quorum call:

mr. booker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i rise to speak today -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. booker: please, would the senate please dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boomer: thank you very much. i rise to speak on an amendment i filed on the appropriations bill that this chamber is now considering. the amendment is cosponsored by senators rockefeller, feinstein, menendez, schumer, blumenthal, gillibrand, markey, warren and brown. i also ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors, senator durbin, senator boxer, senator hirono, senator murphy and senator schatzment. the presiding officer: without schatz -- senator schatz. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. boomer: ow amendment woulerd enhance rules that reduce driver fatigue. this bill rolls back enforcement of these rules, rules that are based on years of scientific evidence. it's doing so without further study. it's rolling back these safety rules without public input. it's rolling back these safety rules without even a hearing. at a time when truck crashes are actually on a rise in the united states of america, it is paramount that congress do more to improve transportation safety, to improve the protection of lives, not remove an evidence-based element of reform. keep in mind that the rule the bill is currently considering suspends enforcement of what was the result of feedback from more than 20,000 formal comments submitted by industry and stakeholders.

it was a result of six public sessions and incorporated 80 sources of scientific data and research as well as a regulatory impact analysis. over the past week alone, new jersey has been impacted by at least four major separate accidents involving tractor-trailer collisions and the national statistics unfortunately show that these tragedies are unfolding more and more frequently. many of my colleagues may not spend much time in new jersey but i'm willing to bet that many have driven on more than our 38,000 miles of public roads that exist in my state. and if you know the new jersey turnpike, this corridor connects our state and drivers, much of our commerce and our economy altogether. this highway also sees a lot of

trucks at all times of day, all around the clock. so i'm compelled by these facts. nearly 4,000 people are killed in track accidents and over 100,000 people are injured every single year. from 2009-2012, truck crash injuries increased by 40% and truck fatalities increased in our nation by 16%. truck driver fatigue is a leading cause of major truck accidents. these drivers who work extensively long days delivering the goods we depend upon, deserve basic protections allowing them to get sufficient rest to do their jobs safely and efficiently. just this morning, the national transportaion safety board released a report about a truck

crash that happened on the new jersey turnpike on june 7, which killed one passenger flaflg a tg in a limousine and four others were airlifted to a hospital. six cars were impacted by the collision, between the truck and the limo. the truck driver, according to the ntsb report, had logged 13 hours and 32 minutes of work at the time of the crash. had he reached his destination, he certainly would have exceeded the number of federally permitted hours to work in a given day. the truck driver will clearly be punished for pushing the limits. truck drivers are extremely -- truck drivers are working extremely long days to deliver the goods that keep america moving, but it should never, ever be at the cost of safer roads. at a time when we should be doing more to improve safety, we should not be rolling back

evidence-based rules. our amendment prevents readopting a policy that could force many truck drivers to work over 80 hours per week. it maintains a balanced rule making that provides for truck drivers to be allowed two nights' rest at the end of taxing -- at the end of a taxing work week. the department of transportation itself, our federal department of transportation, estimates that current rule making is preventing 1,400 crashes each year, saving 19 lives and avoiding 560 injuries on american highways. now, our amendment would simply retain a provision to authoriz authorize -- it would actually retain a provision to authorize further study. we believe further study on the issue is a good thing. i'm not against further study

nor are we against further analysis. but we believe it is absolutely unacceptable to consider spending these driver rules while the study is being conducted. safety cannot wait. now, i have not been in the chamber very long and even today may have violated some of the rules of comity of this great body, but i know this effort is an important one and i know that it will be an uphill fight. there are some entrenched interests who tend to have a lot of influence on capitol hill, but this, to me, is one worth fighting. i urge my colleagues to join me. now, i've heard a lot of the arguments and questions about why this should possibly be rolled back, why we should roll back safety regulations in the face of increasing -- increasing accidents on our highways. somebody might say that d.o.t. rules make the roads less safe

by forcing trucks on the road during busy rush-hour traffic. the notion that the d.o.t.'s rules, which were based on all of those hearings, all of that public input, the scientific study, somehow makes the roads less safe to me is unfounded. to be sure, the rule does require that scientifically proven optimal sleep hours of 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. be included in the d.o.t.'s mandatory 34-hour restart peri period. but let me be clear, this restart period only applies when a truck driver has reached his or her maximum during the hours for a week. the maximum allowed. this only triggers that provision when someone has work add 70-hour workweek. keep in mind that most people work 40-hour workweeks. requiring those drivers

operating 80,000-pound trucks on busy roads to get some rest is not only common sense, it's supported by the science. the department of transportation estimates that the current rule, again, is preventing crashes; is preventing the loss of life. 19 lives this rule, they believe these rules around hours have saved. 1,400 crashes. suspending this rule without studying it first is not common sense. i've heard another argument, that the d.o.t. rules are a solution looking for a problem, tra truck driver fatigue somehow not that common. well, a study that was conducted by fmcsa in 2006 found that an astonish aganastonishing numberk drivers reported they often feel

drowsy while driving. over 45% responded that they have trouble staying awake at the wheel. an alarm 1-g% admitted that they have -- 13% amitted that they've fallen asleep while driving. the survey illustrates just how important rules governin governs of service and rest periods are. now is not a time to roll back the rules without study, without evidence, without a hearing, without information. there are some people that might say this is a partisan issue; that somehow democrats are exploiting the severe accident that faced a comedian named tracy morgan, using this as a political opportunity. but that suggestion is wrong. somehow it misses that fatal accidents are common on our highways. and this concern continues to rise in our country, as the

number of accidents increase. while the accident involving tracy morgan on the turnpike was tragic, it was just one of thousands of accidents and crashes that occurs in our country each day. the incident has brought needed attention to a rising trend of trucking accidents. this is a problem policy-makers have long been trying to address through federal rules and initiatives based again on years of study and analysis. in fact, last month i sent a letter to the u.s. department of transportation regarding important truck safety concerns, and my predecessor, frank lautenberg, spent years of his life in public service trying to make our roads safer. i also have heard that most truck drivers are negatively impacted by the current rule, that language in the senate appropriation stops this impact that most truck drivers are

seeing. well, that's simply not true. a driver is only required to use the 34-hour restart if, and only if, he or she works a -- the maximum number of hours allowed under the federal regulations. this restart is most frequent in -- frequently in effect for those long haul drivers who make up only about 15% of the trucking workforce. those averaging 70 hours per week or less are not affected by the changes to the 34-hour real estate start because they would -- restart because they would never work the number of hours that require them to use the restart under the current rule. the senate amendment would allow drivers, though, to return to the extreme schedules allowed under the pre--july 2013 -- the pre--july 2013 rule. when a company would allow a

company to work a mexican of 82 hours a week, pushing the limits of human endurance. not only 82 hours in one week. trucking companies could force the limits of human endurance of 82 hours week after week after week after week, 82-hour week, after 82-hour week, after 82-hour week. i've also heard that this h.o.s. provision in the thud appropriations bill is a low-impact change to the hours of service rule. this is not that much of a change. while suspending enforcement of these d.o.t. rules substantially increases the number of hours a truck driver could be forced to work each week and forced to push -- push the realms of human endurance, in fact the change would be from an already high 70-hour workweek to a more than 80-hour workweek, which is the equivalent of an extra workday

each week and nearly twice the amount the average american works. the appropriations bill will remove this commonsense guarantee that truck drivers themselves -- truck drivers themselves, as we've seen with the support from the teamsters unions -- that truck drivers themselves get at least a two-night rest, the humane two-night rest at the end of a taxing workweek. what these practices means is that drivers may be forced to work grueling hours now week after week by truck companies that are pushing the limits. and studies have shown that this leads to the fatigue that causes accidents like we're seeing on the new jersey turnpike. the dots hours of service rules some people say implemented last year were based on insufficient analysis, that somehow these were just rushed rules. but i've said already, this came out of a balanced rule making

effort and process that took into account both safety and industry interests. d.o.t. rule makings involve the feedback from 21,000 formal document comments submitted by a wide range of stakeholders, including six public listening sessions, and incorporated 80 basic scientific research data provided by scientists as well as conducted a formal regulatory analysis. by contrast, the bill rolling this all back was done in an appropriations process. it was not reviewed. it was not considered by the committee of jurisdiction upon which i sit. it was not subject to public comment. it had no hearings established where both sides were listened to and their comments were weighed and engaged. it rolled back a rule that now will allow truck drivers to be pushed more into the limitses of

human endurance and put more fatigued drivers on our roads. some people say in this amendment that i'm putting forth with many of my colleagues would somehow prevent further study. that's not true. our amendment only strips the provision of the appropriations bill that ties the department of transportation's hands and prevents them from enforcing the current rules on the books. but we actually leave intact authorization for more study, which i am open to. this should be done on scientific study, in an open process, with hearings, with information, with testimony. it should not be saddled onto an appropriations bill that ultimately would roll back rules which the d.o.t. themselves are saying will help to preserve the safety and the lives of american citizens. so i caution right now that why not wait?

why not do a study leaving the current rules intact? why not keep these regulations, these safety regulations in place? and a let d let's do another rof studies, let's do another round of hearings. let's have discussion in the committee and, the committee of jurisdiction before weigh roll back rules that put drivers on the roads. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, it appears that i first need to say to my colleagues and to those who are listening that there is no one in this body, in the trucking industry, among their customers

who wants to see trucking accidents. all of us are committed to safer roads and to make sure that freight is delivered in a safe manner in this country. in fact, madam president, the former administrator of the federal motor carrier safety administration said in a letter to the committee dated june 17, "the fact is that the senate transportation, housing and urban development bill, which contains a temporary suspension of two new provisions in the 34-hour restart rule makes the roads safer, makes the roads safer."

and that is what this debate is really about. and i'm very disappointed to see that the senator from new jersey is otherwise engaged and not listening to these comments. let me start with a fact. the fact is, under current law, under the collins amendment, under the provisions that we reported in the appropriations committee, it is illegal for any driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle when that driver's ability or alertness is impaired through fatigue, illness, or any other cause so as to make his or her driving unsafe. illegal, madam presidenthat's i.

that is illegal now. that is illegal if our provisionseprovisionprovisions . it's just as illegal. i this that i perhaps it would be helpful, given the really disappointing amount of misinformation that has been circulated by the proponents of this amendment, if i were to go through some of the provisions of the hours-of-service regulations. those are the regulations that are the foundation of the rules that govern truck safety in this country. the fact is that our transportation, h.u.d. appropriations bill would not suspend the entire hours-of-service regulations or the entire 34-hour restart

provisions, as some keep saying, both on the senate floor and in the media. to be clear, our proposal would not change the maximum driving hours that are allowed per day. it would not change the total on-duty window in each shift. it would not change the minimum number of off-duty hours between shifts, which is 10 hours. it would not change the mandatory 30-minute rest break that is required after eight hours. that's a new provision that was adopted last july. my friend from new jersey claims that i'm wiping out all of these

rules. regrettably, he is simply mistaken about that. i am not changing any of these provisions of the hours-of-service regulations, including one that was adopted just last july requiring a mandatory 30-minute rest break after eight hours. i support that. i think that's a good idea. i support the provisions for a limit on how many hours that a driver can be behind the wheel. i support a limit on the total shift. i support the requirement for ten hours off between shifts. so to say that i am repealing all of these truck safety

regulations is simply false, and it is a disservice to the debate on an important issue for wrong information to be circulated about what we are trying to do. there's another important provision that we are not changing that i think is going to really help to improve truck safety, and that is the upcoming requirement for electronic onboard recorders to replace the paper logs that are kept by some truck drivers now. the paper logs have been proven to be less accurate, and obviously there's a potential for reporting false information. with electronic logs, that goes away.

and i am a strong supporter of the rule making that is going to lead to the requirement for electronic logs which many truck drivers are already using. our bill, in fact, includes some funding to help truck drivers of smaller plates afford the electronic logs. now, what are we changing? we are changing only two provisions, and that's why our amendment, my amendment, was tkoptd by an -- was adopted by an overwhelmingly strong bipartisan group in the appropriations committee. the vote was 21-9 because the members of the committee took the time to understand what we were doing and what we were not

doing. now here is one of the problems, madam president. the new rules require that a truck driver have two consecutive nights where he must be off duty and sleeping between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. well, madam president, there are a lot of people in this country who work a night shift. and if you talk to them, they will tell you that what is disruptive to them is to work a day shift part of the week, a night shift part of the week, go back to the day shift, go back and forth. many of our drivers want to drive during the overnight hours because the statistics

overwhelmingly show that that is the safest time for them to be on the roads. this isn't a matter of conjecture. it is based on the better motor carrier safety administration's own analysis of what times of the day crashes occur. and the fact is the safest time for trucks to travel is between midnight and 6:00 a.m. the number of crashes nearly quadruples between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. it's five times higher between noon and 6:00 p.m. well, let's think about this for a moment, madam president.

it just makes sense. there are far fewer vehicles on the road. why in the world would we want to push truck drivers to have to be on the road when children are going back and forth from school, when commuters are going to work? one truck driver from maine gave me a great example for those of us who are familiar with downtown boston, with all of its small and curvey streets and all of its one-way streets. he said to me, "if i have to wait until 5:00 a.m. to deliver fuel to a convenience store on the corner of two busy streets in downtown boston, and i'm

going to arrive there at 7:00 a.m. during the rush hour, during the time when people are getting up and going to school and to work, it is far more dangerous. it's far more difficult for those commuters trying to stop at that convenience store while i'm trying to deliver the fuel. it is far safer for me to be delivering that fuel at 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. in the morning before the convenience store even opens and before the traffic picks up." but, again, the senator from new jersey doesn't have to take my word for it. please, i would implore the senator from new jersey to look at the statistics. and these are the newest statistics that the department has put out.

and they're very clear that the crashes more than quadruple -- quadruple -- during those daylight hours. and that is why the truck drivers would prefer to be on the road at night when it is safer and to do their deliveries when their customers need the deliveries to be done whr-rbgs it's to that -- whether it's to that convenience store that needs gas before the rush hour starts up or whether it's to a grocery store that needs to reload its shelves. that just makes sense. the second change, and the only other change, that our amendment

makes to the hours of service provisions has to do with what is known as the 34-hour restart. under the new regulations which were implemented last july, about a year ago, the department limited the 34-hour restart to once a week. it's once every 168 hours. well, madam president, how does that make sense? the presiding officer and i both come from states where there can be severe winter weather. and a truck driver who is delivering in wisconsin or maine may run into a terrible storm. why shouldn't he or she be

allowed to take a 34-hour period off while the storm is raging and then restart the clock on the number of hours that he or she can take? and, by the way, madam president, the restart under current law is voluntary. and we do not change the requirement which is current law that a truck driver cannot drive more than 70 hours in eight days. what we're saying, however, is we don't want that truck driver to be out there in bad weather trying to push through and get home because he or she is running up against the clock and

can't take a second 34-hour restart. in fact, as the former administrator who, by the way, has spent her entire life, professional life -- 22 years -- in public safety, has written "we are encouraging drivers to get more rest -- more rest -- to not take the chance of driving through bad weather." now let me address the conflicting arguments that i heard from the senator from new jersey on the issue of whether or not these regulations have been studied enough. well, on the one hand, he says that they have been studied to death and that they are well

based and scientific -- in scientific r. but the fact is that the current administrator of c.s.a. recently testified over on the house side and was specifically asked if the agency had evaluated the safety and congestion impacts of large trucks being forced by the new regulations to drive during the hours when crashes are most likely. and the administrator confirmed -- and i quote -- "the field study did not address or talk about the impact of traffic on the road." and that is why it is critically important to study all aspects of the regulation. it appears that fmcsa also failed to coordinate with the

sister agency, the federal highway administration. just last month the federal highway administration announced a grant program called op hours freight deliveries for cities to -- quote -- "look at how truck deliveries made outside of peak and rush hours when there is less traffic on the highways, can save time and money for freight carriers, improve air quality and create more sustainable and livable cities. so clearly the agencies within the department of transportation are not communicating their policies with one another. we have one d.o.t. agency trying to direct more large trucks on to our nation's highways during

the daylight hours. and then we have a second agency that is pushing funding out to cities in order to keep those same large trucks from operating during daylight hours and to encourage them to operate during overnight hours. why would we want to prevent or discourage large trucks from being able to operate during overnight hours? simply makes no sense. now, on the other hand, my colleague from new jersey says that don't worry, we kept in the study, we kept the collins study in the bill. well, if it's been studied so extensively as he claims, then why is there a need for the study? you can't have it both ways. you can't say that these regulations were thoroughly

studied and supported by scientific evidence but, gee, we need a study. i mean, which is it? i think that what the administrator admitted in her testimony over on the house side is accurate. and that is that the field study did not look at the overall impact of congestion on our roads, and that is a real flaw. and that is why i worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a study that will look at all of these factors to make sure that we do not have what the administrator herself has conceded are unintended consequences of these changes. and that is what we have now.

madam president, the fact is that the changes that were adopted by a vote of 21-9 by the appropriations committee are common sense. they will lead to less fatigued drivers. they deserve more study and consideration. and as the former administrator of this agency has said, they will improve traffic safety. i hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment that has been offered by the senator from new jersey. i will speak further, but i know there are others who want to debate this issue, or who are waiting to speak. so at this point i will yield the floor. thank you. mr. booker: would my colleague

yield for just one short question? the presiding officer: will the senator yield for a question? ms. collins: madam president, i'd be glad to engage in more of a debate later, but my colleague from missouri has been waiting for a half-hour to speak, and i think it would be courteous for him to be allowed to speak. a senator: madam president, thank you. i also want to thank my good friend from nevada for yielding a few minutes to me as i speak. he's going to speak on an amendment that requires the senate to pass a budget that i'm supportive of and support his efforts to do that. mr. blunt: but i want to speak in support of the great explanation of what the committee did that we just heard from the senator from maine. the committee debated this. we looked at the facts that senator collins has repeated again. that full debate, that full discussion in the committee.

ultimately had a bipartisan vote of 21-9. this was something that the committee thought about. i think the committee reached the right decision and was glad to be part of the 21 votes that said this should be part of the underlying bill. there's a wide consensus that further study is needed. that consensus goes even to the administration, as the senator from maine has already pointed out. the restart rule allows drivers to restart their weekly on-time duty by taming at least 34 hours off duty. in july 2013, new restrictions were placed on that restart provision and the changes, frankly, have had unintended consequences, unintended effects for drivers, for their, for customers in the supply line and even other users on the road. the new restart rule that had a restart period that had to

include two back-to-back periods that would be in the middle of the night, from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. now, i'm usually up not too long after 5:00 a.m. i'm almost never up between 1:00 and 5:00 but many people are. you know, i'm -- the federal government can decide a lot of things but what's the best work and rest pattern for people should not be one of those things, particularly when that work pattern forces people to be doing their work at a more dangerous time. and that's what i believe this rule does. that's what the accident reports would verify, that back-to-back rest periods could only be used in a way that really disrupts the ability to get the job done in a way that works for these drivers and their families. and i think works for safety on the road. this rule would push more trucks on to the road during the daylight hours and accidents are

worst when there's more traffic. the federal motor carrier safety administration just admitted that this wasn't studied as it should have been. i actually asked the director of the secretary of transportation over a month ago now just to tell what studies were done on this issue. we still haven't got a report. he very nicely said i'd like to take that for the record. apparently the record is pretty hard to complete here because we haven't had a report yet about the research was done, what would happen if you took druc drivers off the road in the -- truck drivers off the road in the middle of the night and put them on the road the middle of the day, the middle of the afternoon, the very rush-hour hours that the senator from maine has talked about. i've heard from a lot of drivers in our state. we're in the middle of the country. we're a transportation hub. we have lots of -- lots of drivers in our state. one constituent of mine, one person i worked for from -- one

of the drivers from energy transport solutions in bates city, missouri, said that a lot of drivers are losing a whole day on the road and a whole day with their family. he said, many drivers choose to drive at night or early in the morning so they can be home when their kids come home from school. now, if a driver wants to be home when their kids come home from school and if they want to drive during safer parts of the driving 24-hour cycle, why would the government tell them that they can't do that without any study to indicate that somehow that would be safer? the fact is that this provision would in no way affect the -- would affect the hours of service rule. the senator from maine once again has explained what wouldn't change here. it wouldn't change the daily driving time limit. it wouldn't change the daily working time limit. it wouldn't change the daily break requirement. it wouldn't change the weekly work limit.

this rule only says we're not going to move forward with more dangerous traffic times required by law until there's some proof that somehow this works out to the advantage. now, drivers still can't work longer than the maximum 14 hours in a shift. they -- they can't drive longer than 11 hours at a time. they'd still be required -- and, by the way, that's what the rules say now. they'd still be required to take at least 10 consecutive hours rest before starting the next shift. and they have to take at least 30 minutes before the eight hours of -- they come off duty. the safeguards will remain in place. these safeguards do. the provision that the committee is offering as part of this bill merely suspends the two restrictions on the restart rule which is the only subset of --

only one subset of a larger part of a rule that would still be in effect. during that suspension, the federal motor safety group would be required to adequately study the effects of what they have required to happen here. it's also worth mentioning, again, that they have said they need to make this study so why don't we let them? and traffic accident reports would indicate that we're forcing people to drive at a more difficult time. the fact of the matter is, talking about the terrible accident we saw lately, somebody who drives 24 hours straight, whether it's their own car or a truck, is in violation of every rule that's out there now. the rules that are out there now were -- the rules that the senator from new jersey says we should protect because of a recent accident, those are the rules that were in effect during the recent accident. those were the rules that were in effect then. if anything, we ought to be saying, okay, what rules were in effect a few days ago and how

would we reevaluate them so this wouldn't happen again. rather than saying, we have to have exactly the rules in effect we had in effect when this tragedy occurred. that makes no sense at all. there are reasons to research this. there are reasons to look at it. one of the reasons to keep the current rules in place is not that they would have prevented the accident that happened because the current rules were in place when the accident happened. reports have stated that that vehicle was traveling too fast, that the person drove in their own vehicle long before they got in the other car. there's nothing in the amendment that the senator from new jersey proposes that would have done anything about those violations of the rules that our bill would leave in effect, that senator collins and i are advocates for. we just don't want to put truck drivers and others on the road

in danger unnecessarily. the more cars that are out there, the more likely you are to have an accident. the more cars and trucks that are out there, the more likely you are to have an accident. and this overnight rest rule has clearly put trucks on the road at a busier, more congested ti time. we believe that's not a good thing. the committee by a vote of 21-9 believes that that is not a good thing. i hope that the senate decides to stay with the -- with the decision that the committee has brought to the floor. let's have a study. should have happened before these rules came out, but it absolutely should happen now. and i see now there are multiple senators from nevada on the floor and i do want to mention again, i'm grateful to senator heller for letting me make these remarks before we get the amendment that he wants to talk about. and i would yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 today, the senate proceed to executive

session to consider the following nominations in the order listed -- calendar number 770, that's aguilar, 538, ambassador to peru nickles, 766, national credit union, mcquarts, and 3712, under secretary of defense for policy. with all provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. heller: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, than hel, thank you. and i want to thank my colleagues who that are on the floor today for their healthy debate on traffic safety. i'm sure we'll hear a lot more about it but it -- i look forward to a continued debate on this. i also want to thank my colleague from missouri for his support on the amendment that i'm about to offer up. and talk about.

and the amendment that i'm speaking about is the heller amendment number 3269 to h.r. 4660. and while i commend the chairman -- the chairwoman and the ranking member of the appropriations committee for all of their hard work in putting together an appropriations bill to be considered on the floor, this is only the first appropriation bill that congress needs and should consider before the end of this fiscal year. this won't surprise the american public but this congress is once again facing another october 1 deadline to complete all -- complete all -- of the current fiscal year appropriations bil bills. we are now well into the year and only now we're starting to bring appropriation bills to the senate floor. by our own calendar, there are only eight full legislative weeks left to avoid yet another continuing resolution. missed deadlines after missed deadlines has been a staple of this congress. without even a basic budget

process, we have failed to pass any of the current fiscal year appropriations on time so far this year. i know that the appropriations committee has been working hard to pass each of their spending bills in committee but all too often these bills end up being rolled up into one large omnibus or a continuing resolution that is not subject to any amendments. madam president, as our nation faces a rising national debt, the american people can no longer afford congress' failure to tackle our nation's spending addiction. i must admit that since coming to washington back in 2006, i have never seen -- i have never seen congress pass all 12 appropriation bills on time. in fact, i am certain that most of my colleagues that serve with me today have not experienced a normal appropriations process, and there are probably even more members who don't think it's even a realistic expectation to

pass all 12 appropriation bills anymore. so while i'm here to remind everyone that congress has been able to accomplish its regular budget and appropriation process before in recent history, and a couple examples happened under president clinton with a republican congress in 1996. it happened under president reagan with a democratic congress in 1988. these are just two examples. but the fact remains that these deadlines have been met before and now is the time to start meeting those deadlines again. i've always said, washington, d.c., is a pain-free zone that faces no consequences, zero consequences, if members fail to do their jobs. well, i think it's time we start requiring accountability for members of congress in order to get things done. i know many of my colleagues here have heard me talk about my legislation, "no budget, no

pay." pay." it's pretty simple. if members of congress don't pass a budget and all 12 spending bills on time each year, then they simply should not be paid. i want to repeat that last part. if congress fails to pass all 12 spending bills on time each ye year, they should not get paid. madam president, we have honest, hardworking americans here in the gallery and across this country that play by the rules, and that rule says if you do your job, you get paid. why shouldn't it be the same here for us as members of congress? we need to be honest. we also need to recognize that both democrats and republicans are at fault here. governing from crisis to crisis while our long-term debt continues to grow is now the new normal here in washington. and we need bipartisan solutions. but nothing will happen if members of congress don't start feeling some pain. instead of playing another game

of brinksmanship, let's start working now on a plan that will place our nation on sound fiscal footing or cultivate a pro-growth economy that will produce jobs in the long term. madam president, i have filed no budget, no pay as an amendment to this appropriations minibus to highlight that we have to end this cycle of inaction and this cycle of indecision. let's show the american people that their elected officials are ready to lead and to make the tough decisions that these times deserve. while i'm not a betting man, i am from nevada, so i would bet that once again we will fail on passing any appropriation bills into law before october 1st and we will once again punt our responsibilities by doing another c.r. or omnibus. so i ask my colleagues, if you're sick and tired of this broken budget and appropriations process as much as i am, support no budget, no pay and let's fix

this problem once and for all. madam president, thank you. 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 louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. is there a roll call i would like to dispense with? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. landrieu: i would like to ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i know that senator kirk is on his way to give tribute to one of his staffers in a tragic situation, so i am going to be very, very brief, but i did want to come to the floor today to support senator collins' efforts to bring some common sense to these truck safety regulations, and i know that this is a very emotional debate because of the tragic accident that occurred

just recently with a very well known and well respected comedian, tracy morgan. i understand that there are families in my state and around the country who have had horrible and unfortunately fatal accidents with trucks that are more and more prevalent on our overcrowded highway system. i am not insensitive to those families, to those stories, and i honestly believe that what senator collins and i and others are trying to do is going to make the situation that is very unsafe now safer, not less safe. more safe, not less safe. and there is really an honest and sincere disagreement among us that has to be debated, and i'm glad we're having that debate so that the evidence, the record, the facts can speak for

themselves. this first came to my attention a couple of months ago when a group of citizens came up from louisiana to say senator, we are shocked to tell you this, but there is a new rule out that is going to require, not suggest but require truckers to sleep between the hours of 1:00 and 5:00 two nights a week. so i looked at them and said that cannot possibly be correct. i said nobody at the federal government would ever mandate when people are supposed to sleep. i mean, how would you do such a thing? how can you tell people when to sleep and when to be awake? now, you can tell them how many hours they need to rest. you can determine how many hours they can drive before they have to take a break, but how exactly

are we going to enforce when people sleep? that is going a step too far, so that's why i signed on with senator collins to say wait a minute, there's got to be a better way. number two, when they told me, which i could not believe and found out it to be true later, then they said senator, don't you think that sometimes it's better for truck drivers to drive at night when the highways are less crowded than during the day when they are more crowded when children are on their way to school, when people are on their way to work, when most people -- not everybody, but most people have day jobs, although there are lots and lots and lots, millions of americans that work at night. probably it's two-thirds work during the day and a third at night. wouldn't it be safer for the trucks to drive at night, some of these truck drivers can sleep during the day. i said absolutely that makes

sense to me. they said well, that's soon going to be illegal under these rules. so that's why i got into this debate. now, i am very respectful of senator booker, one of the outstanding, brightest lights that's hit this chamber in a long time. his intellect is spectacular, his heart is in the right place, and i know that he and i both agree that we want our highways to be safe, we want our truckers rested, we really don't like the crowding on our highways, but it's going a little too far when the federal government starts mandating when workers should sleep. we just can't go there. so i am going to support senator collins' legislation that's going to back up these no commonsense rules and ask them to come back with another suggestion that will result in the same safety but not

mandating when americans should sleep. i think adults who drive trucks can make those decisions for themselves. if the law is you have to rest eight or nine hours in a 24-hour period, i think they are responsible enough to do so, and if they are not, if they are not, then they should be held accountable and prosecuted for reckless driving, which is -- which happens frequently, and they should be then appropriately punished, whether by fine or revocation of their license or jail time. but i just cannot be part of any government that is making regulations demanding that people sleep a certain hour. not from midnight to 4:00, not from 2:00 to 7:00, but from

1:00 to 5:00 consecutive nights a week. just don't understand it, and i'm not going to support it. so this is not about safety and not safety. this is about government overreach to a point where it is almost visceral, and there has got to be a better way to come up with a rule to get our highways safe. i'm open to it. i'm open to it. not this rule, and i yield the floor and recognize senator kirk on the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kirk: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois, without objection. mr. kirk: mr. president, i rise to memorialize the life of my washington, d.c., scheduler who passed away yesterday, lisa redonia. this is a picture of her. i am going to give these remarks as if i am talking to lisa because this blow was such a severe one that we suffered yesterday. i would say that lisa redonia was one of the brightest lights of my washington, d.c., office. she was so -- she was such a strong supporter of mine, even

stronger than myself. that lisa was a die-hard white sox fan. she even had a white sox logo tattoo on her -- on her ankle. that we will miss her so very dearly. lisa, i will tell you that this loss is -- sorry, mr. president. i get very emotional about this death that just happened yesterday, to memorialize lisa who was so much like her mother, state senator christine redonia of lamont. dedicated to the service of the people of illinois. she was a fierce, fierce worker on campaigns and here in the senate, somebody that i will miss with every fiber of my being. that she was with me here in the house of representatives and here in the senate and was so proud to represent the people of illinois in the senate here. to have her -- to have her die on us yesterday was a big blow,

especially for a young woman in her 30's. a real shock to my staff to have lisa gone from us. lisa, these days will be really hard. you ran the schedule so perfectly. it was a work of art in your case to do the complicated workings of a house office and a senate office, to be so perfect and so young at what you did that the staff is all now in shock. that you were certainly the social light of our operation here in washington, d.c. i will -- i spent a good part of last night on your facebook looking at pictures of you, and it really caused me to cry a bunch. i will miss you especially in our office. and watching you online quite a bit, hoping that facebook leaves those pictures up forever so i can always take a quick look at

your smile and remember your humor, which was always right at the ready. i would say that lisa was such a strong supporter of mine that she -- to have her lost like this so suddenly was a big shock to us. i would-year-old back then, mr. president. this is pretty hard for all of us in the kirk operation to handle. thank you.

quorum call:

ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i know we have pending on the bill on the appropriation bill right now for commerce, justice and science an important issue that i have offered an amendment to this appropriation bill,

along with senator chambliss who is the ranking republican on the intel committee, senators wicker, inhofe, cruz, graham and blunt who all serve on the armed services committee and senator vitter and senator kirk. our amendment would prohibit the administration from transferring to or releasing to the custody or control of any foreign country guantanamo detainees who our own guantanamo review task force have recommended for continued law of order detention. now, this is a task force that looks at all the circumstances of those who are being held at guantanamo and looks at whether they continue to represent a danger to our country and to our allies if they were to be released, and so our amendment

does three things. it prohibits the transfer to foreign countries of these detainees that this group that the administration has put together to review each of the detainees and their status at guantanamo, has recommended them for continued law of order detention. mr. president, these are the worst of the worst. these individuals have been determined to be the most dangerous to continue to present a risk to the united states of america and to our allies if they were to be released. and so our bill is pretty -- our amendment is pretty straightforward. it simply says that they cannot be transferred to third-party countries. or transferred to the united states of america, for that matter, that they shall remain at guantanamo bay in that secure

detention facility there. based on the recommendation of the guantanamo review task force. our amendment would also prevent the transfer of guantanamo detainees to countries that have had prior instances of guantanamo detainees being transferred to that country and then those detainees getting back in the fight against us. pretty common sense. if we have a history with a country where we have previously under either the bush administration or the obama administration transferred the detainees there and that they have been released and have gotten back in the fight against us or our allies. why would we want to transfer to this type of country again, because obviously these countries cannot guarantee the security of these detainees, and

it puts us and our allies at risk. finally, our amendment would prohibit the transfer of guantanamo detainees to countries who have failed to honor their previous commitments to the united states of america, to monitor, detain or control the travel of former guantanamo detainees. again, if we have had a prior agreement with a country and we have transferred a detainee or a detainee's there and they have failed to honor those agreements, why would we want to transfer detainees there now? now, the most recent instance of this was the five taliban dream team that were transferred to qatar because the country of georgia tar actually had a prior

instance where they failed to honor their commitments to us with regard to how they would treat the detention and travel restrictions on a guantanamo detainee. i am deeply concerned about the national security implications of the five detainees that were transferred in the prisoner swap, and in fact having asked our intelligence officials about what will happen to these five detainees, what i have heard from them is on a scale of one to ten, four out of five of those detainees are a ten for ten on likelihood to get back in the battle against us or our allies. the fifth is about an eight on ten scale. we have a 29% re-engagement rate or recidivism rate from those we have held at guantanamo, meaning 29% of them get back in the

fight against our country, against us, against our interests after they have been captured and put in guantanamo. so we have a history here that it's important if the administration is going to transfer anyone out of guantanamo that they not transfer individuals who have been found too dangerous to be let loose because they have been designated for continued law of order detention, and they present too much of a risk to our country and the world. second, to not transfer these individuals to countries where we have already transferred people in the past and guess what, they couldn't keep them secure and they got back in the fight against us and our allies. third, to prohibit transfer to countries who have not honored prior commitments when we have transferred a gitmo detainee here, and that would apply to the country that we most -- the president most recently released

the five taliban dream team which unfortunately are going to get back in the fight. and that 29% are those who have re-engaged in the fight or are suspected of re-engaging in the fight against us. so our amendment is pretty straightforward. it is focused on making sure that the terrorists that are held at guantanamo, the most dangerous of those individuals who present a threat to our country, are not put in a position where they can get back in the fight against us, against our allies, and you have to think about the men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line to capture these individuals in some instances and really to honor our commitment to them to make sure that we can hold the country safe and secure, to not allow those who have been deemed the most dangerous at guantanamo for continued law of order detention, to just transfer them to a third-party country.

or to transfer them to countries where we have a history of either detainees getting back in the fight from that country or not honoring a commitment to the united states of america. my prior job was as a prosecutor and i will tell you it was a matter of common sense. this is a matter of protecting the american people from dangerous captured terrorists that we already have in our custody, to make sure we're not putting them back in a position where they can harm us again. i think that's something that america would expect of us, that's what i believe owrmt would do -- our amendment would do, and, mr. president, i hope as we take this appropriation bill up that this amendment will be considered so we can pass it to ensure that dangerous guantanamo detainees are not put in a position again where they can harm us, our people, or our allies because too many of

them, unfortunately, have already committed acts against our country, our people, and our allies. and shame on us if we don't do everything we can to prevent that from happening again. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will

proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nogdz, howferredz, gust of ao velazquez aguilar of the district of columbia to be be a an assistant secretary. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there -- the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: department of state, brian a. nichols to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of peru. national credit union administration, j. mark mcwatters of texas to be a member. department of defense, christine e. wormuth of virginia to be under secretary. the presiding officer: the question is on the aguilar nomination. the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote: