dcps are still pending -- unquote. in addition, whistle-blowers have informed the senate finance committee that the ongoing i.g. investigation has centered on high-level officials at the s.s.a. including members of ms. colvin's immediate office. and that the alleged criminal conduct may extend to irregularities in the awards of contracts for the dcps project. this is a serious problem, madam president. i don't know how the senate can with good conscience vote to confirm anyone with this type of ongoing investigation going on around their immediate office. it may very well turn out that ms. colvin did nothing wrong, but we need to know for sure. this is a really important position. that's why i along with all the republican members of the senate finance committee sent a letter to ms. colvin last week asking for more details about the dcps

and her office's conduct. she has since responded claiming that she is not responsible for any mismanagement of the dcps project and that she committed no criminal conduct. like i said, that may very well be the case, and i hope it is. but the specter of an ongoing investigation still hangs over her nomination. therefore, i do not believe the senate should proceed toward quirnlg her until this -- toward confirming her until this matter is resolved. i want to be fair to her, but this is an important problem that needs to be resolved. i want to make one thing clear. this is about more than just mismanagement of funds or bureaucratic incompetence. this is about an ongoing investigation of people in ms. colvin's direct office for contract issues and allegations they purposefully misled congress in order to move her nomination through. once again, this is not

partisan. i supported ms. colvin's nomination in committee and continue to believe that she has the right credentials and experience for this important job. of course if these allegations prove to be true, my assessment of her qualifications will most certainly change. put simply, with this investigation, which may very well have a criminal element to it, still ongoing, i cannot support moving forward on carolyn colvin's nomination. i hope this matter can be resolved quickly and cleanly. but until such time i plan to vote against confirming her to the next social security commissioner unless we can resolve these matters beforehand. with that, i yield the floor and 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 kansas. mr. moran: i would ask the quorum call be lifted.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you very much. mr. president, i have visited hospitals in my state many times. in fact, there are 128 community hospitals in kansas, and i have visited each and every one of them once and in many instances two or three times. in fact, just last weekend when i was home in kansas, i visited my hometown hospital mercy in manhattan, kansas, and it's a very useful exercise. i would encourage my colleagues to spend time with health care providers. in the case of hospitals, it gives you the opportunity to visit with hospital administrators, the c.e.o.'s, the opportunity to visit with nurses and patients, with physicians and get a feel for what's going on in the delivery of health care in your state. i certainly know how valuable that is to me. one of the interests i have in serving in congress is a belief that the way we live our limes at home in kansas is something very special, and it's something that is worth trying to make

certain is around for many years to come. in fact, for generations to come. and one of my early conclusions in looking at public policy and looking at the future of the communities of kansas and the people who live there is the access to health care, to affordable health care is critical. it's a component in which many communities will not continue to exist if there is not access to hospital care, physician, hometown pharmacy, all the things that make up the opportunity for someone to be cared for in every aspect of their lives related to their health. i know this in my own circumstance. my hometown population -- my hometown of plainville, population about 2,000. my parents called plainville home into their 90's. my parents are no longer living, but i know well before the time at which they passed, my sister and i would have had a conversation with my parents talking about mom, dad, i'm --

i'm sorry, but you need to move and you need to move where you can have adequate health care. you need to move where there is a good hospital and a set of physicians who will care for you. but because that exists in my hometown and continues to exist in my hometown, those kind of conversations are not necessary, and wherever the place that you're telling your parents they have to move to access health care, whatever that place is -- and it may be a very desirable place, but it's not home. my parents would have lived someplace in which they had not lived almost all of their lives, would not have been surrounded by the people who they know and know them and particularly as they lived, my dad, until the age of 98, they did not have the people who checked in on them, made sure they were doing okay each and every day, gave them the opportunity to continue to live at home, the people who would have given them a hug and a pat. the pharmacist who would have asked my dad, ray, you probably

need to have your blood pressure taken, those are pretty special things about the places that many of us come, and in the absence of those kind of opportunities for health care, our communities certainly across my state but around the country and especially in rural america began to disappear. so the point being that in the absence of access to health care, the ability to keep a community together, to encourage senior citizens to remain at home in their hometowns and for us to be able to recruit and encourage young families to move to our communities, it's not going to happen, not going to be available unless we have access to health care. the discussions i have with those health care providers, the doctors, the nurses, the c.e.o.'s, the administrators of the hospital, including the patients, they continue to remind me that the things that are going on in our nation's capital here in congress and certainly in the administration are barriers, are burdens to the chances of that hospital and those health care providers continuing to be in business.

every visit involves the raising of concerns to me. often it's what are you doing about this, senator moran, what are you doing to reduce the federal regulatory burden that our hospital faces, and are you working to make certain that we're able to provide the health care that our local residents need? just last month, i introduced legislation that was bipartisan, a resolution that unanimously passed the senate. it recognized the importance of access to hospitals and other health care providers, particularly in rural areas of our country. it indicated how essential they were and how important they were to the success and survival of the communities here at -- in our country. and the point i would make about that resolution, it passed unanimously, and while the importance of rural providers is overwhelmingly acknowledged, as evidenced by the unanimous passage of that resolution, the

affordable care act and unnecessarily burdensome federal regulations fail to demonstrate that we follow through on that understanding of the importance of hometown health care. among the regulatory concerns that i hear about in those hospital visits, serious flaws with what's called the medicare recovery audit contractor program, it's causing major problems for many hospitals and providers across kansas. our hospitals, health care providers have been required to divert significant resources away from caring for patients, their mission, to appeal incorrect audit decisions that are almost always ultimately overturned through an appeals process. this broken r.a.c. program places a tremendous burden on the providers, and it's created a two-year appeal in backlogs within the department of health and human services. this program diverts the

resources that hospitals are devoting to caring for patients to going through the process of trying to get their money back, and that's certainly a problem and increasing the expense of providing health care, but the other aspect of that is often the hospital's money is tied up for two years, held by c.m.s., the center for medicare and medicaid services while it's adjudicated. and again, the overwhelming number of cases are ultimately decided in favor of the hospital, but it's certainly diverting resources and increasing costs. i have met with the secretary, secretary burr well at -- burwell at health and human services to discuss what is an urgent need to improve the medicare r.a.c. program, and i have requested from h.h.s. a timeline and objectives, measurable objectives to address the r.a.c. problems and the backlog that -- the appeals backlog that's in existence now. another concern, in addition to the r.a.c. audits, is the federal government's inflexible

provision supervision rules. c.m.s. passed a rule that was delayed but now ultimately put in place, and it requires that many -- pretty routine services that occur at a hospital, including thing like a drug infusion or blood transfusions, cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation, that it requires physician supervision, and that's just not an option in many rural health care hospital settings. there is a lack of understanding, a lack of common sense as to what a small hospital and a small town faces when c.m.s. puts this regulation in place. they make it difficult for those hospitals to continue to provide those necessary services, and fortunately we've had some success in addressing this issue. congress passed legislation that prevents the federal government from enforcing that regulation

through the near future. i have introduced original legislation to make that change, that regulatory prohibition permanent, and i will reintroduce that legislation in january in the new congress as we try to capitalize upon the temporary success we have had in fighting back this regulation from c.m.s. to make it permanent that they don't when the temporary prohibition expires, that we will have the opportunity to keep them from reintroducing that position. i would tell you that hospital administrators and employees, when you have a conversation with them, the discussion typically involves serious and strong opposition to a number of proposals that come from the obama administration each year. one of those is to change the number of miles that you must be

apart from another hospital in order to qualify to be a critical access hospital. that's a program under medicare and medicaid services that allows for a reimbursement that's more based upon costs than otherwise would be the case, and also the administration has continued to propose a 1% reduction in the funding for those critical access hospitals. those are pretty much life and blood issues for community hospitals across kansas and around the country. that critical access hospital designation, in receiving that cost-based rei reimbursement, ms that a hospital with few patients, one that doesn't have hundreds of patients each day, can still be reimbursed at a rate in which they can almost make ends meet, that they can cover their costs but still rarely is there any profit or extra revenue generated from that -- that so-called cost-based reimbursement.

cutting reimbursements to the hospitals, removing them from the critical access program, i have little doubt but what it would eliminate many if not most of those hospitals currently in that critical access hospital program, and there would be no place else for them to go, no other category within medicare that would allow them to survive. and i believe the number now is 88 of kansas' 128 hospitals are those critical access hospitals. one of the other topics of conversation that arise in those conversations with visiting with health care providers at a hospital, the physician, the nurses, the physical therapists, the c.e.o. of a hospital, the trustees, the board of directors of the hospital is the affordable care act. again, we symbolically say we care a lot about rural health care providers, but the reality is the affordable care act is creating significant problems, challenges for the survival of hospitals, particularly our smallest hospitals in my state

and across the country. the kansas hospital association projects that the affordable care act will cost kansas health care providers approximately $1.3 billion in medicare funding over the next ten years. the affordable care act cuts include reductions to hospitals medicare reimbursements and a program called -- or a payment called disproportionate share that they received -- the hospital receives in order to cover the high level of uninsured patients. and these cuts are taking place on top of what congress and the president agreed to under sequestration, a 2% across the board cut that many if not all of our providers are now receiving, so what was supposed to be cost-based reimbursement is already being -- which nearly never covered the cost is being reduced by another 2% as a result of sequestration, again something that this congress and

if not this congress, the new congress that begins in january needs to deal with the issue of sequestration for this and for other reasons, sequestration is a significant problem. and while i support the reduced spending aspects, what the goal was of sequestration, the idea we would do across-the-board cuts is irresponsible. we ought to be establishing priorities, the things that congress on behalf of the american people think is the most important and beneficial to the american people, the things that are allowed for under our constitution, those are the things that we ought to be funding as compared to really taking a step back and saying just automatic cuts because we don't have the ability to decide in a responsible way what we can afford and what we cannot afford. further, i would say that the affordable care act forced states to adopt the -- the original act as passed by congress required the states to adopt an expansion of medicaid. the united states supreme court

in its 2012 ruling indicated that medicaid expansion was optional, not mandatory under the constitution. so that portion of the affordable care act was determined to be unconstitutional, and states are now faced with the difficult decision that involves medicaid and long-term costs associated with potential expansions and hospitals face tremendous uncertainty about how they will care for an increased number of patients while they are already absorbing the affordable care act's medicare cuts. and so states are struggling to figure out what to do about expansion of medicaid, hospitals are suffering from the consequence of not having additional medicaid dollars, and that's on top of the cuts that occur as a result of changes in medicare. really in most hospitals across my state, two components are so important, medicaid and medicare cover a significant portion of the number of patients that are admitted to a hospital and in many instances

than many private pay patients who have their own private health insurance to add revenue to the hospital's revenue stream. this scenario of medicare and medicaid both creating problems, being squeezed from both programs, presents significant problems for rural hospitals and, again, those reimbursements, medicare and medicaid make up about 60% of those hospitals' revenues. the affordable care act also put hospitals in the difficult position of having to balance increasing regulatory burden with reduced revenues. so in addition to the medicare and medicaid pressure, you also have this problem of increasing costs associated with more and more regulations emanating from the department of health and human services and other places across the federal government at the same time that the reimbursement rates are declining. so increased costs, reduced revenue, again a significant problem. in 2011, the average medicare

margin for hospitals in kansas was a negative, not enough to cover the cost, 4.9%. these losses have to be offset somewhere, and that often results in a reduction in staffing, it sometimes means reduction of services, and the end result is a hospital that is not always able to meet the needs of their citizens, their patients. so in many instances it's the hospital that may be among the largest lawyers employers in a county or community in our state and in addition to reduced staffing and inability to buy equipment and reduce certain specialty programs offered at the hospital, we are also seeing a significant depletion in their cash reserves and freeze on capital expenditures. this stuff, the circumstances -- the circumstance is just not sustainable and we're seeing hospitals close.

since about 1990 the number of rural hospitals across the country has remained stable at around 2,000 but last year, 15 rural hospitals closed, and we have to be concerned that there are more to follow. this is an alarming trend. these hospitals play a violate vote role in health care as i say to those -- vital role to determine whether a community has a future, whether individuals and families will died decide to live there and the loss of a hospital has huge ripple effects and it harms patients, their primary purpose is to save lives and improve health care but also has a tremendous loss to the community itself. i've outlined problems that i believed would occur with the passage of obamacare on hospitals long before the law became law. i also would say it doesn't mean i don't believe there are significant improvements that can be made to our health care delivery system but i think the reality is the affordable care act causes more problems,

significantly more problems than those it solves. many kansas hospitals struggle to meet the aging population in their states and the affordable care act cuts are an exacerbation of their circumstance. again, the affordable care act, which would -- the promise was made if you like your plan, you can keep it, your health insurance plan, you can keep it, if you like your physician you can keep him or her -- and that didn't turn out to be true and in fact if you liked your policy you're probably not able to keep it and you've got something else, that something else, that replacement follow policy often involves increased co-payments and deductibles. that's certainly a problem for the policyholder, for the business and their employees, but we may have forgotten it's a huge problem for the health care provider, almost every hospital i have visited now that the affordable care act is being

implemented will tell me about the increasing amount of unpaid hospital bills, the amount of money that's owed that is attempting to be recovered and the reason that occurs is because the co-payments and deductibles are such -- are so significantly higher that patients don't have the ability to pay a $5,000 co-payment or even a $1,000 co-payment and so the hospital's bad debt is increasing because patients don't have the necessary amount of money to pay for their portion of what their health care insurance policy now requires of them. again, this comes from a law that was described to us as going to increase the affordability and the availability of health care, and i guess what i would point out is in the circumstance that we're now in, the policies are so expensive, so much more

costly, both in premiums and co-payments and deductibles, that the affordability is a problem, not just for the patient and the policyholder but for the hospital who is now left holding the bag because so many of their patients can't pay the co-payments or deductibles. the affordable care act when it passed, the president's own chief medicare actuary noted that the affordable care act cuts will cause as many as 15% of hospitals still nursing facilities to become unprofitable by 2019 and while at that point in time may have seemed like a long time ago, 2019 is now just about five years away, and the longer that obamacare remains in place, the estimated percentage of unprofitable providers is projected to increase roughly to -- to reach roughly 25% in 2030 and 40% in 2050. so in 2040, -- i'm sorry 25%

of the hospitals, health care providers will be unprofitable and by 2050, 40%, nearly half of the health care providers will be unprofitable. again, and particularly in rural communities if you can't make it on the revenues that come from patients, from providing health care to individuals, often the option is to increase taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, something to keep your hospital doors open and that ought not be the consequence of legislation passed by congress, is to require the taxes to be raised for a federal program called medicare because it's failing to meet the needs of american citizens, our patients. these providers, our hospitals, just simply can't sustain the circumstance they find themselves in, and the affordable care act has put us on a path that i think is dangerous for individuals, for businesses, and now for the health care providers themselves. in addition to the bad debt

experience, many of the new health care plans, they have limited or restricted provider networks so that a patient in a particular community may be eliminated, the local hospital may be eliminated from their network, meaning that while previously under their previous insurance policy they could see a hometown physician or be admitted to their hometown hospital, because of these network restrictions, they must go some someplace out of town to access health care. again, a terrible consequence for the individual, for the patient, but also something that drives revenues away from the hometown provider, much to the detriment of everybody who would want to make certain that provider, that doctor remains in the community, and the hospital doors remain open. lots of evidence that the problems that we're facing are real. they demand attention. and access to affordable health care is something that still deserves our attention. and i look forward to trying to

make certain that we have that opportunity, again, that is nothing that's going to happen in the next few days but we have a responsibility to see that the things that are reducing the access to health care, reducing the access to affordable health care are addressed and the efforts that resulted from the affordable care act are exacerbating the problem, not solving the problem. with a new congress soon beginning, i look at elections as like a new year's, there's this optimism that maybe something good can come from a new congress, that we can establish a new year's resolutions and we can begin working. and i certainly make the offer to my colleagues throughout the senate, all 99 of my colleagues, to be someone who wants to be problem solving, oriented toward finding solutions and working together to make sure that those health care providers that are so important to our lives, our

safety, to our health, are around for a long time to come, and the communities that depend upon those hospitals, those 128 hospitals in my home state, have a viable future. we've got to get the regulatory environment under control, we've got to resolve the problems created by the affordable care act, and we need to make certain that health care is an opportunity for people who live in places across my state to still have the opportunity to see the hometown physician, to have a prescription prescribed by the hometown pharmacist, and to make certain that those hometown hospital doors remain open for today and for future generations of communities across my state. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to address the senate this afternoon, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: ask that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 490, s. 1353. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 490, is $1353, a bill to provide for an ongoing voluntary public-private partnership to improve cybersecurity and so forth and for other purposes. ferraro is there froacts measure? without objection. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to, the rockefeller-thune substitute be agreed to, the bill as amended be read and

passed and the motion to consider be considered mandate laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: and i would ask consent to speak as if in morning business. officerster without objection. -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i would like too share some remarks about our

colleague that's departing the senate, tom coburn, and ask that my remarks be arranged in the record so that they're associated with other remarks upon his departure. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, tom coburn is one of the more remarkable senators, i think, that has served in this body, certainly during the time i've been here. a man of absolute courage, conviction, dedication to making this country better. he didn't come here to go through the job, go through the motions. he came to invest his great skills, his great intellectual ability to pour his drive and effort into making america a better place. it's very special, really. it's unusual. i've not seen anything like it as i said, since i've been here. i've always had great reluctance

to disagree or oppose anything tom offered. they always weren't perfect, but basically i opposed them so seldom because i agreed with him, time and time and time again, and i hated always to vote "no" because i knew he had studied the issue, the understood it and he was doing what he believed was right, and his whole philosophy and approach to government, had it been more effectively followed by other members of this body, would have led us to a better country, really. so he, to support what he said, i think, in a way was supporting high ideals for america. and i just want to say, i am going to miss him. people have no idea how many times he has stopped or altered bad legislation to make it

better and less problematic, more principled. he believes that there's a constitutional -- that ours is a constitutionally limited government. he didn't just believe that. he acted on it and has acted on it consistently. i understand -- i have no doubt of this. we don't need to run a test. but i understand, have no doubt that he's offered more amendments since i've been in the senate than any other senator. and they have been amendments to stop waste, fraud and abuse, to try to make the government more efficient, leaner to, consolidate multiple programs that should be consolidated for efficiency. he's worked across the aisle on a host of issues. he sought bipartisan support for matters that are small and large.

it's just remarkable. so i have to say, mr. president, that we're going to lose someone that is of great value. he would easily have been reelected had he run again. i remember him saying one time -- and this is his philosophy -- if you want to be reelected, don't worry about being reelected. just do the right thing, and you won't have any difficulties. and he never had any difficulties in his election because people trusted him. they knew every day, night and day, long hours, whatever, he was working to advance the common interest of our country. they trusted that he was not seduced, bought out, compromised by the powers that be in washington, d.c.

he remained true to those who sent him there. and i would say this, part of the strength that he has -- as a matter of fact, maybe the greatest part of the strength that he has is his faith. intelligent, sophisticated, knowledgeable, scientist, doctor, but a man of simple christian faith that impacts his life as much as anybody in this body. and he understands the true meaning of life, and he gives himself to others in a most remarkable way. so, mr. president, thank you, and colleagues for the opportunity to share these remarks. we're going to miss our friend tom coburn, who is going to object to those bills that require a lot of effort to make them better or stop some that

are so bad they can't be passed. a lot of us are going to have to pick up the slack. maybe tom would say what are you doing down there, jeff, wasting time talking about me? you ought to be studying this bill and finding some of the bogus spending, spending your time fixing it. but every now and then i think we should stop and recognize an extraordinary life, an extraordinary senator. i just wanted to share those remarks and thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: clay hunt is a marine veteran who committed suicide in march 2011 at the age of 28. clay enlisted in the marine corps in may of 2005 and he was deployed to the anbar province near fallujah in january of 2007. he was shot in the wrist by a sniper's bullet that barely missed his head and it earned him the purple heart. clay recuperated at twenty nine palms, california, and then graduated from marine corps scout sniper school in march of

2008, and he was redeployed to southern afghanistan just a few weeks later. his unit returned to the united states in late october 2008 and he was honorably discharged from the marines in april 2009. after he returned home, clay suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, ptsd. he struggled for many years, and he struggled with inadequate care from his local v.a. hospital before taking his own life. the clay hunt suicide prevention act passed the house of representatives just a little while ago this week. and i believe this is an important piece of legislation. i serve on the senate veterans' committee, and we had testimony related to suicide prevention, suicide among our veterans just a few weeks back. and it is so clear in kansas and across the country that many

veterans and their families deserve something much more than we're able to provide, that we are providing now. and this legislation which will help in that regard deserves swift passage by the united states senate. this bill, the clay hunt suicide prevention act, would be instrumental in developing a v.a. system capable of offering first-class, first-rate mental health care services as well as utilizing the expertise of outside organizations to provide support for those struggling with the invisible wounds of service. that legislation would require third parties to conduct an annual evaluation of suicide prevention programs within the department of veterans affairs and within the department of defense. it would also provide for a new web site that would offer veterans information regarding available mental health care services. it would create a joint pilot

loan repayment program for v.a. psychiatrists. there's a tremendous shortage of v.a. professionals that this would help alleviate and it will improve the exchange of training, best practices and other resources among the v.a. veterans service organizations and not for profit mental health organizations to enhance the cooperation of their efforts in suicide prevention. during that veterans' affairs committee hearing on november 19 last month, we were honored to hear clay's story from his mom, susan silke. susan shared her son's story of reliving the traumatic experience of war and his disappointment when the v.a. failed to offer him the care he needed to treat his circumstance. in fact, it was one of the most compelling -- again, i've served on the veterans' affairs committee since i came to

congress, and this mother's testimony was one of the most important pieces of information i've heard from a witness during a committee hearing. and what she indicated was that in her belief, and she indicated that she believed her son thought this as well, that it was the v.a. bureaucracy, the inability, the unwillingness, the falling through the cracks, the culture that we have heard described at the department of veterans affairs that was the straw that broke the camel's back and that caused her son to commit suicide. we've ranted, we've raved, we've highlighted, we've pointed out, we've discussed the v.a. and its problems, its bureaucracy, its culture, its failure of leadership, its service to the v.a. as compared to its service to veterans many times over many

years. and we often bemoan bureaucracy among all federal agencies, but it's especially important at the department of veterans affairs because while it's easy to talk about the bureaucracy, the paperwork, the shuffling, the falling through the cracks, this mother's testimony about the death of her son indicated that it's not just about bureaucracy. it's not just about paperwork. it's not just about a culture. those things contribute to the death of a human being, and in this case contributed to the death of one who served our country nobly. so we can bemoan the bureaucracy, but we need to remember that it is that circumstance that causes the loss of life.

suicide is something that needs to be addressed. we need to have a concerted effort and legislation that is now pending before the senate that needs to be passed before this senate concludes is one step that we can take to make certain that there are less circumstances in which a soldier, a veteran commits suicide. i can't imagine the heartache, the difficulty, the challenge that comes from a mom coming to washington, d.c. and testifying about the death, the suicide of her son. i don't know how to put myself in that position, but i know it has to be a tremendously difficult, traumatic experience. and the reason that she must do that is because she wants to make certain that other sons of other parents of other mothers have a different experience than the one she, her family and her

son experienced. mr. president, it's clear we have a problem. it's critical that the v.a. follow through on its commitment, on its responsibilities to our nation's veterans. they must follow through to those veterans who are just returning home, those that have been home a long time, and to their families who need to have the love and support and care of the v.a. and the american people. we have got to keep working to find solutions to the issues of mental health that our service men and women and veterans now face, and we must hold the v.a. accountable for their responsibilities when it comes to providing for the needs of those veterans, and that care and treatment must be provided in a timely, high-quality and in a specialized way that meets the needs of each individual veteran and their family.

mr. president, my presence on the senate floor this evening is to highlight the importance of the passage of the clay hunt suicide prevention act, to pay honor and tribute to clay hunt and to his family and to the hundreds of individuals and families across the country who have faced similar circumstances and call us to the point that we recognize that steps taken today can make certain that there are no more clay hunts, no more mothers who face the circumstance of a loss of their son, and that america lives up to its commitment to those we have called to duty. i urge my colleagues to make certain that this legislation passes the united states senate before we recess for this holiday period. mr. president, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. i yield the floor. i notice 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. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would like to speak as if in morning business. i ask consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i want to just share a few remarks as we mark the end of the long

tenure of senator jay rockefeller and his service to his country and to the senate. it's been 30 years here in the senate that he's served. two terms as governor of west virginia, secretary of state in the house of delegates, and he came to that state as a young vista volunteer. i've heard him tell the story about that, how he really wanted to participate and reach out and help others. comes to west virginia as a young man and stayed. he worked with people in a small mining community. his rart was right to try to be helpful. came from a prestigious family, but he wanted to help others. he has been a remarkable member of the senate here for now 30 years. he has a brilliant mind, capable of grasping all sorts of thoughts, but he also has the

ability to delight in little things. one of those is sports. he has a tremendous capacity to have in that brain of his sports trivia. he liked the braves, the atlanta braves. he knows southeastern conference football, and i have been pleased to be able to chat with him on occasion on the floor. so it just goes to show a lot of times people don't realize that we get along pretty well in this body personally. we may disagree on issues, but we care about one another. dave rockefeller has always been nice to me, always been a friend, always been courtesy, always been collegial to me, and i have appreciated that over the years. so i want to thank him for his service to his country, his commitment to others and wish him god speed in his future endeavors. i thank the chair and would yield the floor.

and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that

the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: and that i may speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i'd like to share a few thoughts about the service in the senate of our good colleague saxby chambliss and ask that my remarks be placed in the record along with others who may be speaking about his retirement from the senate. saxby is one of the best-liked and most respected senators in this body. every member knows him. every member likes him. every member respects him. and i truly share that view, and on matters particularly relating to national security, intelligence issues, terrorism, i consistently want to know what saxby has to say about it. he has done whole lots of things in this senate. he has been a participant and a contributor on many, many

issues. he worked really hard to try to create a bipartisan solution to our debt crisis. that didn't quite develop, but it was a positive part of the discussion this senate went through. but what i really want to say is that as chairman or vice chairman of the senate intelligence committee, a long-time member of the house intelligence committee and here in the senate, he has become the go-to person with regard to the sensitive issues relating to the security of our country. and i consistently have looked to him because i trusted his judgment, trusted his integrity and trusted his wisdom to help sort through all the political and news articles and debates and hot issues out there to distill down to the bottom what's important, what we should be focused on and what the right

thing for america is. truly, he has been a remarkable senator. we're going to miss saxby. i'm going to miss saxby, and so many others of us will. he is the son of an episcopal minister, a man of faith. he's got the most delightful wife, julianne. my wife is a good judge of character, and she thinks julianne hung the moon, and that is so true. so they are a great family, they are great partners. saxby has contributed so much to the senate. georgia's produced some great senators, particularly senators known for their commitment to national security and defense of america. richard russell, for whom the russell senate office building is named, sam nunn who was so long a leader in the congress

with regard to national defense. saxby chambliss is in that category. that's the kind of senator he has been in defending america to helping his colleagues sift through difficult issues and make good, wise decisions. it's been a great pleasure for me to serve with him. i wish him every success in his future endeavors and look forward to seeing him back in this area many times. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask -- i think i failed to ask that for the record my remarks on senator rockefeller and senator saxby chambliss be placed in the record in association with those remarks for those senators. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i also would just say that we will be losing a good friend, mark begich. mark and i have served on armed services committee together for a number of years, and we were very active. i was ranking member and chairman of the armed services subcommittee on strategic affairs to deal with missile defense, which alaska was deeply involved with as a state. we have our missile defense site there in alaska. mark was an expert on those issues. we dealt with nuclear issues in

outer space and satellite issues. that was a particularly good time together. i believe every commitment, every decision we reached was a bipartisan decision that came out of committee, and we supported the subcommittee report that was made a part of the armed services bill and then became law for the most part, i think. not too many changes made in it. and i think a lot of people might not appreciate that senators do get along, they do work together on the issues important to the country like the space and military space necessities that are so valuable to men and women as they are in harm's way, to be able to produce a missile defense system that ensures that this country is not vulnerable to attack by missile from an adversary. that system is up, standing and

operating today, and it was great to work with mark in establishment. he is a man, a delightful person to work with. always with a positive attitude. i know he will be successful in whatever the future endeavors he undertake. he was mayor of anchorage. anybody who has been a mayor has learned some things. had to deal with constituents face to face. and he loves actually meeting his constituents and talking with them. so i wish mark every success in his future endeavors and wish to express my appreciation to him for the courtesies he has shown me and the efforts we've made together to improve the defense of the united states. again, i would ask that my remarks be made a part of the record where other remarks have

been entered relating to senator begich's service in the senate, and -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. at this time of year, thanksgiving and the holidays that are upcoming, a lot of americans are on our roads, and a lot of us know that americans are on the roads because my colleagues and i travel frequently using the highways of our states so frequently, and we

know as parents, as family members that in the back of our minds when a son or a daughter is driving, there is a tiny bit of apprehension and anxiety about safety. and it is safety not only concerning people on our roads but also on our railways and as a member of the commerce committee where the presiding officer also serves and i know he has young children and he probably has the same apprehensions and anxieties that all of us share when our family members are driving, particularly late at night, early in the morning, at hours when weariness, fatigue, tiredness are one of the main enemies, particularly when the weather's bad. and the omnibus funding measure now under debate has many good

provisions, but it also has a provision that is anity threat threat -- antithetical and deeply disruptive to the issue of road safety because it affects truck drivers who are on the roads for a long period of time. and i'm referring to section 133 of division k. one paragraph. and i'm here to talk about it, to ask that my colleagues oppose it. if there is any way to strip it from the bill, i urge that it be done. it's a provisions that is virtually incomprehensible to the average american on the roads or in their homes as to what it means and what its ramifications are and what its consequences may be to their safety and the safety of others

and their family on the roads. the fact is that nearly 4,000 people who are killed each year in truck crashes and the nearly 100,000 each year who are injured show the toll of fatigue and weariness of our truck drivers. according to knit is -- knits -- nitsa, truck crash injuries increased by 45% from from 2009-2012. we have all seen the consequences of fatigue on the roads when we drive. the truck driver who may pull his rig in front of us or slide over onto our side of the road. not because he isn't well trained, experienced, able. in fact, a vast majority of truck drivers are in fact experienced and able and well trained and extraordinarily

prudent in the way they drive. but fatigue is an enemy to them, as it is to all of us who drive. many of the headlines we have seen have concerned hours of service regulations governing truck drivers, as many truck crashes involve tired truck drivers. there are new rules that have been proposed by the federal motor carrier safety administration, rules that have been implemented to curb the number of fatigued truck drivers on our roads proposed after years of rule making and analysis and study and even litigation, fact finding. they are fact-based rules. they're supported by science. they're rules that move american roads and drivers in the right direction, truly, literally on the right path. i'm not the only one who

supports these rules. they are supported by the secretary of transportation. secretary fox is to be commended for his steadfast, strong, courageous defense of these rules, and his integrity and intellect in support of these rules i greatly appreciate. but he's not alone any more than i'm alone. the folks who are really most adamant, passionate about it are the truck drivers themselves, the teamsters and the united transportation union. they have inspired me to be as passionate and steadfast as i am on these rules, and they're not alone either. law enforcement, the international association of chiefs of police, the national troopers coalition, the national sheriff's association, the commercial vehicle safety

alliance and the federal law enforcement association all support these rules, and so do consumer public health groups and safety groups like advocates for highway and auto safety, citizens for reliable and safe highways, the consumer federation of america as well as the american public health association, the john lindsay foundation, the truck safety coalition, kids and cars.org, the trauma foundation public citizen. these are the preeminent public safety and consumer advocacy groups in this country. they all support these rules. and tragically and, unfortunatey there are organizations representing the victims, like