensuring nuclear safety.

this is best achieved by having experienced commissioners who work well together. this is best achieved i believe if the president has a different nominee in mind than the committee must be given the time to consider the nominee before the end of our commissioners term. the delay in making the decision on this matter shows a lack of respect for the role the committee plays in vetting nominees for the commission. the regulatory commission is an important asset to overseeing nuclear power and it must be comprised with competent individuals. the commission can ensure that nuclear energy can continue to be an important part of america's energy mix. it's safe and its base load power runs 21st at day seven days a week and can make an america energy independent. in my home state of wyoming uranium is in abundance. we have a steady supply of fuel stop to power american homes and businesses for years to come. if we are to have a true all out all of the above energy strategy we must continue with building

new nuclear power plants. this is essential to the future of nuclear power in america. but we cannot do is hamper nuclear power by overregulating the plans we have an strike a balance to ensure the safety of our communities while continuing to ensure the viability of nuclear power so thank you madam chairwoman and i look forward to testimony. >> senator thank you. i don't see any more senator so we will turn to the chairman. she has five minutes and the other commissioner will have to and we will ask her questions. please proceed. >> good morning german boxer ranking member of feather and distinguished members of the committee. why colleagues and i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning on behalf of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission. today i would like to discuss the nrc's accomplishments and challenges in our efforts the agency is making to ensure we are performing as effectively and efficiently as possible. the nrc continues to make significant progress in

addressing lessons learned from the fukushima accident. the majority of the tier 1 activities are on track to be completed before the end of 2016 and we are addressing the tier 2 and tier 3 issues as well. we are seeing reactors with upcoming outages making modifications to safety systems to provide additional supplies and electrical power in multiple ways to inject cooling water into the react or's and spent fuel pools. they are also installing additional portable equipment. two weeks ago i had the opportunity to visit the palo verde generating station in arizona and one of the industries to regional response centers. these centers contain additional portable safety radiation protection and other emergency response equipment that can be delivered to unaffected plant within 24 hours. these visits gave me the opportunity to see first-hand

with the nrc requirements to enhance the plant's ability to withstand beyond design basis accident. while maintaining our focus on the operating fleet the nrc is also overseeing new construction at the watts bar unep to plant, the vocal plant in b.c. summer to ensure that plans are being constructed in accordance with their approved design and issues are her inspectors identify are corrected. with four reactors recently ceasing operations in vermont yankee terminally shutting down by the end of 2014 as a number of you mentioned the nrc has sharpened its focus on the transition from operating to decommissioning plants. it's important to emphasize that when a reactor ceases operations the nrc's work to ensure safety and security continues. after fuel is removed from the reactor core the nrc continues to ensure operational safety

controls, security and emergency preparedness remain appropriate to protect the public. the nrc must review the licenses plans to decommissioning activities schedules and cost estimates and hold a public meeting near the plant before major decommissioning activities can begin. the nrc oversees facilities transition to ensure decommissioning is carried out safely. we encouraged licensees to inform and engage members of the public and state and local officials throughout the decommissioning process. the nrc believes the safety and security requirements we mandate will be most effective if they are prioritized appropriately so licensees can maintain focus on safe operations. we are carefully working to understand and manage the key militant effects of our regulations including timelines for new or revised requirements based on the priority associated with each action and the availability of the nrc industry

with resources. we have enhanced public participation in our own makings and have engaged the industry to perform case studies to develop more accurate regulatory costs and schedule estimates. the commission has directed the staff to continue its work to understand cumulative impacts and assess the effectiveness of nrc's process enhancements. the nrc faces a different future for what we anticipated just a few years ago when the significant increase in new reactor licensing and construction was projected. we recognize the need to approach this future in an agile and efficient manner. we are working now to project the agencies expected workload and critical skill needs through 2020. while there are fewer operating plans a new large light water reactor license applications the nrc's workload has increased in other areas. in addition to the work areas i just discussed we are continuing to address the court's decisions on waste confidence at yucca

mountain in preparing for small reactor design reviews among other things. as we meet these challenges i'm confident in the nrc's ability to continue to develop and execute the strategies needed to achieve our safety and security mission. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i'm pleased to answer any of your questions. >> thank you. the honorable christine svinicki. >> thank you german boxer ranking member of veteran members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today at this oversight hearing on nrc's implementation of actions to enhance and maintain nuclear safety. the commission's chairman chairman dr. alison macfarlane and her statement on behalf of the commission has provided a comprehensive description of key agency accomplishment and challenges in carrying out nrc's important mission. the nrc continues to implement safety significant lessons learned from the fukushima accident in accordance with established agency processes and

procedures while also maintaining our focus on ensuring the safe operation of nuclear facilities and the safe use of nuclear materials across the country. the next period of implementation of fukushima related tier 1 regulatory actions lasting several years will require discipline and focus from the nrc staff experts as they review and oversee a large body of complex interrelated work for you and i'm confident that the nrc's dedicated staff members are up to the task of meeting these challenges. i think the again for their sustained commitment to the agency and to its work. i appreciate the opportunity to appear today and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. the honorable george apostolakis. >> chairman boxer and members of the committee good morning. the chairman has outlined many of our recent accomplishments current challenges and future plans. i concur with the chairman's

statement that we understand the need to be product is about our future address challenges as they arise and maintain a focus on our mission. i would emphasize that there are a number of important technical and policy issues currently facing the agency. these include the assessment of seismic evaluations and review other associated risk and integrated assessments. the proposed station blackout mitigating strategy role making, the renewal of operating licenses are currently operating react is beyond 60 years referred to a subsequent license renewal, waste confidence and risk management regulatory framework which proposes a long-term vision for performance-based regulatory framework created i cannot recall a more significant group of actions by the agency in such a short trade of time. the commissions oversight

regarding these issues will shape the revelatory framework for a long time to come. thank you very much. >> next the honorable william magwood the fourth. >> thank you madam chairman good morning to you and it's a pleasure to meet with you today to talk about the progress we have made towards learning the lesson of fukushima. the chairman's statement has highlighted much of our progress and i would add a few additional comments. first i note the three years as the fukushima accident japan took place i have seen nothing that would make my questions safety of the power plants. since march 2011 we penalize the vast array of technical issues made complex policies and engaged in an open public discussion about the lessons learned from the accident. after all that the central conclusion reached by a near-term task force after the accident remains viable. new clear power plants are safe.

at the same time i think it's important to size the reisner plants are safe is that we in united states both the licensing committee place high value in responding to operating experience. u.s. plans are safe because we learned from six decades of white water after we operations and three-mile and 9/11. we can do no less in the case of fukushima experience. the rnc has taken actions based on lessons learned. i believe the changes we have made thus far are appropriate and balance. i believe the steps that are licensees have taken thus far has made us more resilient than before. for example two weeks ago i visited california's plant which has obtained vast new equipment and is building a new bust facility for housing. many plants are doing the same thing. they're still much work to be completed though i'm confident what we have done so far has been both necessary for public protection and balance according to the threat so i think you and i look forward to your questions.

>> thank you so much and last but certainly not least the honorable william ostendorff. welcome. >> thank you chairman box and then senator inhofe for the chance to be here today. regarding fukushima great strides have been made in the activities to determine -- without unnecessary delay safety significant items in tier 1. one such activity is directed to licensees to reevaluate seismic hazards using present-day methodologies. i note licensees submitting these to the nrc. our staff is complete its initial evaluations of the submissions encumbering the plans continue to operate while the nrc and industry conduct further detailed evaluations in certain plants. also as noted by chairman mcfarland industry has just opened a regional response center in phoenix which has equipment to generators be provided within 24 hours to supplement on-site equipment as

necessary. as the commissioner i have great confidence in the nrc's decision-making on fukushima actions. throughout the commission our staff have relied upon solid principles of science, engineering risk management. i appreciate the committee's oversight role and i look forward to your questions. >> i want to thank you all for your testimony. chairman mcfarland the nrc is still withholding two categories of documents related to the san onofre investigation for this committee. you have repeatedly told me that the reason the nrc is withholding these documents is because of quote constitutional separation of powers concerns. now i asked after working feverishly with your legal staff

my legal team couldn't get the information. i asked a constitutional scholar morton rosenberg who worked for crs in the american motivation for 35 years and you have cited him often in your correspondence with us. this is what he says. he said your letters to me demonstrate and i quote a profound misunderstanding of congresses investigatory power and that they miss state court decisions and they ignore overwhelming contrary case law that supports the committee's right to receive the materials and they show quote a lack of awareness of over 90 years of congressional investigations in which agencies have had to give congress what it asks for and i'm going to ask unanimous consent that i place this paper into the record at this time. chairman macfarlane you are clearly relying on deeply flawed legal advice and it's time for you to decide for yourself will

the nrc follow the law and give the committee what is asked for or not? >> chairman boxer i would like to be clear that the commission has not come to its position lightly. we have spent much time and effort studying the situation, seeking views on the situation so that we feel we have been able to provide you with as much information as we believe that we can. there are two categories of documents that we feel we need to protect that we trust that the many many documents that we have already provided you for your investigations have been helpful. >> let me just say obviously the answer to my question is you are going to stick with the legal advice you have been given which i am told by a scholar is totally wrong. i didn't say he didn't take the

position rightly. i said you came to wrongly so we still take that position. this committee is going to do its work. we are going to get these documents. and when you read his analysis and we will send it to your teal change your mind because it's a very serious what is being withheld. and by the way we will get one way or the other but we need to have it. now, many of you have said you were thrilled about the progress and you are very pleased the progress you are making post-fukushima so can we put up those 12 recommendations? as a matter of fact you used words that you know explain all the progress and from the chairman on down. i would like to ask u.s. bars stars you know has any of these 12 been implemented? see some of them have been.

>> which ones have been implemented? >> what we did at the commission after the near-term task force presented us with those 12 recommendations, we prioritized those periods into three >> no, now i'm asking these 12 recommendations that were made to your top staff, i want to know, have the answer. i just want to get you to confirm it. i have the answer. not one of these has been implemented by an industry on the ground. do you disagree with that? >> chairman those are recommendations based on those recommendations we issued a number of orders, number of requests for information and we have entered into a number of rule makings and we are still. >> i asked you a question. has industry implemented any of these 12? they have it and so you can sit there and say you are proud and

everything else but the fact is not one of these has been implemented on the ground. ..

now, that plant is shut down. and these fuel rods are hot right there. you have decided not to move them. i am asking you each. if you are asked to waive the requirement that this plant have an evacuation plan in place, if you are asked to waive that, will you deny that request? you are making a face like you did not understand, so i will say it again. you have been asked as i understand it, by the operator to waive the requirement that there be emergency evacuation planning at that site. they don't want to do it anymore. they don't want to have the siren. it don't want to have the plan. 8 million people. the fire came within half a mile . will you deny that request? i am asking yes or no. >> exemptions are not waivers. the plant may have applied for

an exemption. that is not a waiver. >> fine. will you deny the exemption? >> emergency preparedness at the commission plans the commencing plants may in some cases be reduced in scope, but it will not be eliminated. i want to be clear on that. exemptions for decommissioning plans are done on a site specific basis. >> i am asking you, well you deny the exemption from safety for this plant when it is presented? >> we will always -- then we will ensure high -- >> that is not the answer to my question. say yes or no or i don't know or i can't answer it. will you deny a request for an exemption? >> we will and shorts -- >> in the emergency plan? >> we will ensure -- >> madam chair, will you let our witnesses answer your question? the way it normally works is you

did ask the question that they do need to answer. >> will you answer yes or no war i don't know? i don't need a lengthy explanation because my question is quite simple. would you vote to deny an exemption from safety rules from the operator at san onofre? yes, no basis and are based on an established process. >> the more you talk the more you ignore my question. i'm giving you three choices. they are fair. yes, no, i don't know. >> madam chair, we don't normally have hearings requiring the witnesses to phil then bubble yes, forms. >> do you make the rules. yes, no, i don't know. would you please answer? >> at this point in time i have not been presented with enough information to make a decision. >> then you don't know.

>> respectfully, chairman, won't prejudge the action. >> i don't know either. >> i have not seen the exemption request. >> i agree with my colleagues. >> great. well, let me just say for the record, never has the nrc ever denied a request for an exemption from safety. i have to tell you, this is in my mind and in my heart, and the people in my state expect you to protect them. the fact you cannot commit to they topple the safety planning for this plant given that the number of fuel rods that are in there are far greater than the plant was planned for which you allowed, not saying you, but the commission allowed. it is outrageous, and you wonder why people losing confidence. >> i want to go directly to this so-called exemption issue

because i think it is a lot of semantics being used, quite frankly, to confuse and scare the public. commissioner, is it correct that we are talking about some changes that are made with your permission if an exemption is granted wynn as site goes from being an operating nuclear facility to a facility that is shut down? so we are talking about changes made presumably to reflect the fact that those are two very different animals. is that what we are talking about generally? >> yes. as the chairman noted, and our regulations and in some instances there is not a provision for whether the reactor is operating or in the process of decommissioning. so the nrc historically has had a heavy reliance on the use of exemptions to reflect the

changes in the facility as it is decommissioned in the changes and risks. >> thank you. i am not suggesting and i know you aren't that a plan that has been shut down, you can just walk away from that side and not worry about it. i'm not suggesting that, but it does seem reasonable that there is a significant difference between a nuclear plan that is operating in a nuclear plan that is shut down and presumably these exemptions -- and, again, i think a lot of this debate is being revved up over these semantics, but presumably these exemptions are about reflecting that change. is that fair to say? >> yes, senator. >> okay. and as reactors are shut down, there are a number of requirements necessary for reactor operations when a reactor was up and running that are no longer applicable when a reactor shutdown.

>> yes, senator, but i would note that any request for exemption is extremely case- specific. they are accompanied by a safety evaluation done by the proposal of a licensee, and that is what the chairman indicated very thoroughly reviewed by nrc. and so that is the process, but it is specific to each exemption requirements. >> okay. and in these cases of decommissioning, has there ever been an exemption granted for all six requirements simply because the plant has moved from operational to being shut down? >> i am not aware of any approval that was that sweeping. again, as i indicated, there are specific to the request itself. the scope a specific. >> okay. commissioner, i wanted to ask you about this expedited transfer no. this staff submitted their recommendations in this area on november 12th, 2013.

the commission did not take action on it until may 203rd 2014. i am concerned that taking so long to move on in that area really clutters your table and does not allow you to properly focus on that tier-1 recommendations, the high priority recommendations. so do you think the length of time the commission took to approve such as deep, clear staff recommendations was a proper? >> thank you for the question. i supported the staff recommendation and my vote. i'll support of the views of the advisory committee on reactor safeguards. no member of of 5-member commission. we'll take a different time to review and do our due diligence. respect my colleagues in the time that they took to resolve these. it was perhaps a bit longer than needed to be. i understand your concern as

part of the dynamic of being part of an independent regulatory commission. >> okay. thank you. chairman allison macfarlane, final question on the amount. i am very concerned that various folks are dragging their feet obstructing and basically in an effort to shut down nuclear. and i think that would be really unfortunate. i have asked you in previous hearings and not want to ask again. in your order directing the staff to complete the ser you noted that the commission does not have adequate resources to fully complete the yorker review and issue a decision has the court told you do. so in light of that, have you proposed a supplemental budget request? >> we have not. >> okay. obvious question, why not? the court said, get on with this. it is a requirement under law. you have said, we don't have the

resources. why are you taking the steps to at least request what you need to do what is mandated under law and by the court? >> senator, mccourts required us to begin the licensing process again using the funds that we had, and we have done so. so we are complying with the lawn. any further decision to ask for additional money will be a commission decision. >> well, i would urge the commission to face that because you have already said we don't have the resources to do that. i seems crystal clear to you, so i think it is simply going to increase the foot-dragging in the delayed. never to even make a request to the administration to give you a unique. >> in my view, when the applicant, and this case the department of energy shows that it has the resources and is seeking to complete the work,

that is the point in time when we should move forward. >> thank you, madam chairman. you might remember, the last hearing we had, i guess my posed a question that the workload is really, the way i see it, decreasing substantially because these things happening. this is not one of the questions i was going bass, but just as an observation, it would seem to me that the lack of resources and personnel should not be a real strong point. now, as it could have been in the past. commissioner william ostendorff, despite the nrc staff and the majority as commissioners concluding that this would be safe even in the event of a massive roof brick, why would the nrc now expend additional agency and agency resources on

additional sites specific studies. the question dealing with spilled fuel transfer or the seismic studies? a want to make sure understand. >> yes. the studies. >> the commission decision has been to not require further work to require any look at x amount of transfer. we have close to that issue. >> in 2012 the district court remanded the nrc waste confidence will. when will the revised rule becomes final? >> the revised -- there is a draft rule that is supposed to come to the commission this summer. and we expect the completion of that waste rulemaking in the fall this year. >> given that spent fuel integrity was an issue raised by the d.c. circuit in their remand

of your waist conference role, how you plan to satisfy the court if the seismic safety or the spent fuel remains an open question on the review? >> senator, i understand the question. i would comment that, since this involves an adjudication and there are certain things we cannot address. i would tell you that we -- i personally believe the commission's decision from the polls has been clear. we have confidence in existing spent fuel integrity, and that i think will just leave it at that >> that is fine. chairman, i am a little concerned about your vote on the expert added transfer on spent fuel. the other four commissioners as well as the staff. they agreed with their assessment of the risk is so low

that the $3 billion cost a match with that in transfers would not be warranted. however, you did not agree that in 2003. let's see, it was with at lehman and bob alvarez, that held a position contrary. do you agree now that the spent fuel at fukushima survivors a massive earthquake, 45 ft. tsunami and hydrogen explosion, is that correct? >> apparently they have. i think we are still collecting information, but apparently. >> it is also my understanding that staff and steady, the safety of the pools ten times now and has consistently concluded that the fuels' pool is safe. can you tell me how much money and how many full-time employees have been working on this issue? >> at this moment i cannot, but i can certainly take -- craigslist do that for the

record. it would be interesting to me to see. what kind of resources are used because i know it is going to be -- it is quite a bit. vote against the nrc cause me to question your open mindedness about things like yucca mountain? and now you have decisions in the past. you had a paper that we just never referred to. are you open-minded? >> absolutely. in fact, my vote is, if you have a close look at it, it is based entirely on the analysis that two reports provided by the staff. >> okay. now, you were not able to answer completely the question that the chairman was asking. she was asking for a specific answer. is there anything you would like to add to elaborate on that question? >> the question of exemptions? >> yes. >> for decommissioning reactors? thank you for the opportunity. just to say that when we do consider exemptions they are certainly down on the site specific basis be redone grant the same kind of exemption for

every plan. and they'll follow an established process that is based on a detailed technical analysis. there is no exemption from safety ben n. the plants themselves have to show that safety is maintained. we take our safety mission is very, very seriously at the nrc, and the staff takes that mission seriously as well. >> the staff and the commission has for the past several years. i mentioned that my first experience was back in 1997. i know it's a thoughtful commission. we're very pleased that we have this commission. let me just reinforce the remarks made by others sang a we wanted to make sure the week encouraged the administration to keep his have full staffs of that we can continue. and then when i mentioned the odds, you know, one in 4 million years, you'll just think about the little bit when you are bit taking these considerations. thank you, madam share.

>> senator, thank you for bringing of the evacuation issue because that is what i will not talk about again. it is my understanding that the commission has never in its history turned down a request for an exemption from having to have evacuation plans. do any of you think i am wrong on that? tell me. if so, which one did you turn down? >> i will have to take that for the record. >> just know that we exhausted the record, and there isn't any, would you go ahead and let us know of armonk. anybody else have anything? okay. so let's be clear about this, folks. this commission has a very easy record to access on that question, and there has never been a time when an operator was still that they had to keep an evacuation plan in place. let me tell you again, that is your job, to insure safety.

let me say this to the chairman, is this not your "when asked whether are not a shutdown plan could be dangerous, this is what you said, the fire could well spread to older caused the fuel. the long term planned contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl. do you remember saying or writing that? >> that is from the 2002 paper? >> yes. >> it was a collaborative effort, the paper. >> did you sign a statement? >> i am one of the authors, that is correct. >> thank you. and is it not true that the nrc said in 2001 spent fuel fires could have health effects comparable to those of a severe reactor accident. does anyone think that is a misstatement by myself?

okay. so let's just be clear, anyone who says it is not serious does not know what they're talking about. let's just be clear. thus just be clear. now, center venture who interrupted me several times does not know that my operator there for san onofre submitted these many pages of the exemption request. let me just tell you what they're asking for, the proposed exemption will allow the operator that this continue of site emergency planning activities. would you join me right up here? i know you were presiding, and we appreciate your being here. let me say again, this is what

they're asking for. the operator is asking for discontinued of such emergency planning activities and reducing the scope of on-site emergency planning. an example of the requirements subject to the proposed exemption that are related to discontinuing of site emergency planning activities including but not limited to requirements for offside agency emergency plans to merge disciplining sounds, and ingestion pathways on, the emergency operations facility, evacuant to the evacuation time estimates, offside notification time limits , offside those projections, protective action. examples of requirements subject to the proposed injection and related to reducing the scope of onside emergency planning activities. look, they are basically asking to be left off the hook. and if you grant this exemption, you have now returned one down

before and will answer my question, none of you will. i want to show again the picture. what the senator to see this. how close a fire in california came to that decommissioned plant. not any of you know how many spent fuel rods are in that plant? >> i do not have an exact number. back into it that for the record. >> anybody not commit. >> just for the record, 2600. do you know what it was designed for? >> the original design? if it was the original design, probably about a quarter of that amount. anyone who says that a shutdown

plant is not as dangerous as to just read what the chairman himself said. read what the nrc said. the consequences of an event to be significantly worse than those from chernobyl, and a half to tell you, i represent those people their safety from hurricanes and the rest is worrisome. i worry about my people, and i'm not going to stop because i can't get anyone of you to admit to me that you will turn down this request, this request for everything that they want to wave. he had never turned it down before, and you won't answer the question. yes, would you like to -- >> a clarification. this commission has not received any document our request were commission decision making on this topic. >> then you don't know your work no, i'm sorry.

this was sent to you on march 301st. what happened to your record keeping here? people did not give you this information? madam chairman, what does the commissioner know about this? >> it is sent to the staff. it has not been brought up to the commission. >> how long did the staff said on it before they let you know about it? >> as i said before, we have an established process, and the staff does detailed technical analysis. we do not take these decisions lately. we take them very seriously. >> when you going to have the staff report? >> i do not know. >> you do not know. let me tell you, you better know. i have 8 million people that live within 50 miles to the side. i have fire that came within half a mile of outside. and the operator had to evacuate people inside. now they don't want to have evacuation plans. this is a no-brainer. i'm sorry.

you can sit there and say we take you seriously. really? and let me just tell you, this facility since honor of. >> on, on his on the region know what happens. do yourself wrote in a collaboration with other people that an accident here could be worse than chernobyl. so all i'm saying is march march 301st i got this. think it would be nice if the commissioners at this. as a matter of fact and i'm going to make sure that before the staff goes through a the commissioners will. >> senator, thank you for giving me a chance. >> of course. >> we have all been aware that our staff have received the documents you're referring to, but as the chairman noted, there is a staff process, and i will tell you that i had a discussion within the last week where the mike johnson who i think this year, is briefing on the status of this and the fact that it is

working, discussions with fema, these issues. want to assure you that this is working to our process, and we owe you a response as to when a decision can be expected. >> i will await the response, but i want to say again, to me there is an urgency. and to you there should be. this is not just any power. this is the nuclear power plant that has many of these spent fuel rods. and an earthquake zone, a tsunami zone, and the fire came within half a mile. so i hope that the staff will work overtime, just like my staff does. that is what i consider. chairman, i just want to be clear that we -- emergency preparedness will not be eliminated at the site. >> okay. we will not eliminate emergency preparedness.

>> you are agreeing that you will not allow them to have an exemption that there are asking for all of this? >> we will not eliminate emergency preparedness. sometimes it is reduced in scope after we have considered the request. >> thank you. let me ask you then, you will not waive the requirement for off site evacuation plans? >> i do not know the details of this. >> and you will not waive their request to be exempted from having warning silence -- sirens >> i do not know the details of this request. they have to prove to us that they can maintain a safe level of operation under decommissioning. >> and you don't know right now if you will eliminate of sight evacuation plans, warning sirens, what about relocation centers? >> we will ensure that the site will be saved. we will ensure that there are

adequate measures in place to respond to any kind of radiological emergencies, of course. that is our mission. >> fair enough. let me ask you this. do you think of site evaluation plans are a necessary part of that facility being safe? do you believe personally? you can't answer for anyone else to you believe that having offsite evacuation plans are necessary part of having that facility safe? >> and operating facility, of course, always requires evacuation. >> so you will not waive the requirement? >> i would have to consider it. as we consider the site specific requirements. >> you have never said no to exemptions of all of such emergency plans. that is why i am joining down on this. the nrc cares a lot about safety. that is your job. never, ever turned down such a plan. let me tell you this. i am deeply troubled that

commissioners have not seen this to my commissioners -- maybe they knew about the fire. if i were one of u.s. and italy would have said, what is happening? this could have been -- i don't even want to say the type of disaster. all i have to do is "the chairman in her 2003 paper in which she said, the fire could well spread to older spent fuel, long-term land contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl. senator how her. >> a couple of things on this topic for the record. first of all, i want to restate what i said. the chairman was sort of suggesting that i was saying that they decommissioned site is a run-of-the-mill industrial site, does not need concerned, does not need a lot of careful regulation. as i explicitly said, i don't think that.

nothing could be further from the truth. clearly and operating nuclear facility is a pretty different animal than a decommissioned site. and i was simply making the point that under your greuel the only way to account for that find these so-called exemptions. now, you know, maybe people would feel better if we had a different rule book rather than talk about exemption. but that semantics, that is not substantive. as my first point. ..

>> >> you all will get back to us with that. but i don't think we should be complaining about a completely and thorough process. i want to make those two points. >> senator thank you what i did say was in might of this i am very disappointed that the commissioners have not cause a more involved at this point. >> thank-you madam chair in make you for calling this important hearing today. fukushima reminded us of the devastating effects of a

nuclear reactor meltdown, radiation from the accident was detected over 1,000 miles away, land contamination and continues to keep tens of thousands of people from returning to their homes and cleanup cost estimates continue to rise and industry admitted it will cost well over $100 billion. made while in the united states we have packed so much radioactive waste into the pools that even the nrc studies conclude that those fires could spread as much contamination as a mill town of the operating reactor. thrust united states many poles including the one at the pilgrim nuclear power plant dangerously overcrowded. the solution to this is simple. take the waste out of the pools and put it in to save

her try cast storage. that is why recently introduced the dry cask storage act to give plants seven years to remove all the waste that can be removed from the pool to put it into safer dry cask storage to provide funding to offset the cost increases the size of the emergency planning zone around the plants that choose not to remove the waste from their pools. madam chair, is it true that removing waste from the pool and putting into dry cask storage reduces the amount of radioactivity that could potentially be released if it were to occur? >> operating reactors need pools because when they

discharge their fuel it is very hot and it needs the water circulation to keep it cool. when it this spent fuel is aged at least five years right now in the united states it can be then transferred to the dry cask and those are safe, passive systems the spent fuel pools active systems and require active circulation of water. >> didn't the nrc studies show even the decommissioned reactors it was never possible to rule out the possibility of a central fire? >> i think there are a variety of studies out there. i could take that for the record because i myself would like to see more analysis of the number of these issues. >> are any of you familiar with any energy studies that

show there could be a fire? are you familiar with that at all? >> yes. there could be but how likely is it? the studies have shown it is extremely unlikely. that is what the studies say >> so the commission recently voted to do what plans to overfill the pools for as long as they wish to do so. so it is highly unlikely there would be a fire and therefore there is no need to move towards a dry cask storage? is that where you are saying? >> there were four remain in pods i consider. the analysis that argued in

to the safeguards with the experts the historical record that shows of pools could was the and very severe earthquakes in this statement by dr. thompson who raised issues and questions and a distinguished member of the advisory committee so all the evidence pointed to the extremely low likelihood of a fire. >> let me just read to you from the nrc statements the s&p fire could have health effects comparable to a severe reactor accident large seismic events that is the dominant contributor of

csfb fire. so while there are earthquake zones like in the southern california but all over the country, how do you deal with that in terms of your own agency's conclusion with regard to the danger of a fire that could be catastrophic? >> the commission has voted on this issue and and the commission decided this issue needed no further study. >> i appreciate that. >> but we just had fukushima agreed note many nuclear power plants in the country are built on or near earthquake faults they and we have the commission actual conclusion i enders and the industry does not want to spend money or does

not want to a source of this cost but that with your own agencies conclusion about the danger that excess -- exists. >> senator, the seismic evaluation project will also looked at that again. >> what is the timeline for that? >> it is in progress. >> for the top priority group there is the risk assessment completed by 2017. >> the whole concept of probabilistic risk assessment is one that is very long and obviously goes

back to the late '70s or early '80s with the assessments made with regard to the probability of an accident with proper protection. so it just seems to me almost irresponsible all we will wait through a 2017 to complete that the decommission plans or there with the spent fuel rods in place. had you implemented any seismic safety measures or are you planning to do that before 2017? >> yes. what we have done there has been a seismic hazard analysis that we have ordered as a result of

lessons learned from the fukushima it was already in progress but we moved it that trying to be proactive. >> have you put anything in place to show there are safeguards? >> certainly. the plants are built with a significant amount of margin. analysis has analyzed the hazard what we're trying to understand is the capacity of the plants with every analyzed hazard. >> you have not put any new standards in place since fukushima? none? to me, that is still unforgivable. we know what can happen and

what the consequences are. we saw what happened at three mile island with the reactor meltdown before chernobyl and not experts have given as cleveland warnings that the pool fire could be worse than a reactor meltdown with that much at stake i think the commission votes not to heed these warnings was irresponsible. >> in 2012 we requested the plans to do seismic and flooding walk down so the plant operators had to go through the plants to make sure all the bolts were tight end and there were no hazards. >> that is a steady. >> it wasn't to study the actually walked her to make sure everything was says they were supposed to be met

to the licensing basis for the seismic hazard and in some cases they found a small problems and corrected them or are in the process. >> those were pre-fukushima standards you have not implemented any post fukushima's standards thus far. in many instances not in compliance with pre-fukushima. with the department of justice recently indicted five members of the chinese military on chinese military hacking into companies' systems according to the indictment including the theft of nuclear reactor trade secrets from westinghouse. starting may 2010 through january and tele. at the same time that those occurred westinghouse was hosting a job shadow program that plays dozens of chinese personnel at u.s. nuclear

reactors for months during the identical timeframe in which the alleged thefts occurred. this job shuttle program was approved by the nuclear regulatory commission and a recently wrote you a letter asking for more information on this program provides for word to your response. ms. macfarlane did any chinese nationals that were stationed at the nuclear reactors have done it escorted access to the facilities? >> this job shadow program as a private sector activity was not under the control of the undersea. they ensure the security regulations were followed during this time and i respectfully ask you to refer all other questions to the justice department. >> would nrc rules, regulations allow unescorted chinese nationals

to go through private nuclear complex? to our regulations allow that to occur that they aren't not escorted walking through domestic nuclear power plants? >> our security regulations were followed but. >> but i am asking today allow for chinese nationals to go through power plants underscore dirt? >> no. spinet they are not? >> space nick and how could it have happened they were walking through our power plants? >> senator we're in the process of responding to your letter and i do request you direct further questions to the department of justice >> i appreciate that but i

tried to get at the heart of what you allowing in what happens. i am getting a little bit of a of mixed message. you say mr. apostolakis that they cannot be allowed? >> that is when the standing >> so how could they possibly gain access into nuclear power plants with post and 11 with the additional security provisions that many think i am a author of regarding to access? >> i don't know senator. >> we are in the process of responding to your letter and i again i ask refer all further questions to the department of justice on this topic. >> and i will say this in conclusion the nrc claims the safety conscious work

environment where personnel feel free to raise safety concerns about fair of retaliation or discrimination the past year my office has the increasing number of whistleblowers from many different offices at nrc they are dedicated individuals calling my staff because they feel they are not being heard by their own managers and colleagues. they feel when they step forward to report safety or security they are systematically retaliated against. have raised this concern many times with you your holding a report written by the nrc but not publicly released to survey those who have attempted to use the formal process for resolving policy disagreements as staggering 75 percent of those who use them said they received up for performance appraisal after they raise

the whistle-blower concerns. almost two-thirds said they were excluded from work activities by management management, 25 percent were passed over for promotion or verbally abused by their supervisors. they are shameful and i as portions of this report be entered into the record and ask the written response for what you plan to do to fix these problems. >> without objection. >> and i will say i began chairing a committee to oversee the regulatory commission in 1981 and this is just continues at the agency and it is one feted as troubling especially post fukushima it is important for this culture and i'm afraid it has not.

>> senator sessions. >> madam chairman, i appreciate both the you in your interest and your study over the years. i do have a different to you. the good news with the nuclear power industry like coal, natural gas or oil we have not had a single individual be killed with the entire process of the industry knowing that a person was made sec of the nuclear accident so we have had a pretty good record. i will ask a different commissioners there was some of the decommissioning power plant act introduced for states and communities with

the decommissioning of nuclear plants. based on your experience will you share any thoughts whether that would make it more likely that a new nuclear plants would be built in america or less likely? amex senator, thank you for the question the predictability of a regulatory process is important we are a independent agency basing your decision making on solid principles of science engineering and risk management and of the nation benefits from that perspective. i could foresee some problems to be lessened if there were confusion or a blurring of lines with federal agencies and states stemming so that is transparent. so now we have the committee or whenever ideas they may

have that are not in the public interest resulted in a much less likelihood to have safe clean nuclear power plants built? i really think colleagues to create a situation of cities are states or counties to improve on the decommissioning of the power plant in retrospect that we strongly oppose that. >> i came to this agency after was at the department of energy and i would tell you the transparency openness of the nrc that we encage the entire american public last year we had 1,000 public meetings state to local community there is

a significant process to bring voices to bear through concerns and that is not often enough reflected upon when these issues come up. >> now with regard to the cool storage. just because the rods are kept at the pool storage does not mean it will blow up or cause a fire. >> that is correct. to make too technical points studies of the pools of fukushima to date we are not aware of any damage of fukushima with structural integrity there is us study based with our decision has significant conservatism to provide those for the record that show we took the worst-case analysis and i

also add the curry initiative taken with the flex program mitigating strategies to additional pumps and hoses forcing water as well as the spent fuel level with those requirements that we did levy those are the of mitigation standpoint not discussed today. >> with regard to the whole process the professional staff took insight and data, did they not before they made a recommendation? >> they did. >> they recommended the process that you adopted for pool storage with the commission that they voted to adopt that process. do you think that the staff considered to the commission

consider those concerns euphoria made a decision? >> i agree with the observation from the technical points made and it earlier mr. apostolakis talked about the record available to us in this decision and also reliance as was previously testified. >> if the staff for outside people expressed concerns that were validated and you felt would create a risk, would you have voted differently? >> yes. as my colleagues have acknowledged it was a complex larger record and voluminous and each spent a considerable amount of time to evaluate. the nrc staff said they had a 30 year survey so it was a

lot of material to go through but those of us who supported the staff's recommendations giselle based on the thorough review of the matter before us. >> would you say the commission is working better than from the difficulties you had previously? >> i do appreciate the acknowledgement of chairman ms. macfarlane as the longest serving member i commend her. we don't agree all the time but heard leadership has been tremendous with the collegial tone she sent it has been such a wonderful thing. thank you. >> i see the other members nodding their heads in agreement. congratulations. you took over of a difficult challenge i am not sure we agree on all nuclear issues but it was important i think

we get them more commission more collegial and open and i believe your achieving fat if you are protecting the country here for a number of decades now without any serious accidents in cracking down on plants and even house small errors of safety and you have hammered one in alabama and you were probably right. think you for what you do thank you madam chairman. >> i want to thank the commission i just have a few more questions. i am glad there is the spirit of collegiality. that is fine. you have that at the

workplace so you don't get attacked -- attacked or shut out and i want to think senator marquee 4.tea that's out to. it is easy for five grown-ups to the collegial. i am collegial was all my colleagues. we go at it but i really like them personally. good for you for that but we need to take that spirit to infuse it so whistleblowers are not fearful. we look forward to your response. you said you had no concerns for safety in any of our plants is that correct? >> i said i don't have concerns. >> that is what i just said. >> yes. i am not saying there are not issues that need to be looked at specific plants. >> but i don't have any concerns at.

so but me ask you this question. why did crystal river shutdown or kinky or the oyster creek will close at the end of 2019 if they are hunky dory? >> i thank you would find for each plant there is a different reason i kiddos reach some were financial senator talk about the ones that had safety problems you said you had no concern. >> i don't think any we're shut down because they're not operating safely but because they had equipment issues. >> that is safety? >> no. not a safety issue. >> san and affray? to meadows were flawed. >> they were leaking. >> the plant was shut down. >> that's my point so when a the commissioner says that i

have no concerns be clear there are concerns and when senator sessions says everything is safe and we never had problems but we did have a couple but this is what we all want. we all points in it to be true because let me assure everyone before fukushima the japanese said the same thing that we have safety and our nuclear safety of fukushima. so afraid to our job you do your ears. we can avoid it so if you have not done one of the 12 recommendations of their own staff not one is implemented that this disastrous. sauternes into another issue at the last hearing you

committed to making your travel and meeting calendar is available but it is not enough on the chairman ms. macfarlane has any detail with each was about and tell just a couple of days ago ms. macfarlane and the commissioner calendar had not been updated since march and not either one of you gave advance public notice of any meetings by contrast the cpsc policy requires advance public disclosure of all meetings. i am sure you know, why this is the case. >> agency that regulates stories and other consumer products can do that so can the agency was nuclear reactors. going forward ready to commit to provided the ince

notice of travel to provide information of topics intended to be disgusted teach meeting starting with chairman. >> i commit to providing to the decree that i can because my schedule j lynch on a daily sometimes hourly basis as as yours. search of a for my travel and other meetings to the degree that i can't. >> chairman box request the opportunity to respond for the record seventh i have no problem doing that. >> get my confirmation of a promise to make my calendar available and i have done that from the moment i published my calendar continuously. i have not made a practice of putting detail in the

calendar i will look at doing that. >> it is important to know who you are meeting with. >> my calendar is on my website i have the open-door policy. i a understand your concern. >> that is excellent. commissioner said to indicate you have 127 days on international travel since 2010 they also indicate before you left this summer he will spend more than three weeks visiting the united arab emirates emirates, brazil and japan doesn't seem the should be travelling the world before you resign your seat? >> it is appropriate. it the other visits are

public but i am stepping down it is important it does not matter which of this is the regulatory commission goes to these countries for regulatory independence is important to. >> i am seriously interested with the united arab emirates to they have nuclear power? what we be addressing in that country? >> hesitate to get into detail but we are watching very closely as new regulators there is a lot of challenges summer cultural and it is the good time to reinforce the message of regulatory independence as a regulator.

>> independence from? >> from other policy issues. >> i don't understand that but that is okay. malaysia? to make the same sort of thing they are considering new nuclear power plants. they have a regulator under the process to be restructured our staff thinks it is a good time to go and talk about issues and i was happy to try to do that. >> will you get a briefing on fukushima? >> i will. >> let me say this. that makes a lot of sense but everybody makes a decision but i just want to speak as someone who cares a lot about the safety from san onofre plant. you have not even seen the

documents and gave. but there is so much to be done not one of the 12 has been addressed. the operator of san onofre is asking exemptions from all kinds of emergency planning win of fire was half a mile away and i need your leadership here. i need your leadership. maybe that is more important at the united arab emirates but my point of view you have a backlog. the chairman cannot answer a lot of questions because she has to get back to me and they have to look into this and i just hope you will consider this but with any event i know these hearings are very difficult because you made decisions as the chairman said and you are done. you voted. know you are not. we have oversight. it is uncomfortable but we

will keep doing it. we will keep that up and we will think our colleagues and we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> sometimes fleecy these

folks on our way to work for walking and our kids home from school. we might pass them, as we're strolling through the park sitting on the bench and not even realizing he or she is a veteran. maybe we say hello or offer to buy a sandwich but often we keep going rushing off to the next meeting to bury our head into our smart phone. it is not that we don't care but we think there is no way we will ever solve this problem. that is the way things go. but that kind of thinking starts to melt away when we better understand the stories of these veterans. the man who lost his arm in vietnam in when the medical bills kept piling up they lost their home. the gulf war vet who injured her back and lost her job and her house and spent

months on the street. the army veteran from the iraq war who survived cancer but when she and her two kids were ejected from their home they had nowhere to go. these are just three stories altogether roughly 58,000 veterans are experiencing homelessness in america today. a number that fortunately has fallen sharply in the past few years but whatever the number these brave men into women have served with courage and grace. some volunteers deserved many were drafted they went to juggles sand deserts and mountains and some of their best friends fall in ambush or because of a suicide bomb some of them were left wondering why they're the ones who survived and after all that, too many of them they come home only to fight

a new battle to keep a roof over their head, a battle just to have somewhere to go with their brains. now i want to be very clear, the vast majority of our veterans returned home in good health and in good spirits coming day go on to build good families and build good jobs and keep serving this nation in their communities through their congregations and schools and neighborhoods. in fact, a percentage of veterans homeless today is 0.3% of the total veteran population. but even one homeless veteran is a shame. [applause] and the fact we have thousands is a moral outrage.

[applause] >> the reason we are trying to focus on the speaker is because it is this the careful majesty and weight of his position he made certain allegations which at this point he has not yet answered. >> you have an audience you normally don't have. this case with the public but the interesting fact is still full tenure of your remarks going back to 1972, and taking it out of context, you were there for one purpose alone in my opinion that was to imply that members were an american in their activities. trees stop and you made your emotions you knew there was nobody here. you knew there is nobody

here. >> put those two men from your perspective to give us your perspective. >> speaker o'neill was of a giant he knew the politics of the house and he kept much of it to himself in terms of other members but obviously received a great amount of intelligence all day long what was going on in different places and he always believed politics was the art of the possible bubba got their way all the time and within the democratic caucus and the house and what he saw was a new kicker to made a decision that there would always be in the minority because they would work with the majority so he started to attack bob michael, the leader and john rhodes and everybody on that side in his own party because the

only avenue to the majority is in the confrontation and this was an argument about of this year's where he would ask the rhetorical questions to make charges and he'd do the chamber was empty but at that time the camera was very tight and the rule came to show and of course, it changes the whole dynamics but that was a process that now many years later has torn the institution apart and has paralyzed the institution

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. country a bill of goods. >> four years ago washington and democrats sold this country a bill of goods like hea to pitch me and the promise obamacare would s create jobs and improve theri economy and lower t premiums and reduce health spending all at the low price of not causingit americans to lose insurance doctors or hospitals that they liked but today americans know the truth it was a sham. the light of the year to advance the far left agenda. the people we represent just want the pain of obamacare to go way. but the democrats around washington have other ideas

in justice today they ruled out the red carpet for a sequel that is what we saw when the administration announced against the war on kentucky coal jobs is the most extreme yet. the president wants america to believe the national energy tax kiam somehow he'll the planet to and regulate the oceans and wants you to believe they can be done without harming middle-class families that in fact, the massive regulatory scheme will actually create jobs to bring millions of economic benefit and strength. you heard that. strings with america's energy bills. if you believe that i have obamacare to sell you. this is the same president to bolster the candidate that the energy tax policy would make electricity prices skyrocket. the truth is the energy tax can have the appreciable affect on and global

emissions in the river last epa head told us as much. this is what that person said to a section alone will not impact world co2 that is a quotation from her. u.s. action alone will not impact co2 levels for the previous epa illustrator. because you need the mission had the country like china and india on board first that is a scientific fact of allies suspect our friends on the left will conveniently ignore its. the point of the whole exercise is sadly obvious and about science or global warming but to make a privilege elitist who may not feel the pinch of a higher utility bills feel like they did something. and there is another reason of the echoes of the

obamacare that are unmistakable of the national energy tax represents a direct attack on the american middle-class of a direct attack on the american middle-class. experts say it would devastate entire sections of our economy is leading to a loss of half a million jobs according to one afl-cio labor union estimate. in fact, the head of that union united mine workers of america said the energy tax would lead to long term and irreversible job loss. the national energy tax would shift middle-class jobs overseas. shatter our manufacturing base and drive up energy costs for families. 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 other failed policies. so let's not forget opportunity has already decreased under this

president's watch. millions of friends and neighbors are still out of work and the economy is at a standstill. and this is president obama is planned to squeeze the middle class harder to ship american jobs overseas than to go around congress? it is clear the president is trying to impose the national energy tax by executive order because he knows the representative of the people would never vote for it in congress already rejected a similar national energy tax would he try to pass it back in his first term. the tea is avoiding the legislative accountability because he knows it is too cruel because he knows it would have the especially devastating impact on the malls will honorable members of society the pork, the unemployed and seniors on the fixed-income.

those who like to lecture us about helping others are all the same that seem to care the least about food their extreme policies hurt today they just heard the commoner's they just need there in my inside is that is especially true with coal mining families and our state good people with this administration has not even bothered to hear from the kentucky miners the old apple keeps the lights on all the way to do is provide for their families to put food on the table. they have committed no crime and have done nothing wrong but the obama administration has declared war on them all the same. a white house adviser was quoted to say the war on coal is exactly what is needed''. that is a callous position

to be sure buddy's the things to say when you live hundreds of miles away when you don't have to live with the real-world consequences of their ivory tower theological fantasy don't have to see the raw human cost. that certainly was the approach the administration took one is scheduled listening sessions to the anti-cold regulation italy wanted to hear applause from fellow elites so it did not schedule a single listening session in coal country. not one. not want. here is what one miners said at one that i hosted in eastern kentucky after the administration refused to come'' to the biggest worry now was to keep a roof over our head and food on the table. he is not alone mr. president and he needs to know this we're on the side of the i/o.

we will not let the anti-middle-class policies go unchallenged. that is why today i am introducing legislation of the coal country protection act to push back against the extreme anti-cool schemes to require this simple but important benchmark speed matt before it could take effect the secretary of labor would have to certify a red not generate loss of employment but the cba would certify would not have any loss of the gdp the administration of the energy information would have to certify it with an increase electricity rates and the chair of the regulatory commission would have to certify the electricity delivery would remain reliable. it is just common sense and that is why i call on the

majority leader to schedule a vote on this legislation immediately 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 to stand to be hurt by the ideological attacks on coal and if the leader in senate democrats stand in the way of the bill the people will remember few stood with them into war against them and i imagine they will spend the majority to washington that will work for a change in shipping jobs overseas at the end of the day it comes down to this national energy tax is obamacare 2.0. of boondoggle being marketed the idea that one might even solve problem that purports

to address and will hurt the middle class. so the president can pretend it is about hurting the environment but it will not do a thing to control global carbon emissions this is about growing government and making left-wing elitists feel better about themselves in to help political supporters in places like california and new york while inflicting serious pain in places like kentucky. mr. president i will continue to fight against the obama administration war on coal with the extreme anti-middle-class in particular. i yield the floor.

>> under their previous order the leadership time is reserve the senate is in a period of mourning business it with a time equally divided and controlled with the majority control in the first half of the time. the senator from illinois? >> this to president i rise in morning business to respond to the republican leader who just spoke the claim that i made on the floor three different times and i'm still waiting still waiting to come to the senate chamber to dispute what i am about to say. the republican party of united states of america is the only major political party in the world today that denies global warming. i have said it and i am waiting for them to come forward to say there is another somewhere. one said we think there is

one in australia. really? so the understand global warming is of a challenge except for one party the republican party of the united states of america. what have we seen? a change in the world that we live-in. things are more extreme and weather is changing people that come to visit the chamber in set in the gallery is always welcome but our debate is about them so world there will live-in and a question if it will be habitable to prosper intel we have an obligation? our generation to leave that world to them? if nothing else us what we inherited from our parents and grandparents? that is what this is about

what we have to make changes in america make a change we can we have led the world this president sat down with the lbo manufacturers after decades of resistance to the notion of more fuel efficient vehicles and hammered out an agreement that take us the same distance to burn fewer gallons of gasoline my wife and i drive the for diffusion hybrid and we can beat that but we are happy with our ford. nobody put the gun to my head we thought it was a great idea but there was a time on the floor when ford and other companies were in denial american can change for the better with leadership i listen to the arguments about the impact

of change in the impact of working families i had to come to the floor i listen to the plaintiff to plead with the leader to think about the poor people working and the impact on them and i kept remembering it is his political party opposing the increase of the minimum-wage that they are earning. they oppose it. one exception? may be too? they opposed increasing the minimum wage but they cannot do anything to hurt for working families will let them join us to raise the minimum wage. insect and i can tell you one thing that's global warming and carbon pollution is producing today the number one complaint of children brought to the emergency room across

america. what is the most common health problem? no. asthma. i go to classrooms across my stay in say to the children hold up your hand if you know, anyone who has as mind telling you rule schools or urban schools are all the same. hence go up across the classroom there created by the year reinforced to breeze will we do something about it? we should. our colleague from montana recently took on the position as ambassador to china he and his wife for headed dover in and said half jokingly king hopes the air is clean enough to freeze because you know, it is a challenge every single day.

will be set up a different example? if you care about working families and their children how can you ignore what is happening health care costs go up i don't want to see that have been said you care about working families and children in their health i might also add care about providing them with timon begin to tell us about working people ases opposing a reference to working families. one of the most successful states in the union when it comes to the new health insurance plan? one of the most successful per capita states happens to

be the commonwealth of kentucky represented by the senator who just spoke hundreds of thousands now have health insurance to the president's plan including thousands under medicaid. so with minimum-wage or basic health insurance i think our approach is one that is proven to be right to oversexed 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 met some of them. rahway, the big barrel chested polish musician sitting next to me at a health care clinics says never had health insurance in my life but i have it now. low in, health insurance and

happy to have it. standing up for working people will be closing see my colleague is your guess it is a challenge we are a coal producing state to make up plan to reduce the pollution that is changing our planet and ameritech should leave the world how many times colleagues talk about exceptionalism is a great country i don't quarrel with them but when it comes to a challenge like this to clean up the environment shouldn't america pl leader? of course. figure out a plan that reduces carbon pollution in

the public health hazards. . . is time for us to try to come together and work together come together and work together we stared at the beginning rather than the end and there are real