she penned an open letter to chinese president in june 2013 decrying his unjustice arrest and detention, "i have been under house arrest and have lost all my personal freedoms since october 2010. no one has told me any reason for detaining me. i have thought about it over and over again. perhaps in this country, it is a crime for me to be liu xiaobo's wife. both liu xiaobo and liu xia remain in prison today. the opening paragraph of charter 08 captures the entirety of liu

xiaobo's lifework. having experienced a prolonged period of human rights disasters and torturous struggles, the awakening chinese citizens are becoming increasingly aware that freedom, equality and human rights are universal values shared by all humankind and that democracy, republicanism and constitutional government make up the basic institutional framework of modern politics. a modernization bereft of these universal values and this political -- basic political framework is a disastrous process that deprives people of their rights, rots away their humanity and destroys their dignity. where is china headed in the 21st century? will it continue with this modernization under authoritarian rule, or will it

endorse universal values, join the mainstream civilization and build a democratic form of government? this is an unavoidable decision. dr. liu's enormous courage and willingness to voluntarily sacrifice not only his own freedom but also that of those most dear to him poses a challenge to the free world. will we be silent? eager to enjoy the economic benefits of cooperation with the p.r.c.? or will we put president xi on notice that for america, human rights are no longer off the table? and that we are listening to the truth about communist china. i believe that the freedom championed by dr. liu is

possible for all the chinese people. i believe that from tiananmen square to taiwan, the evidence is clear that the chinese desire and they are capable of democracy. i believe that we have a moral responsibility not to marginalize dr. liu and his brave fellow dissidents, but to make their plight central to all our dealings with the p.r.c. and for that reason, we should follow the example of ronald reagan. we should follow the example of standing up to oppression, standing up to the soviet union's oppression of andre sakharov. for that reason in solidarity with the chinese people, engaging in a long and nonviolent struggle for basic human rights, i am asking my colleagues to join me in creating a new version of

sakharov plaza by naming the street in front of the people's republic of china embassy in washington, d.c. liu xiaobo plaza. this would be the street sign that the chinese ambassador would look at each day. this would be the address that every piece of correspondence going into the embassy and coming out of the embassy would have written on it. just as can the soviets when forced to recognize the bravery of sakharov, the p.r.c. officials will be forced to recognize the bravery of dr. liu and to acknowledge it dozens of times a day, day after day after day. i realize that this is an expedited request, butf given

the ongoing repression not only of the lius, but of so many other voices for political and religious freedom in china and the imminent arrival of the chinese leader who is directly responsible for it, i hope that my colleagues will join me. i intend to introduce a unanimous request for consent and it is my hope that all 100 senators will stand with me, but for the moment, i yield the floor.

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, for the reasons that i just detailed to this chamber, reasons that we should stand in bipartisan unanimity, in support of nobel peace prize laureate dr. liu xiaobo and in support of human rights and dissidents across the world, that we should follow the successful pattern of sakharov plaza under ronald reagan, this should be an issue that brings

us all together, and accordingly, i ask unanimous consent that the homeland security and government affairs committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s. res. 224. i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you, madam president. reserving the right to object, i'd like to make an observation. the notice for this went out less than an hour ago. the consultations with others haven't been made. it was precipitously brought to the floor. i can only infer it has political implications because the president of china is due to arrive here tomorrow. and therefore this would be passed today, moved out of committee without a vote in front of the senate. i don't think that's the way we should do business in this senate.

now, maybe people don't believe diplomacy makes a difference, but i do, and i think there will be ample talk for -- time for the president to speak with the president of china and for some of us to speak as well. this is, of course, the human rights of of course a subject, but in the absence of that, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i would note this is a sad day for this body when standing up to the soviet union, democrats and republicans were able to come together in support of andre sakharov. and it worked. it made a difference, speaking up for human rights. the senior senator from california's correct that this was expedited, and she is correct as to why, as i just said on this floor speech, the presence of president xi in this country is precisely the reason that we should stand in unanimity in support of human

rights. it is what makes it timely until a few minutes ago we had been informed that there were no objections on both the democratic side and the republican side. and it saddens me, i know there are many chinese americans in the state of california, there are many chinese americans in the state of texas and across the country. there are millions of americans who care for human rights. just this morning, we sat on the floor of the house of representatives and listened to pope francis talk about putting aside petty partisan differences and coming together with a voice of compassion. madam president, dr. liu is in a chinese prison, and the senior senator from california is standing and objecting to recognizing this nobel laureate's bravery, is standing and objecting because presumably it would embarrass his communist captors. i for one think as americans we should not be troubled by embarrassing communist

oppressors, and i would note as the senior senator from california leaves the floor that this is not an issue that is abstract to me. my family, like dr. liu, has been imprisoned biopressive regimes. my father is a -- as a teenager was imprisoned and tortured in cuba. he had his nose broken, he had his teeth shattered. he lay in the blood and grime of a prison cell. in cuba, my aunt diasona, was a few years later imprisoned and tortured. this time by castro. by father by batista. my aunt by castro. imprisoned and tortured by a communist regime, and it is a sad state when the united states of america cannot stand up and say you who are imprisoned unjustly, we stand with you. if any of us listened to a word

pope francis said this morning, that is a word we should have heard, that we should be a voice of freedom, a clarion voice of freedom across this globe. what we just saw on this senate floor saddens me greatly. i understand that democrats feel partisan loyally to the white house and that this white house secretary clinton said at the beginning of the administration human rights are off the table. america no longer stands for human rights. we will coddle up with oppressors if they make cheap calculators to sell in our stores. i think they are values that transcend the mighty dollar, and it is entirely possible to deal with foreign countries and yet maintain our principles and speak with unanimity. you know, a couple of years ago, i had the opportunity to visit

with aton shansky, the famed soviet dissident he and i visited in jerusalem. he talked to me about how when he was in the soviet gulag, the prisoners would pass from cell to cell notes, did you hear what president reagan said? evil empire. ash heap of history. tear down this wall. that the leadership of the united states of america -- and mind you, it wasn't partisan leadership. it was clear bipartisan leadership and america shined a light to the dark of those prison cells. madam president, i pray today that dr. liu, in his prison cell, does not hear word that democratic senators are unwilling to stand with him.

that is heart breaking at a level rarely seen. it's one thing for us to disagree on partisan matters. we can have disagreements over the appropriate rate of capital gains taxes. but for standing with an oppressed nobel peace laureate, for standing up to communist oppression, that should not be a partisan divide. the objection raised by the senior senator from california is deeply disappointing, and i intend to continue to press this issue because the voice of america, the voice for freedom that pope francis urged us to aspire to will not be extinguished. it is who we are.

it is essential to our character and to our integrity. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. over the course of the summer, we have watched with horror as thousands more have died in syria and iraq, and the debate over what we should do about it has been omni present here in the senate and in the house. we've held hearings. we have gone on television to tell our story of how we should respond. we have talked about it here on the floor of the senate and the house. similarly, we have watched a

conflict continue to persist in eastern ukraine, with maybe not the numbers of casualties that we have seen in syria and iraq but similar death and destruction, and we have responded with a vigorous debate about what we should do on the floor of the senate, again hearings in committees, letters to the president, bipartisan pieces of legislation that have been proposed as to how the united states would seek to reduce the amount of casualties in a place like eastern ukraine as we are debating what our response should be on syria and iraq. what if i told you this summer 4,000 people died in another conflict in which there was absolutely no debate here in the congress? what if i told you there were 4,000 people that died this summer in a conflict that not a single committee in the congress

held a hearing on? what if i told that you there was a conflict this summer in which 4,000 people perished and there isn't a single member of the majority party in the house and the senate who have proposed any comprehensive way to deal with it? here are the numbers on a daily, monthly, an annual basis that are killed by guns in this country. the on average, 86 a day, 26,000 a month, 31,000 a year. this summer, while kids were out of school, over 4,000 people -- just this summer -- died across this country from gun violence, and, madam president, i come down to the floor not as often as i'd like but as often as i can to tell some of their stories because, you know, i kind of thought that these numbers would be enough to persuade members of this body to

do something, anything to try to stem the scourge of gun violence in this country, but it hasn't. and so my hope is maybe by telling the stories of some of these individuals, maybe that will make a difference. every day we add dozens of stories of young men and women, mostly young men and women, whose lives were cut short, whose greatness we were never able to seekers whos see, becaue killed by a gun. the and this summer we've been gripped by mass shooting after shooting, tawana sanders, myra thompson, suze jackson, daniel simmons, and cl clemente pinckn. we know those names. sergeant holmquist, randall smith, gunnery sergeant thomas

sullivan, lance corporal skip wells, staff sergeant david wyatt. maybe you've heard their names because they were all killed in a shooting at a chattanooga armed services recruiting center. maybe you've heard of jillian johnson or macie breaux who were killed at a movie theater in lafayette, louisiana, in july of this year. most people have heard now of allison parker and adam ward who were gunned down on live tv just a few weeks ago in virginia. but each one of those days -- june 17 a shooting in south carolina, july 16 a shooting in tennessee, july 24 the shooting in louisiana, august 26 the shooting in virginia -- every single one of those days where there were dozens more people who died from gunshot wounds that you never heard of, but they meant something to their families.

their loss is to this day experienced deeply by those who knew them well. some of those were people that were close to us, those of us who serve in public service. matthew schlonsky was killed this summer in washington, d.c., on august 15. he was heading to a going-away party and he had just stepped out of a cab when he was shot outside of the shaw-howard metro station. he was the sixth gunshot victim in the shaw area in a little over a week. think about what that's like to live in a neighborhood in which you have six shootings in the course of a week. think of the fear that breeds in those communities. well, we knew matthew because he was an intern for one of our colleagues, currently working as a consultant at did he loit, but he had served as a senate intern. and he was a pretty amazing kid by all accounts.

he traveled the world, spoke two languages, he was a star hockey player. his future was absolutely limitless, but because this city is awash in guns, many of them illegal, many of them in the hands of criminals who get them because of giant, gaping holes in our background check system, matthew schlonsky is no longer with us, dead at the age of 23. or how about the heartbreaking story of carrie goodday. 43 years old, serving as an assistant counsel to the new york governor andrew cuomo and before that he had been counsel at the empire state development corporation. he died on september 16, after he was just caught in the cross fire of a shooting in new york city. he was an innocent bystander shot in the head while attending

a pre-west indian american day pair raid festival with friends and family. he was the son of jamaican immigrants and grew up in public housing in the bronx. he had done amazingly well, atefnedded harvard university, attended harvard law school, working for the governor trying to make a better life, trying to give opportunities for kid whose grew up in the circumstances that he did. a friend described him as an an aacanamazing human being, persol warmth and caring for everyone he knew. gunned down in broad daylight ououtside of a festival simply because he was in the wrong place if he wrong time. four -- at the wrong time. 4,000 people this summer were killed by guns. and not a single public hearing has occurred in the united states senate on a solution. there's not even mention of a

debate happening anytime soon on the floor of the united states senate as to how we stop these episodes of mass slaughter. you know, we're averaging more than one mass shooting in this country every single day this year? that's astounding. that's shocking. and yet total, utter absolute silence from the world's greatest deliberative body on what we do about it. now, i will be the last person to tell you that there is any panacea coming from the united states congress on how to stem gun violence. you are never going to be able to eliminate these epidemic rates of gun violence just by one law or a set of laws that are passed, but what is an absolute indictment of this place is that we don't even try. and i've made this contention on the floor before, and i'll make it again, i truly believe that our complicity, our silence on

this has become complicity. that we have become accomplices to these murders because by saying nothing, by doing nothi nothing, we offer up a kind of quiet endorsement. to people who exist in the fringes of their mind, who are thinking about contemplating violence, and here the leaders of this country doing absolutely nothing to seriously condemn or stop their destructive, malevolent behavior. our silence has become complicit. and so i hope that at some point over the course of the rest of this year we can begin a conversation here as to how we turn these numbers back in the right direction. there is no other country in the industrialized world who even comes close to these numbers. i can offer you a suggestion on

where we start. if between now and december we can't come to a common understanding on our gun laws -- i still don't understand with 90% of americans supporting expansive background checks why we can't just do that. but if we can't get there, then let's start with fixing our mental health system. i think there's a lot of reasons why adam lanza walked into sandy hook elementary school and killed 20 kids oifer two years ago. but the child advocate in connecticut issued a damning report on his interactions with the mental health system. his mother tried and tried and tried and in the end gave up and let him retreat into the isolation of his room where he plotted these murders. but that family and that mother and that young man ran into barrier after bea barrier, obste or obstacle trying to find a course of treatment for his

serious set of illnesses. now, what we know is that people with mental illness are much more likely to be the victims of gunning values than the perpetrators -- violence than the perpetrators of it. there's no inherent connection between being mentally ill and being violent. there's no greater incidence of mental illness in the united states than anywhere else in the world, and yet we have these epidemic rates of gun release. -- of gun violence. but i'll certainly be the first one to admit that if we fix our mental health system, it will help lots of people who have no intersections with gun violence. but it will push these numbers downward. because some of these people are committing these murders because they are not getting treatment for serious illnesses. so senator cassidy and i, who frankly don't agree hon a lot -- conservative republican from the deep south, progressive democrat from the northeast -- we've

introduced a mental health reform measure that has broad bipartisan support that would seek to break down these barriers that the seriously mentally ill have to care, that would try to get parents more involved in the kairks especially of young -- in the care, especially of young adults, that would increase the capacity in our mental health treatment system, both outpatient and inpatient care. maybe over the course of the rest of this year, at the very least, we can make a dent in the massive, massive shortfalls in our behavioral health system. families that i have become so close with in sandy hook, connecticut, who command me to come down to the floor every week or so and tell these stories, the voices of victims, they would like us to come together on a set of meaningful changes to our gun laws. they just don't understand why adam lanza was able to walk into this school with a gun that

killed 20 little boys and girls in less than five minutes because of how powerful it was, because of the 30-round cartridges that he was able to use. but they don't want our inability to get action on gun laws to stop us from making other progress that would make the next adam lanza less likely. and so maybe we can do that. but we should do something. our silence is an embarrassment, after this summer of mass shootings. these news reports should command us to action, but we frankly shouldn't have had to wait for the news reports of shootings in virginia or louisiana or south carolina, because these numbers were just as true last year as they are this year. maybe there are more episodes of mass violence and mass shootings, at headline grabbing

atrocity, but these numbers reflecting what's happening on the ground in new haven, connecticut, hartford, connecticut, boston, massachusetts, illinois, los angeles, this has been a reality for a long time. we should have woken up a long time ago. but maybe over the course of this year we can make some progress so that moving forward therthere are a few less voicesf victims to bring to the floor of the senate. thank you. madam president, i'd yield the floor, and i note et absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be

vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i rise today to speak about recent revelations that volkswagen willfully deceived regulators and the general public to artificially lower emissions of its 2009-2015 volkswagen and audi diesel vehicles. these actions raise significant consumer, environmental and public health concerns. according to the e.p.a.'s notice of violation of the clean air act, volkswagen used a sophisticated software algorithm on certain vehicles that detected when vehicles were undergoing emissions testing. this software referred to as the defeat device, allows vehicles to meet emissions standards during testing, but under normal driving situations, these same vehicles emit nitrogen oxides up

to 40 times the allowable emissions standards. this is unbelievable. i think we can imagine that such technology exists, but i don't think we ever thought that one of our major international car companies would be alleged to have used it. so far approximately 482,000 diesel vehicles sold in the united states and 11 million cars worldwide have been affected. a deliberate attempt like this by a company to mislead regulators and the general public is completely unacceptable. this raises serious questions that need answers. why did volkswagen for more than a year claim that the discrepancies in the emission tests and the levels on the road were a technical error? who at volkswagen signed off on the defeat device? did executives at volkswagen know these actions were put into place to deliberately deceive regulators in the general

public? does the e.p.a. have the necessary testing systems in place to detect such devices that trick the software. have other auto manufacturers of clean diesel vehicles been tampering with their software to get around emissions standards? how do we ensure that this never happens again? this is a matter, madam president, of public trust. consumers were lied to and sold a product under false pretenses. those consumers who brought certain volkswagen jettas, beetles, certain audis, believed that they were purchasing a vehicle that would provide premium fuel economy and performance while also meeting strict emission standards. who wouldn't be enticed by these vehicles after being named green car of the year and eco-friendly

car of the year by national publications. we now know these consumers were duped and that they will now have to bring their vehicles under compliance to meet federal emissions standards. volkswagen will likely pay for the repairs, but what about the costs of reduced fuel economy and lower resale values? congress intentionally included strong enforceability elements into the clean air act statute. regulations promulgated under the clean air act came to protect human health and the environment by reducing nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. motor vehicles are the primary source of nitrogen oxide pollution from transportation. these highly reactive gases play a major role in atmospheric reactions that produce smog. that smog accelerates climate change and exacerbates respiratory diseases that harm human health, including asthma which affects 23 million

americans, including six million children. that is why we have emissions standards. it's just not some far far-off number that's put into place. it's to protect children from getting asthma. it's to protect the world from heating up. it is to ensure that we protect our environment for generations to come. the clean air act requires automakers to certify to the e.p.a. that their vehicles will meet applicable federal emissions standards to control air pollution. through this process, volkswagen deceived regulators into believing these vehicles produced low emissions. vehicles with the defeat device emit anywhere from five to 40 times more nitrogen oxide than allowed by law while on the road. if we pick a number in the middle of the range, let's say 20 times as much, it would mean that volkswagen's fleet in the u.s. produces 46,657 more tons

of harmful smog. changes to the e.p.a.'s emissions standards testing process are needed as well. i have written to e.p.a. administrator gina mccarthy to express that concern. the e.p.a. needs to explain why their systems did not detect the deceptive software and what changes the agency will be making with their testing processes. i strongly urge the e.p.a. to establish robust safeguards to prevent automakers from gaming the system and prevent this from happening again. there must also be a full investigation into volkswagen's actions. the department of justice is conducting a criminal investigation into the company's actions, and i urge d.o.j. to leave no stone unturned in its investigation to determine how a company could have willfully deceived federal regulators and the general public. volkswagen must conduct a

thorough and comprehensive public education campaign to ensure all owners of these vehicles, if they are -- that they are made aware of the defect and they are informed about where and when they can go to get their vehicle fixed. the department of transportation, which has expertise with vehicle recalls, should also play an active role. if we learned anything from the general motors and takata air bag recalls, it's that recalls need to be broad enough from the outset and cover affected vehicle models and years. the general public needs to know how and where to get their vehicle repaired, and automakers must have a system in place to make timely repairs with replacement parts that truly fix the problem. other agencies like the federal trade commission should also take a serious look at how they can help in this process. as a member of both the senate commerce committee and the senate judiciary committee, i believe the consumers must be

protected. i also believe that volkswagen's competitors who actually followed the law should be able to play on an even playing field. other car companies that follow the law did the right thing. they put the right systems in place, and they should not be penalized because one car company did this. they should have been able to play on an even playing field. that hurts american employees if there is an uneven playing field. it hurts american companies. and mostly it hurts american consumers. the actions by volkswagen to deliberately deceive consumers around the world about emissions levels in their cars is fundamentally about a breach in trust. consumers thought they were getting the same product that was being advertised. what they were really getting was a product that met those standards only when it was tested, only for a day, only for the time of the emissions

testing. as federal agencies move forward with their investigations, it is critical that we get to the bottom of this to figure out how this happened, what the extent was, if it's happening with any other automakers to ensure that what happens never happens again. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the roll call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president, i want to take advantage of an opportunity to bring up a subject that no one is talking about now. right now, everyone has been in the middle of the -- of course

the pope's visit and other things, and of course what's happening with the iran bill and the votes that we have, but i want to mention there is another very significant thing that's going on right now that we're in the middle of, and that's called the pilot's bill of rights two. just to kind of put it in perspective, we had the pilot's brits one two years ago last month. it's one that people were not aware of. there are only 617,000 pilots in america, so it's not one of these things that really gets an awful lot of attention, but the mere fact that those 617,000 people are -- many of them are single-issue people, and a lot of people are not aware of prior to the passage of the pilot's bill of rights three years ago, that there is just one area left within our system where you are guilty until proven innocent, and that's exactly what we

corrected with that bill, just to refresh your memory. it gave the pilots who are accused of something the evidence that was used against them. i had a personal experience with it. it actually happened to me. i was never sensitive to that until such time as -- as i experienced it myself. so what we have right now, we're up to 64 cosponsors in the pilot's bill of rights two, and one of the -- the major part of this bill is something that -- that is out there that doesn't really resolve anything. ten years ago, the -- as kind of an experiment, we put a sport pilot eligible exemption so that the pilots of small aircraft would not have to have what they call a third-class medical. a result of this was that after a ten-year period, the medical

safety experience of these pilots has been identical to those with medical certificates. and so a joint study was made then and following that by the aircraft owners and pilots association and by the e.a.a., experimental aircraft association. of the 46,976 aviation accidents over a six-year period, of those only 99 had medical cause as a factor. that is less than .25 of 1%. of those 99, none would have been prevented by the current third-class medical. so that shows that that experiment worked and there's no reason to have that third class. but -- so that people are aware that some changes have been made, i want to just briefly outline these -- the modifications that have been made. the modifications require three things for pilots to qualify for an exemption.

now, the exemption we're talking about is the exemption from having to take a third-class medical every two years or sometimes more stnsiv extensiven thasm the first of the three things, the pilots are going to have to complete an online medical education course. secondly, pilots have to maintain verification that they've been to a doctor at least once ever four years and certify that they are receiving the care that they need as directed by the if i stoition treat any medical -- by the physician to treat any medical condition that warrants it. and the third, a pilot would have to complete a comprehensive medical review by the f.a.a. that would be applied to a new pilot. so i want to kind a benchmark as to what a pilot's physical condition is. so the pilot would be required to take an online medical course every two years. this gives the pilot access to information on medical issues that may not be covered by a

doctor in a medical examination but that would have an impact on their physical condition to fly. for example, this course would make sure that pilots are aware of the impacts on interactions and over-the-counter prescription medications and how these interactions could impact their flying capabilities. requiring pilots to take this course boosts aviation safety for the general aviation community. now, the second one -- the second, pilots would need to complete an exam by their personal physician at least once every four years and include a proof of their doctor's visit in their logbooks. this resolves a problem that most people are concerned about, that they would have to at least sesee a physician and be assured that they did not have some condition that they didn't have prior to that. furthermore, the pilots would be

required to show that they are under the care thalt warntdz their treatment. w. whwith this modification, wee encouraging pilots to be honest about their health and seek treatment for t right now it's a terrible thing to say but it is true, that pilots are incentive shiive -- incentivized to hide any medical condition from the f.a.a. including by not seeking treatment for it out of fear that the pilot might lose his wings. we don't want that to havment people don't realize, people that are not pilots don't realize how significant that is that you don't want to be taken out of the air particularly for some reason that is not justified. pilots like any individual maintain stronger relationships with their personal physician, and this is a good thing that fosters an honest dialogue

between pilots and doctors, which is something we should all want and something that is not there today. we want pilots to get the treatment that they need in a medically treated -- and a medically treated pilot is safer than one not being treated. for many pilots, the most burdensome aspects of the f.a.a. bureaucracy is simply the constant churn of submitting paperwork over and over every two years or less, even when the -- there has been no change in their medical status. this bill, as modified, gives pilots a break from the bureaucracy. the third requirement -- i mentioned there were three requirements. the third requirement for pilots to receive a third-class medical exemption is to complete one f.a.a. medical review so that if a new pilot comes in, we need a benchmark. where is that pilot, what is his physical condition today, so that as time goes by we can see how he might be changing.

if someone does not have an existing medical certify such as new pilots that have never gone through an exam, they would have do it before falling in to qualifying for the exemption. by the way, this exemption, of the 617,000 pilots in america today, this is the one thing that concerns them more than anything else is to have to go back and go through the type of examination that they are required -- now that we know that the 10-year experiment of being exempt hasn't worked. now, there is one caveat. in a pilot flying under the third-class medical exemption is diagnosed with a severe condition -- let's talk about maybe a heart attack -- then they need to go through the f.a.a.'s special issuance process to receive medical clearance to fly again. but, again, this would only be needed to be done one time. the ability of the f.a.a. to maintain a stranglehold on pilots will be gone.

i'm confident that changes that we'll make will result in safer flying environment and i want to reiterate that pilots -- the pilots bill of rights 2 does not change the certification standards to obtain a pilots certificate. all pilots still have to possess a pilot certificate, passed required practical tests and necessary check rides to demonstrate they have the knowledge, skills, and ability to safely operate their plane. further, this bill does not change the fundamental responsibility of every pilot to self-certify their ability to fly each time they get in the cockpit of a plane. i am a pilot and every time i get in the plane, i make sure that i make a conscience decision to fly everyone i know who is a pilot does the same thing. and, again, it's not really -- all this is really not necessary when you go back and you realize that in ten years of the experiment, with a limited number of pilots, no changes -- there is en no difference betwen

those who have and have not had the pilot exams. with these chairntion th changee third-class has received support from the senate. support from the general aviation is strongly bipartisan. 64 of thigh colleagues are cosponsors. half had democrats, half republicans. broad groups representing general aviation in the community and the pilot unions have declared their support for the bill. general aviation organizations like the air traffic owners and pilots association and the experimental pilots association and the general aviation manufacturers association support the bill. the national association of state aviation officials support the bism the allied pilots association -- that's a union -- and the southwest pilots association, both -- they're unions that represent 23,000

pilots that fly for american airlines and usairways and southwest support the bill. the bill has strong pilot bipartisan support, and i urge all the members who support general aviation and all the economic activity of general aviation to be a part of this bill. one of the reasons i'm doing this today is there's -- one of the two organizations -- i'm not sure which one it is. it's either the aopa or the oaa, is doing a major effort here to encourage the pilot population out there to encourage their members of the united states senate to get on as a sponsor of this bill. again, we currently have 64 sponsors of the bill. we'd like to get -- we'd like -- i can't think of any reason we can't get anyone else.

the same individual whose supported it three years ago should be there to support it. i want to encourage my -- those few members of the senate who are not sponsors to look at it very carefully. this is -- it may be that 617,000 people is not a lot of people, but it is 617,000 people, most of them are single-issue people. so it would be really good to join in on this. this is something we now have demonstrated clearly that is not going to incur any safety hazards. it is going to be a real godsend for pilots who don't want to go through this bureaucracy every two years or more frequently in some cases. so the bill is out there, and it's one that i feel very stroppingly that we ought -- strongly that we ought to be able to work into the -- into our floor use, probably in the next very short period of time. with that, i do yield the floor,

because my very good friend from delaware is here to say something profound. mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i don't know that i'll say anything pro-fowrntiondz by appreciate the chairman of the committee saying that. my fellow west virginian, i'll show a map in just a minute. there's some states that are delaying -- some states are cutting back on transportation projects. one of enemy is west virginia. one of them -- one of them is west virginia. one of enemy is delaware. i want to talk a little bit about that. i'd like to go back in time 10 months, go back to the election of last year, and i'm reminded of the messages -- at least the messages that i heard from the electrielectorate that came outt

election. there are three things that were -- voters were trying to tell us. number one, they want us to work together. number two, they want us to get things done. and, number three, they want us to get things done that'll actually strengthen our economic recovery. and i was just walking back in time. january, the week that barack obama and joe biden were inaugurated as president and vice president, 628,000 people filed for unemployment insurance in that one week. 628,000 people filed for unemployment insurance that one week in january of 2009. anytime that weekly number is over 400,000, people filing for unemployment insurance, we are losing jobs in this country in the economy. we're losing them, when it is over 400,000. we got a new number last week from the department of labor. last week's number was about 265,000 who filed for unemployment. that was last week. that was 265,000. we have a new number today.

i'm not sure what it was. for the last 28 weeks that number of people filing for unemployment insurance has been under 300,000. i think that's the longest in all the years we've been keeping track where we've had 28 consecutive weeks with fewer than 300,000 people filer for unemployment insurance. so we're adding jobs and we would expect to add jobs in this country. are there still people looking for jobs in yeah. but when you consider unemployment rate was about 10% in the early part of 2009, today it is a little over 5%, we're making progress. but we can make a lot more progress. one of the ways is by dealing with our fiscal plan and not holding the nation's economy hostage with our inability to pass a spending plan. and god help us if we drop the ball on this again and have another shutdown. i sure hope that we come to our senses and avoid doing that.

my hope is that wevmen we will. but one of the other ways that we can strngen our economic recovery -- strengthen our economic recovery, and i.t. righ--and it's right out there s to seize and do. to make sure in a nation where roads, highways, bridges, transit systems are deteriorating, where we need to make improvements and we need to build frankly new projects, new roads, highways, bridges, transit systems, and very very least we need to maintain the ones we have or improve the quality of them -- whether it is bridge safety, road services, potholes, you name it, there's a lot of work to be done. and there's a lot of people who would like do the work and we're told by the -- there is a mackenzie consulting firm, national consulting firm, they have an arm of their entity called global institute. the global institute of mackenzie and company, they

looked at what we could do for our growing g.d.p. in this country if we fully funded six-year transportation plan. what could we do for employment opportunities if we fully funded a six-year transportation plan? the numbers are remarkable, i think amazing. we're told that fully funding a six-year transportation plan would grow g.d.p. by something like 1.5% per year, not for one year but for the life of the transportation plan, that we'd fund, probably six years, at 1 mo-- at 1.5% per year. adding 1.5% to g.d.p. growth would actually make our economy grow in a robust way, not in a modest way but in a truly robust way. and we're told by mackenzie and company's study that a six-year transportation plan, robustly funded, would put about 1.8

million people to work. 1.8 million. a lot of folks that would like to be building roads, bridges, and transit systems and they don't have employment opportunities because we're not funding them. we're not funding them. let me just take a quick look at this map. if we could, madam president, the united states -- the states here that are in gray are states as far as we know are not planning to delay or cancel projects, they're not even considering delaying projects. but the states that are in red, which include actually delaware over here, are states that have delayed or canceled projects. the states including west virginia are states that are considering a project that delays. that ain't good. than isn't good. i haven't counted the number of states, but it sounds like six

or so, a half dozen or so, that are in red. states that have delayed projects. more than that, probably about ten that are considering doing that. why is it important for us to fully fund at the federal level, do our share for roads, highways, bridges, transit funding? it's because about half of the money that our states spend through the departments of transportation, half their money comes from federal user fees, largely federal user fees. primarily, not entirely. primarily user fee on the sale of gasoline. it's been unchanged in 23 years. not since 1993. 22 years. the user fee on diesel has been unchanged for some 22 years. right where we were. the price on everything else goes up. concrete goes up, asphalt goes up, steel goes up, labor goes up. we have more energy-efficient

vehicles these days that are not using as much gas or diesel. that's a good thing. but it's also a bad thing for having fun, for transportation projects. so i just want to look at a map and consider -- i don't know anybody, any economist worth their salt who doesn't say fully funding a multiyear transportation plan, not just for six months or three months or something like that, but fully funding it, robustly funding it for six years would do great things for our economy. the folks, the reason why we end up with job growth is something like 1.8 million people, according to mckenzie and company, is because our economy works far more efficiently if roads, highways and bridges are operating and working well. i just wanted to share that to start off my remarks today, madam president, and having said

that, i -- i mentioned a number of states. i have some numbers i'd like to share. so far in 2015 this year, four states,rkansas, georgia, tennessee and wyoming, they show some $805 million in projects due to the uncertainty over federal funds. again the uncertainty is because over half the money they are going to spend on roads, highways and bridges comes from federal user fees, federal taxes. our transportation system, at least the way we fund it, has been broken since 2008. we passed since that time in the last five or six years. we have passed i think 12 short-term patches to the tune of nearly $74 billion. how do we pay for them? we paid for them with budget gimmicks. that's how we do it. we paid for them with debt. and when we issue debt, we borrow money. we sell treasury securities, and we sell them around the world.

among the countries that buy them are china and the chinese people, and we are then beholden to them as our creditors, and it puts us in a situation that i don't find too comfortable. my guess is some of you don't either. there are better alternatives to fund our nation's transportation system. i want to mention a couple of them. pretend i have not a magic wand but the ability to see into the future. 20 years from now, i think there is a pretty good chance that we will have figured out how to pay for roads, highways, bridges, transit systems by figuring out how to make sure that those folks who use transportation pay for it. and one of the ways we're trying to do that, we have been trying to do this out in oregon for almost ten years. they have something called road users charge.

some people have heard of that term. more people have heard of the term called vehicle miles traveled, and the ability to say to the people, i don't care what kind of people it is, but we know how many miles that vehicle travels on a road, highway or bridge in the course of a year. and there is a fee that is assessed to that. some people are uncomfortable with that because it has implications on privacy. i can understand that. in oregon they are trying to figure it out. they have 5,000 homes, 5,000 vehicles at least that are in their system. they are sort of -- i'd like to say states, laboratories or democracy. in this case the states are trying to be the laboratory. i believe california is looking at being another laboratory, figuring out how do we make something like vehicle miles traveled work in a state. a good-sized state, oregon. a really big state, california. if they can do that, we'll learn from them. not just at the state level, but perhaps the federal level as well. the other thing that -- the

other way to -- i think we'll be funding projects, not just now but in the future 20 years from now is through tolg. when -- tolling. when i travel through my native state of west virginia, i pay tolls. it used to be when i was a little kid there and they first built a turnpike, we would have to stop, find change, whatever, stop every like five or ten miles. you don't do that anymore. we don't do that anymore in delaware either because we have in delaware and i think in west virginia highway speed e-z pass. express e-z pass. you just go through. it's charged to your credit card that you have already established when you have established your e-z pass plan. we also now have the technology that even if folks don't have an easy pass, in some tolling operations around the country, the person drives through in their vehicle, car, truck, van, whatever, and the system when you go through the -- you go

through the toll plaza, they don't collect a toll. what they do, they have a highly accurate camera, the ability to take pictures of the vehicle and great pictures of your license plates, and then send a bill to the owner of that vehicle. and so -- a combination of those two systems like e-z pass and systems like the one i just described where people drive through with no e-ask pass or similar -- e-z pass or similar system, but they actually get billed for it later on. they don't get billed and fined. they just get billed for it. if they get billed and don't pay it, i'm sure something will happen. i think 20 careers from now, we'll have something that looks a lot like that. my guess is we'll also have user fees. but not everybody likes tolling. as it turns out, they have been

working on road user charge, also vehicle miles traveled. they have been working on it ten years. this isn't going to happen in five or ten years. maybe 20 years for both a combination of tolling and vehicle miles traveled. there is another idea out there that's used in some places around the country. it's called 3-p or p-3. when i first heard that, madam president, i thought they were talking about p-3 airplanes. i spent a lot of time as a naval flight commander. they weren't talking about airplanes. they are talking about public-private partnerships. we have pretty good examples of where that's working. we can learn from those in different states. i think that can be part of the future, it ought to be. put the three of them together, is that a comprehensive plan? not entirely. but it is a pretty good approach. it's a heck of a lot better than what we have been doing.

pension smoothing. increasing fees for t.s.a. instead of improving aviation safety, we put the money in the transportation trust fund. raising customs fees. instead of putting the money in ways to make our borders more robust and so forth, we put some of that money in the transportation trust fund. we sell oil out of the strategic petroleum reserve. i think probably a bad time to send it, sell it, when the price is really low. they say buy low, sell high. if we're going to sell petroleum out of the transportation trust fund, the price of oil is about as low right now as it's been in a long, long time. i'm told that -- i don't know if it was last week or the week before, but 10,000-gallon stations across the country where they were selling gallon for less than $2 a gallon. i don't know if y'all are charging in west virginia these days, madam president, but i

filled up my chrysler town and country minivan last week with 403,000 miles on it, and it -- i paid $2.15 a gallon. there are some places in delaware where people are paying less and neighboring new jersey where they are paying less. but right now it doesn't make much sense to sell oil out of our strategic petroleum reserve, but some people want to and to use that money to go into the transportation trust fund. i think that is foolish. we have got to be smarter than that. i have another chart i want us to take a look at. and i want to thank vanna white here for -- i'll pay for that later. but i -- this chart talks about legislation. it's kind of ironic. it says s. 1994. i mentioned earlier, the last time we raised the federal gas and diesel tax fees was i want to say in 1993 when we raised them to 18 cents for gas and

about 23 cents, 24 cents for diesel. they have been there for 22 years. but one of the things i have done is introduced legislation, supported it and done so with dick durbin who used to serve on the camilla parker -- bowles-sin commission. remember that how to seriously address our nation's deficit. by a variety of ways. and one of the ways that bowles-simpson said we should address our deficit situation. i will say our budget deficits are down. budget deficit topped out at 2009, $1.4 trillion. this year we are down to $400 billion. is that an improvement? yes, it is. do we have some way to go? yes, we do. what bowles-simpson suggested is we raise the gas or diesel tax to the federal level by a penny a quarter, a penny every three months for 15 months -- 15

quarters, excuse me, so effectively you would be raising the gas or diesel tax by three or four cents a year for four years. and what senator durbin and i have introduced is actually something quite similar to that, that a majority of the bowles-simpson commission voted for. it's called the traffic relief act. and the -- what it calls for is annual four-cent increases in gas and diesel. that would be for a total of four years. four cents a year for four years. after that, we would index those -- those user fees, those taxes to the rate of inflation. the rate of inflation is pretty low lately, so they wouldn't change it very much if inflation stays where it is. if inflation rears its head again, then that would be different. the -- i -- a friend of the -- a fell who was a member of my staff back in wilmington, delaware, when we introduced

this bill, the price of the gas station in his neighborhood where his family buys gas, in the space of two days, the price of the gas either went up or went down by 13 cents. it went up in two days, 13 cents. as we know, the price of oil moves up and down all the time. and the -- my own belief -- i have heard this from a lot of people, four cents. there are a lot of days, a lot of weeks where the price of gas or diesel goes up by a whole lot more than four cents. right now, our world is not literally awash in oil but certainly figuratively awash in oil, and one of the things, one of the reasons why the price at the pump for gas and diesel is so low -- and i said earlier a couple of weeks ago there were 10,000 gas stations across the country selling gas for less than two bucks a gallon. one of the reasons why it's so low is because the u.s. is

producing a lot, a lot more than we have for some time. as well as other countries, including the opec nations. and with the approval of the iran agreement, as the iranians comply with the agreement, my hope is that they will in spirit and in letter, then as a result of that, they will be in a position to begin selling. they have been selling some of their oil products to customers, including, i think, india, maybe japan, china, but they will be able to sell for products. and the world that's already awash in oil is going to find that iran -- which i think has the fourth greatest royal reserves in the world, is going to be back in the market and selling their own products, and that will, i believe, keep the prices from rising any time

soon, and i think there is reason to believe that the price at the pump which is already quite low might even go a gallon gallon -- might even go down further. time will tell. one last board that i would like to look at for just a moment. our lels, that is typo here. "restore $240 billion for the highway trust fund." compared to what? if we had a status quo contrary, a status quo highway bill or transportation bill, we would use maybe half that. so what we're talking about here is double just getting by. and we have such a backlog of work to do that it doesn't make sense to just push enough money to these projects just to get by. this would provide roughly twice that amount of money and would

maybe not raise our g.d.p. by 1.5%, but it would sure raise it. and it would -- may not put 1.8 million people to work over the next year, but it would put a lot of people to work. and a lot of people that are looking for jobs would like to do these jobs. the money would fully fund the federal highway and transit programs in our country, it would increase investments in upgrades and in repairs as well. it would do it in a way that doesn't drop a huge burden on users of these products -- gasoline and diesel -- all in one fell swoop. i.tit's like four cents year ovr four years. now, after four years, that would be a 16-cent increase, and people say, well, what was that in terms of practical impact? what does that actually mean for

somebody? i'm told that it -- it's actually -- i don't drink a lot of coffee, but my friends that do tell me that you get a small cup of coffee like over in the dirksen building here across the street, they pay $1.70. and if they get a medium-size cup of coffee, it is like $2.50. and a really big one, maybe it is like $3,000. this i-- it is, like, $3. this is not aen ifc a fancy one. for the price of a cup of coffee a week, for those of us who use roads, highways, bridges, who buy gas, who buy diesel, we could have a much better transportation system. this isn't $10 or $20 a week or

$30 a weefnl a week. that increase, four cents a week for four years, about a cup of coffee a week. is that too much to pay for roads, highways, bridges, a good transit system? i don't think so. i don't think so. and there's an interest in offsetting some of this increase through taxes. but there's an interest in offsetting that like michigan is doing with their state-earned tax credit. i think there's a lesson we could do that, aggressive nature of this kind. let me close by saying this: i come to this floor from time to time and i mention one of the things i love to do -- i don't fonoi ifi don'tknow if you evere

to ask people who have been married a long time, what is the secret? i've asked this question of hundreds of people that are older folks and they're married 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years. and i ask them the secret. i get hilarious answers and some that are very poignant and -- but others are just plain memorable for a lost reasons. but the best answer i've ever gotten it was two c's, communicate and compromise. communicate and compromise. and that is not just the secret for a marriage between two people, but it is also the secret for a vibrant democracy t i'd add a third c and that is to collaborate. what the american people said to us last november, whether democrats or republicans or independents, they want us to communicate, they want us to compromise, and they want us to collaborate. and we need to do that. one idea that i have not

mentioned here that bears mentioning, it is an idea that was endorsed last year by the administration, endorsed last year by the immediate past chairman of the ways and means committee, with whom our president served, dave camp, retired this year as the congressman from michigan. very good person. what they proposed was international tainternational t. and they both said, there's been $2 trillion in overseas profits of american companies and they're just keeping it over there, and they're not anxious to bring it back because they don't want to have to pay, i don't know,35%, 32%, they're looking for the lower tax rate and then to bring it back. what dave camp said is let's deem it repatriated. you got money over there,

american company, bring it back, it's going to be taxed at about 10%. that was his proposal. the administration says, american company, you got money that's over there, why don't you bring it back, you won't be taxed at 35% or 25%, but you will be taxed at about 14%. and that's an idea -- ans an interesting idea, doesn't solve the problem forever. provides one-time money for roads, highways, bridges, roil rail, airports as well. and it doesn't solve the problem permanently but gives us a lot of money. not every company likes that idea. not everybody that serves here likes that idea. but it is an idea that deserves a lot of consideration. at the end of the day if we come to the end of this -- closer to the end of this calendar year, when we run out of money yet again for roads, highways, bridges, and we say, well, what are we going to do now and we've

got not just states that pointed out here in yellow and red that are bailing on projects, delaying them, stopping them in some cases, we have a whole lot more yellow and a whole lot more red on the map i had up here earlier, what do we do about it? do we just do what we've done for five years and, you know, kick the can down the road yet again and look for cats and dogs and where week we can find a few bucks and throw them at the problem for a while? not make a real committed effort. and frankly not give the voters of this country to feel encouraged about our courage. if at the end of the day we don't do some kind of international tax reform, as good an idea as miles traveled and public-private partnerships, those are all good ideas, we're not going to have them all in in

place in the kind of scope we need by the end of this year. if we find ourselves at a time and place where we'll run out of money, the states are looking to us and we're running out of money at the federal level, my hope is -- and the price of gas is $2 a gallon at gas stations across america, my hope is people say, you know, for the price of a cup of coffee, i could have good roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems again, the price of a cup of coffee a week, i could have that? four cents a week maybe? maybe that's not a bad deal for their family or for our country. i want people to think about that. and in the weeks to come, i am going to be talking a lot about this proposal and my hope is that as time goes by, people will say, like my dad used to

say, in west virginia, when bhi- when my sister and i were growing up in west virginia, my dad used to say to us after we did yet another bone-headed stunt, he would say, just use some common sense. he sthaid a lot of. he did not say that nicely. but i think there's maybe an opportunity for us to use some of that common sense here. and i know he would approve, and i think at the end of the day, so would the voters of america. p.s., there's a number of states that have actually done this, what i'm talking about. they raised their user fees. and in some cases they've done -- phased them in for a couple of years. but it's interesting what happened in the elections lastier in states where the state -- last year in states where the state legislatures vote d.o.d. that, tvoted to do . and interestingly enough, the legislators who voted for that,

republicans didn't get thrown out of office. 95% of them got reelected. they won their primaries and general elections. and the democrats who voted for those modest user fee increases, they didn't get thrown out of office either, in the states that raised the money locally to make the improvements in their states that are needed in transportation. 90% of the democrats won their primary, won their general elections, got reelect. people want us to make hard choices here. they don't want us to continue kid them, fool them. they want us to do the real thing. they want us to work together, to get things done, they want us to strengthen our economic recovery. and this is not a bad way to do t with that, madam president, i see a great american from utah -- excuse me, from new mexico, from new mexico has joined us, and somebody who has worked with

the senator from louisiana and the senator who was just before here, senator inhofe, to try to find a good way to strengthen the economic recovery and at the same time clean our air and promote public health and do good things for the environment. i want to say to tom udall how proud i am to be his colleague and a appreciative his leadership on a really important issue. an environmental law that hasn't been updated in almost 40 years. it's never worked. we need to do something about it. and under his leadership along with our other two colleagues, my hope is that we will. so i'm happy to yield the floor and look forward to what he has to say. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: is not sphrr new mexico. mr. udall: madam president, thank you. thank you very much for the recognition, and let me just say to senator carper about tsca

that we have been working orntion i mean, you wer on, i me of the early senators who really cared about this issue and developed it and over time we did a marvelous thing in terms of improving what senator frank lautenberg had put on the table, bipartisan. he developed a lot of republican and democratic support and you were a key player all the way through. and so we know -- we think at this point, you and i believe and we do a lot of visiting around on both sides of the aisle. but this is ready to go. i mean, we now have, i think, 53 cosponsors. we're developing more cosponsors every day, and we don't think there's any real hostility towards the bill in terms of wanting amendments on that aren't relevant. that's a key factor for us, and both sides i think need to focus

on that. but i just want to express my appreciation to you for what you've done on tsca and help blend it into and make it into a bipartisan product. and you -- and we've been trying -- you know, he's been very busy with the pope in town and the sequester facing us and the shutdown and things like that. we've been trying to get onto the floor to talk about this and i think we're going to fin to do that in the future. but it's tremendously important that this gets floor time right now. and i know you've been working on that with me. do you -- do you see this as a product that's better than current law? i mean -- my sense is it's much better than current law. mr. carper: if i could, responding to my friend, i have a friend who when you ask him, how are you doing, he says, compared to what? he says, compared to what? and when we talk about the

legislation initially introduced by senator lautenberg, senator vitter and now coauthored by you and senator vitter and senator inhofe, with input from a number of us, i always say, well, like compared to what? the idea here is to make sure that the e.p.a. does it's due diligence on toxic substances in this country and there are thousands, tens of thousands of chemicals -- you know better than i do -- that exist in our environment, our air, our ground and water. tens of thousands. are they all toxic? no. but my recollection, correct me if i'm wrong on this, but i think that out of those thousands -- tens of thousands, i believe e.p.a. in the last 38 years has actually done their due diligence on really fewer thank 200. maybe even fewer than 10. when you get down to it, e-maybe even just five. & you say, how long has this

bill been around this law been around? 38 years. and they have now fiduciaried work on -- and they've now finished work on five? this is not the time to quit. so we want to get -- it is sort of like in football. in football -- football season is under way. you take the kickoff. you start marching down the field. get into the other teems territory. got down to the red zone. i think under your leadership and that of our colleagues, we're in the red zone now. we need to bring this bill on the floor, 53 cosponsors equally divided between democrats and republicans. a lot of interest in the house. i think support from the administration. we ought to -- we ought to get this done. thank you. mr. udall: madam president, the -- it bears repeating. senator carper is very modest, and he's a humble man, but he has done a lot to help bring it

to the point. i think he's one of the senators here to works the best across the aisle, and that's what's helped. we've had a lot of senators who have wanted to work red across e aisle on this bill. as senator carper knows, on the environment and public works committee, he was joined by senator booker, senator white house and senator merkley in terms of helping mark up the bill and make it a better product. you talk about going across the finish line, with 53 cosponsors about evenly den democrat and republican. i think it's almost exactly even. that sends a signal to our majority leader that this has tremendous support in both caucuses, and i believe the presiding officer here is also on the bill. so everybody standing on the senate floor right now is on what is a good bipartisan

product. and so we -- we are going to work very carefully in the next couple of days to see that the attention is brought to this and hopefully we can have a -- an opportunity to have a debate and have amendments, and then meet with the house. the house, as you know, senator carper, has already passed a piece of legislation, i think 378-1. one person in the house opposing it. and so we have a bill that's alive and ready to go, and we need to get it out of the senate so we can conference it with the house and get it up on the president's house for his signature. but i don't know if you have any other thoughts on moving -- what is the best way to move forward? obviously, we have got to be bipartisan, but at this particular point is your sense that we're ready to go from everything you have seen, from environment and public works committee and these other --

these other senators at various places, these are ready to go. mr. carper: if i could respond to my colleague's question. i don't care if the democratic leader is a republican or democrat. they're always figuring out how do we have time on the calendar to get stuff done? and they're always looking for one of the best ways to ensure that legislation actually fits into a reasonably small period of time is to line up bipartisan support, and i want to tell you i have been here for a while in the senate. this is almost a picture book way to pass legislation. work it up through the grassroots, democrat lautenberg and republican vitter, and now with your role here and others, the -- there is not many bills in the senate that have 26 or 27 democrats and an equal number of

republicans. has everything been working out? no. will there be a need for members? yes. is there a need for a filibuster? no. we ought to have a chance to bring it to the floor. we need to go to the majority leader and we need to visit with him early and often and can remind him. and those who believe to, whether on the environmental side or you need folks there in the health care arena or maybe on the manufacturing side who helped us craft this. for them to not be silent about it but for them to be urging not just us but the leadership to find time, a couple of days to bring this bill to the floor and get her done. with that having been said, my colleague, madam president, if i put down my microphone and pack up my bag, thank you, and have dinner with my wife in the first state of delaware, and that's my goal. mr. udall: thank you, senator carper. thank you very much. i wish you godspeed on that

train headed to wilmington because you have got a wonderful wife to -- mr. carper: it's not the last train to clarksville, but it is the next train to wilmington. thank you. mr. udall: thank you. and let me say again, not only on toska, as senator carper held, we were going to have speeches earlier in the week and we were unable with some of the scheduling issues and everything to get down here and talk as a group. we had senator whitehouse who was going to come down, senator merkley who was going to come down, several of the key members of the environment and public works committee that played such a big role in terms of moving this bill forward. the senator who really kicked it off was senator frank lautenberg. what a star in terms of bipartisanship. i remember working with him when i was on the environment and

public works committee for a long period of time on a very substantive piece of legislation. it was what -- it was so good we couldn't find much bipartisanship on it, and he understood that. it got out of the committee. it wasn't ready for prime time here on the floor. and so what we ended up doing was saying we need to go back to square one. senator lautenberg took that very seriously. he met with senator vitter, senator manchin played a role in that. senator manchin was one of the ones that was going to come to the floor and talk, played a role in getting them together. as a result, a bipartisan bill came out in the last congress, and it's continued now for almost two and a half years, and it's a very good product. so with that, i came down to speak on a different subject also, and i would prefer that be -- i would ask consent that it be in another place in the

record, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you. madam president, the american people want a government that works, not one that shuts down to send a message. they want a congress that moves the nation forward. not one that grinds to a halt. they want a responsible budget that supports working families and strengthens our economy, creates jobs. these should be our priorities, not an attack on women's health care. i understand some people have strong views about a woman's right to choose that are different than mine. there are strong differences of opinion on many important issues in this senate and in the congress -- health care, energy and climate change, foreign policy, and we could make a very long list here. but i read an insightful quote the other day from my good friend, senator lamar alexander. lamar said if we had a shutdown

every time we had a dispute over a contentious issue, the government would never open. that, i think, is a very wise observation. we do have many differences, but most importantly we must have the broader national interest in mind. the clock is ticking. funding runs out in just a few days. we need a clean continuing resolution, and we need it now. a temporary funding bill just to keep the lights on. have we forgotten what happened two years ago? the people of my home state of new mexico, they have not forgotten. we were badly hurt by the shutdown then and we would be badly hurt by a shutdown now. in los alamos, in sandia, our two d.o.e. labs are working on modernizing aging nuclear weapons systems to keep them safe and secure. it is foolish to cause unnecessary disruption to

projects of this significance, where there is no margin for error. each of these labs employs thousands of people. many of them scientists at the top of their field. why would we threaten their paychecks and important national security -- the important national security work that they are doing? we have three air force bases in new mexico -- cannon, kirkland and holloman. all serve a variety of unique national security missions for our country. white sands missile range, unlike any facility in the country, it provides critical research and testing for future technologies. shutdowns and sequestration send a terrible message to the men and women at these facilities. it limits their effectiveness and harms the economies of nearby communities like clovis, albuquerque, alamagordo, yomana

county. shutdowns mean lost jobs and lost revenue, all in the face of a struggling economy. we cannot afford another government shutdown, and we cannot afford a return to sequester cuts. these are bad choices. these are self-inflicted wounds. a clean c.r. will keep the government open, but we need a long-term cure, we need a bipartisan budget agreement, one that makes smart investments and meets the real needs of american families. the people of my state work hard. many are still struggling. the economy of new mexico has not recovered yet completely from the recession, and we know that new mexicans want us to come together and push for a stronger recovery. new mexicans are eager for solutions, and they are tired of these political games that threaten jobs and weaken our

economy. and yet, here we are once again facing a manufactured crisis. we all know that in the fiscal year 2016, which begins next year, the murray-ryan budget deal expires, and we are left with a return to sequestration. as ranking member of the appropriations interior subcommittee, i would like to talk about that today because the impacts of the funding levels required by the budget control act are clear, and they are very destructive. just look at the senate interior appropriations bill reported out of the committee in june. to stay within the spending limits we face under sequestration, it slashes more than $2 billion from the president's budget request. that means it doesn't provide enough funding for basic water infrastructure or to protect our public lands or to fulfill our trust responsibility to american indians and alaskan natives.

now, i know that my chairman, senator murkowski, did the very best she could with the allocation she was given, but here's the reality. the budget control act caps don't meet the needs of our nation. they fail critical programs. they fail our communities in new mexico and nationwide. our nation faces an infrastructure crisis, and yet the senate bill cuts grants to states for water and sewer infrastructure by more than $500 million below fiscal year 2015 levels. actions have consequences, and here are the consequences of the senate bill. 230 communities will not have their water projects funded. 14,000 construction jobs will not be created. $1 billion in matching and leverage funds from state partners will be lost.

the senate bill also shortchanges the nawrks service with $318 million less than the president requested. that means 1,000 fewer park rangers. it means $150 million less to maintain our nawrks. even though the service will celebrate its centennial in 2016 and will host a record number of visitors at national parks nationwide. we have 15 national parks in new mexico, including our newest national park, the vias caldero national reserve. these public lands are critical, not only for conservation but for our economy. a shutdown would be a disaster. sequestration is just a slower moving disaster. carlsbad caverns national park, bandelier national monument,

tent rocks national monument, boscadelapace wildlife site and other sites are key economic assets. these sites help grow jobs, they help communities grow and they are great conservation assets in communities across the cup. we can't keep asking them to do more and ask them to do more and more on less. yet, with a sensible budget, that's exactly where we're headed in new mexico without a sensible budget that's exactly where we're headed in new mexico and across the nation. the senate interior appropriation bill also cuts more than $300 million from the president's request for the indian health service. we have a solemn trust responsibility to native americans, and we are failing. again, these are not just numbers. the impact is very real and very painful.

it means the indian health service will fund 20,000 fewer doctor visits in 2016, and nearly 1,000 fewer hospital stays. it means falling further behind. we need a responsible budget to meet our obligation to the indian health service and other tribal programs like housing, school construction, indian education. all of those are being hurt by this sequestration budget. we cannot continue being shortsighted. we can't keep short-chapping programs that make a real difference -- we can't keep short-chairchg programs that-- . this includes funding for for our national forests and wildlife refuge. the list goes on and on. madam president, the fipple is now and we are running out of time. we're on the wrong train, on the wrong wrong track and going

nowhere. fortunately, there is a solution. let's pass a clean c.r. and let's work together to pass a budget that actually meets the needs of our nation with sensible funding levels for defense and non-defense programs alike. madam president, before i wrap up my remarks, i want to call attention to another deadline that's fast-approaching:the authorization for the land and water conservation fund will expire on september 30 if this congress doesn't act. recently i was one of 53 members who called on the leadership of this chamber to pass an extension of the law, and i want to reiterate that call today. the land and water conservation fund just celebrated its 50th birthday. it enjoys strong bipartisan support because the idea behind it is so simple and so powerful. when this nation develops one

natural resource -- our oil and gas reserves -- we invest some of the proceeds in other critical conservation priorities. for five decades now the land and water conservation fund protects our national parks, forests, and other public lands. it helps ensure hunting, fishing, and recreational access, and it improves and expands our local parks and recreation facilities. the program has been a tremendous success and has had a tremendous impact on my state, from urban refuges like the valles diarbo a the valles cal daria. it strengthens the economy and he hances our way of life. the lwcf allows us to leverage today's resources to protect vital lands and waters for future generations. allowing the law to expire

breaks that compact. it doesn't make any sense and it doesn't have to happen. we shouldn't let the land and water conservation fund expire, even for a single day, and i call on this chamber to act swiftly and to permanently authorize this important program and ensure that it is fully funded. and with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: