majority that was elected in last november, this new majority saw it as one of the most important things we could do in terms of basic fundamentals of good governance is to pass a budget, something that hadn't happened since 2009. and one of the benefits -- there are many benefits, of course, of passing a budget, but one of the benefits was to allow the appropriations committee to begin to go to work to begin to take up and pass 12 different appropriations bills that would keep the whole of the federal government funded. there's also tremendous benefit, as the presiding officer knows, there's a lot of policy written in those appropriations committees. you can make a decision not to fund something because it's not working or maybe it's obsolete, outdated. or fund something else or perhaps say, well, we need to reform the way this particular service is delivered and

consolidate them in a way that's cost-effective and more efficient. so it's really important to pass a budget and to pass appropriations bills. but unfortunately our democratic colleagues are trying to use the appropriations process, to hold it hostage in order to force us to increase government spending. and the reason -- the way they try to do that is to filibuster the appropriations bills and to say, you know what? we're not even going to take up a defense appropriation bill, the one that actually pays our troops and takes care of their families. well, they're going to have another chance to vote on a veterans appropriation bill very soon and we'll see whether they keep up this tactic control of holding hostage our appropriations process and creating all this unnecessary drama associated with, well,

there's going to be a shutdown here or a shutdown there. it is very important that we get back to work and we do the basic work of governance -- passing budgets, passing appropriations bills. i know the presiding officer agrees with that. but i think that lost in all of this debate over government shutdowns and over appropriations bills has been the shocking videos that we saw on -- that planned parenthood -- these planned parenthood videos that showed planned parenthood executives speaking callously about the unborn. these are late-term abortions. these are unborn babies that would -- could well be viable outside of the womb. because after 20 weeks, give or take two weeks, it's amazing what neo natologists and what

medical science can do. i know we've all seen babies as small as a pound or less that actually grow into thriving adults later on. and so it's amazing what can be done even with these young babies, as young as 20 weeks or more. but, of course, these videos i think have served one important role and that is to be a wake-up call, to try to wake up the moral conscience of our nation. somehow we have trivialized this whole process and talked about choice and talked about the convenience of adults when, in fact, there is another competing interest involved here and that is the potential life of a human being that's being overlooked. you know, at different times in our nation's history, i think we've seen that somehow we've

become so desensitized, we've become so self-focused on ourselves that we forget the fact that this is -- this speaks about our humanity and who we are as a people. and so these sort of wake-up calls that these videos have provided i think has been useful if we make the most of it. and i know that as we've talked about the -- the continuing resolution and the so-called shutdown scenario, which is not going to happen, there's been concern that this might be the only way that we stop this horrific practice of late-term abortions and harvesting of fetal body parts for sale that were depicted in these videos. but i'm thankful that there are a number of pro-life groups in texas and nationally who understand that we need to make

sure that this is a long-term agenda and not just a one-vote situation. like i mentioned yesterday, earlier this week, two groups involved in the pro-life mission in my home state announced their support for efforts in congress to hold planned parenthood accountable and to work towards long-term, meaningful change on the pro-life agenda. one of those groups is the texas alliance for life and they released a statement that affirmed the actions taken last week, a vote to defund plant -- defund planned parenthood and to redirect the funding to other providers of women's health services that were not involved with the abortion industry. if you're control concerned about women's access to health care -- and we all are -- then why can't we redirect the money that goes to pay the number-one abortion provider in america and redirect it to community health centers that actually do provide women's health services?

but the statement of the texas alliance for life went on to say that the group was -- quote -- "not asking for a government shutdown over the issue and that that -- quote -- "there were better options that exist for achieving success." so i just want to spend a moment or two focusing on what those better options than a shutdown that exists for achieving success. because the senate continues to work on several measures, including key pieces of legislation that would advance the culture of life in this country, legislation like the pain-capable unborn child protection act. now, this would do what texas has already done, which is say that there can be no elective abortions after five months of gestation. five months of gestation. at this stage in development, many experts believe a child

unborn can feel pain. and i'm still unclear why our democrat friends across the aisle would block such a simple, moral imperative like protecting these young lives, as they did last week. but i'd like to also say to our friends across the aisle, this legislation is not going away. and we will not stop raising the visibility of this issue and making the point that a child at five months, a child with fingerprints and taste buds deserves protection under the law. our country also needs to -- another piece of legislation that i've cosponsored that actually passed in the house. this is called the born alive survivors protection act that the presiding officer is the lead sponsor of. quite simply, this bill would mandate that doctors provide an

infant care to newborns who survive an abortion procedure. now, this is different i think in kind from the defund planned parenthood debate. this is about the delivery of a born child and whether a physician or the abortion provider has any duty, which they should, to make sure that that child gets the care that they need so they can survive. or whether they can at their option simply end that life as part of an abortion practice. it's a sad commentary on the conscience of america when we need to -- a law like this to spell out the fact that doctors should care for babies once they're born. this legislation was introduced last week and i hope we are successful. the presiding officer, as i said, is the lead cosponsor and

getting broad support from cosponsors on this bill. and then we can go to senator mcconnell, the senate majority leader, and ask him to schedule this legislation for a vote. so this bill, along with the pain-capable bill, would not only save thousands of unborn lives a year, but if enacted, would be the biggest step forward for the pro-life movement since the partial-birth ban was signed into law a decade ago. both of these bills are part of a long-term proactive strategy to fight for the lives of the unborn and to make this country one that truly prizes the life of the unborn as a young life with limitless potential. it took time for the partial-birth abortion ban act act -- i was here in the senate when we passed that legislation. it's incredible to me it took as long as it did for that to pass. but it also took a commitment from leaders to stand up time and time again, not to just have

one vote and to call it quits, say, we tried and we were unsuccessful, but to stay after it until we actually achieved passage of the partial-birth abortion act. and i believe with the same sort of long-term commitment on the pain-capable bill and on the born alive bill, we can continue to make progress in this house as well as the house of representatives and to be able to tell our constituents back home that we have changed the culture of washington, d.c. and on a national level shown a respect for unborn life that it deserves. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would suggest 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 florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to talk about what's happening to our environment in south florida as a result of sea level rise. now, we can put this in the political terms of climate change, but that seems to be an issue that some want to deny, so i want to talk about what you can't deny, and that is that the sea is rising particularly as shown in south florida. mr. president, i brought the commerce committee a year and a half ago to miami beach and brought a whole series of

witnesses, one of which was a nasa scientist who testified that measurements -- now, this is not forecast, this is not a projection, this is measurements of the level of the sea over the course of the last four decades that the sea that is risen in south florida between five and eight inches. and the reason i am bringing this to the attention of the senate today is i just returned from miami where the latter part of september, the first part of october is the seasonal high tides, and the streets of miami beach are flooded. as a matter of fact, two years

ago, the mayor of miami beach, when he was campaigning for that position, did a campaign commercial in a kayak on alton road, which is on the westerly side of the barrier island, away from the ocean, and it was flooded. and in the intervening two years, the city of miami beach, in cooperation with the local governments of all of the southeast florida governments, have spent millions of dollars on big pumps so that when the tides come, they can get the water out of the streets. and a year ago, senator sheldon whitehouse and i went down there at this time of year on the seasonal high tide, and lo and behold the pumps worked, and the

pumps got the water back into biscayne bay so that the roads stayed dry. but look what happened two days ago. this is downtown miami beach. you see the fella? it's above his ankles. and he's up on the curb. right here is the curb. he steps down and it comes up just below his knee. you see the cars. you see the water. that's downtown miami beach. this is not just the phenomenon of the big full moon. this is the phenomenon of sea level rise. let's take another view. okay. here's a lady that is trying to keep her feet dry up on a wall,

and you can see that here is the sidewalk, here's the curb, there's the street, and as you can see, this is a middle part of the barrier island of miami beach. this isn't right next to the beach. it isn't right next to biscayne bay on either side, the east and the west of the barrier island. this is in the middle where you have all of these -- in this case, it's condominiums where people live. so what is causing this? mr. president, what is causing it is that planet earth is heating up. the measurements are there.

now, why is it heating up? it's simply this, that as the sun's rays come in and hit the earth, they reflect off of the earth, and that heat radiates back out into space. it's the same principle, for example, on the space shuttle when i participated in the space program 30 years ago, when we were on orbit in the early part of the space shuttle program on the space shuttle columbia, once we get on orbit, we open those payload bay doors, and they serve as radiators of all the heat that is generated on board the spacecraft. we radiate it back out into

space so that the spacecraft does not overheat. so, too, planet earth, the natural phenomenon is that the sun's rays hit the earth, reflect back out, some of the heat is retained, but most of that heat is radiated back out into space until you start to create the effect of a ceiling high in the atmosphere of the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, and those gases start to create a ceiling effect, so as the heed

heed -- heat is radiating back toward space, it is trapped, and therefore the whole planet starts to heat up. and what is most of the earth covered with? the oceans. that's where most of that additional heat is absorbed. 90% of the heat that is trapped in the earth's greenhouse effect is absorbed into the oceans of the planet, and as a result, when water is heated, water expandz, and thus one of the -- expands, and thus one of the phenomena of seeing the seas begin to rise -- now, the melting of the glaciers, the melting of the polar ice caps, adding more instead of frozen glaciers that's going into the

sea, displacing water, and those glaciers are melting, that adds to it as well, but it is the trapping of the heat that is causing this phenomenon. now, we have made projections as to what the heat is that we're trapping, but now we have an instrument out in space that can precisely measure, because there is a spacecraft that was launched earlier this year, discover. it has several instruments on it. one of the instruments, by the way, you can go to the nasa web site and you can see real time every hour and a half another picture of the entire earth on the daylight side of the earth, because the spacecraft is placed

a million miles from planet earth, between the earth and the sun. so the spacecraft looking back at earth is always looking at the daylight side of the earth as it revolves about its access, 365 days a year as it revolves around the sun. that's one instrument. but there's another instrument, and that is the instrument that measures the amount of the sun's heat that goes into the earth and the amount of the heat that is radiated back out, and if you subtract the amount radiated back out into space from that amount of heat that goes into the earth, you subtract the two and you get a precise

measurement of how much of the heat sent by the sun is trapped in the earth's atmosphere. now we have a precise instrument that will tell us exactly what that is instead of the scientific projections that we have used, and that's as a result of this new satellite spacecraft that we just put up earlier this year called discover. so, mr. president, we can't keep denying what in fact is happening, and the proof's in the pudding, and the proof is right here. there's no other way that you can explain in a seasonal high tide which, for the last two

centuries, this barrier island has basically been dry during the seasonal high tide. but now we're seeing this. now, the consequences of this are really quite severe. first of all, 75% of florida's population is along the coast. florida is now the third largest state. we've surpassed new york. we have 20 million people now. 75% of that population is along the coast. and so as the sea level rises and people have to start dealing with this, what do you think's going to happen to the value of their property? what about their freshwater?

florida sits on a honeycomb of limestone that is filled with freshwater. saltwater is heavier than freshwater. so as the sea level rises, it starts to penetrate that honeycomb of freshwater. that is the sub structure of the peninsula of florida. and that then causes saltwater intrusion into our drinking water, into the water that we have to use to sustain life. there are no good results as a result of this consequence of sea level rise. so, mr. president, i once again bring up to the senate we have some who say this is not something that's real. in fact, here's the proof.

the proof's in the pudding, and there's something we can do about it, and what we can do about it is start adopting policies that will put less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that means that we have to be diligent in making sure that we enact policies to do it. now, there are several different ways that you could do that. one, of course, is the regulatory way, which is going on right now, which a lot of our colleagues don't like. you regulate smokestacks. you regulate the amount of pollutants that you can put out and so forth. there's another way, and that is to use the private marketplace of supply and demand by putting a price for a fee on the use of

carbon, and therefore the market will dictate whether or not a person puts more co2 as a result of burning carbon into the air, and that will drive the marketplace to find alternative fuels that in fact are a lot cleaner so that we can show the rest of the world what we're going to have to do. i think it was rather prophetic that the pope just last week continuously talked about climate change in all of his speeches. i think it was also prophetic that the chinese president in his visit to the united states, apparently they are so choked because of the pollutants in the

air in major cities in china, that they are finally coming to the altar, so to speak, to realize that they've got to do something about it. otherwise, they're threatening the complete health of their people in china. where this newfound attention to this problem, let's go do something about it by building bipartisan support for a solution. that's the right thing to do and it's just another reminder. that's what's happening in miami beach right now, is what is the wave of the future unless we change our policies. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would 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 montana. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i also ask unanimous consent to enter a colloquy with senators ayotte, burr and gardener and alexandria. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: montana's forest lands have been a treasure for generation. as a fifth generation montanan and someone who loves the outdoors, i recognize how valuable our public lands are and the importance of ensuring access for generations to come. hunting, backpacking and fishing are traditions that i like many montanans have been thankful to pass along to my kids. i know firsthand the important role that the land and water conservation fund holds in protecting an increasing montanans access to our public lands, and that's why since coming to congress i've been actively working to secure funding for the land and water

conservation fund every year. in fact, through the appropriations process this summer, senator susan collins and i successfully passed an amendment to increase the funding for lwcf programs by nearly $14 million. this brought the overall funding to lwcf to $600 million and ensured it did not lose out when we work on permanent reauthorization. in montana and throughout the country, the land and water conservation fund plays a critical role in achieving the goal of increased access. and despite the tireless efforts and the work of senators burr, collins, ayotte, alexander and gardner to move forward reauthorization, it expires tonight. it did not include reauthorization for lwcf.

because lwcf is funded through royalties developed through offshore development. it is a tool that protects montana's opportunity to enjoy hunting, fishing and outdoor recess. when i was back in montana this is where i was, on the public lands of montana. this is the wilderness area. this is my wife cindy, our dog, my fly rod on my pack. that is near granite peak, over 10,000 feet where that picture was taken, having a chance to enjoy our public lands, something that is absolutely a treasure for the people of montana and the people of our great country. lwcf keeps lands, like family ranches, in the family and working. it's a fundamental tool that preserves and protects our opportunity to enjoy hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation. it keeps forests until productive use through the legacy program like in the

haskill basin. that's why it is so disappointing that reauthorization was not included in the c.r. we voted on today. under the current c.r., the lwcf will be funded as with the rest of federal government through december 1 # 1. lwcf will be funded at 2015 levels and all projects will continue as planned. however, any new deposits into the fund will stop tomorrow, on october 1. i've heard from many montana businesses, out fitters, guides and other montanans who love the outdoors who are concerned about the program's lapse and authorizations. small businesses rely on it for public access to montana's treasured public lands, for outdoor recreation which supports millions of dollars for revenue for our state and hundreds of jobs. like eric grove in helena who built his mountain bike business around the south hills trails system outside of helena was

facilitated by lwcf. there are many other small businesses like that in mt. t -- montana. before coming to congress i spent time in boozman. we were able to attract employees not only because we offered good employees but our slogan was work where you like to play. lwcf is a tool that facilitates recreation on public lands and we can't let it slip away. i remind the members of the senate, we passed the reauthorization of lwcf, we have it in the appropriations, that passed the appropriations committee this year. and we did not get cooperation with our friends across the aisle to bring that to the floor for a vote and move it forward in regular order, which is the way the united states senate should operate. now i'd like to pause and yield

so my distinguished colleague from the great state of new hampshire, senator kelly ayotte, chos also a big support -- who is also a big supporter of lwcf, and i'm glad senator ayotte has come down to the floor today and is joining me in our fight to make sure we keep lwcf reauthorized. ms. ayotte: thank you, senator daines. i want to thank you for your incredible support for the land and water conservation fund, and i love the picture with your wife. because just like montana, in my home state of new hampshire, there are so many beautiful, beautiful places to hike. the white mountain national forest, places where the land and water conservation fund have made such a difference in giving everyone an opportunity to enjoy the use of our public lands. and in fact, having been born in new hampshire and grown up there, i have so many fond memories of my childhood, of hikes in our beautiful forests

in new hampshire. and without the land and water conservation fund, we would not have been able to do at this point there have been 650 individual acquisition and projects in the state of new hampshire that have been supported by this incredible fund. in fact, one of my favorite things to do, as you think about the important work that the land and water conservation fund does, in our forests like the white mountain national forests, but it's also in our cities, so i live in nashua, new hampshire, our second-largest city, and we have mine falls park, which is a real jewel, right in the middle of the city. mornings when i'm in new hampshire, my favorite thing to do is i get up early and i go for a run through this, these parks that are beautiful. forested areas in the middle of a city that so many people in nashua enjoy every single day, including myself and my children. and as i'm running along, i see

so many granite staters who are taking a beautiful walk in the morning in the woods in the second-largest city in new hampshire. and so i, as senator daines has said, i'm very disappointed that we did not include the reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund in the continuing resolution, and within hours the authorization for lwcf expires. so i believe we should act immediately to reauthorize this program. we should be permanently reauthorizing this program. that is what i have supported in legislation so that we're not in this position, or in this situation again in the future. and it's important to understand that the funds that go to lwcf under the law were supposed to be there from leasing revenues from oil and gas leasing that

were supposed to be specially dedicated for this purpose of giving the american people more access to public lands and preserving our natural beauty. yet, historically, unfortunately, this money has been diverted and not all of it has gone to the purpose for which it was collected, which is a classic washington move. so that's why i would like to see the funds to go where they were designated, that we reauthorize this important program because there's bipartisan support for reauthorizing and for preserving our great outdoors for everyone to enjoy. and there have been thousands and thousands of acres in new hampshire that have been preserved and protected for people to be able to use for all kinds of outdoor recreation in our state. and in new hampshire, like montana, the outdoor industry is so important to the economy of

new hampshire and to who we are in the live free or die state. in fact, if you look at what the outdoor recreation industry generates, it's $4.2 billion in consumer spending in our state annually, which directly supports 49,000 new hampshire jobs. and in addition to that, the outdoor industry association estimates that at least 76% of granite staters participate in outdoor recreation each year. but that doesn't surprise me. having been born in new hampshire, having grown up here, i love our state, and it's such an important part of our state, is our great outdoors. and people in new hampshire, they love to go hiking, fishing,ing -- hiking, fishing,ing hunting and using all types of recreation in enjoying the beauty of our great

state. protecting the outdoor spaces, this is not a partisan issue. we need to work together to ensure the preservation of our environment for future generations to enjoy. as the mother of a second grader and a fifth grader, a big part of my kids' life too is enjoying the beauty of new hampshire. and i know that if we reauthorize the land and water conservation fund but not only in new hampshire but across this country, we will continue to preserve the beauty of our country and the open spaces so that everyone can enjoy them and really get the exercise and be healthy and just the clean, fresh air that they have an opportunity to breathe and our beautiful forests and beautiful lands in this country. lwcf also grants, has funds granted to the forest legacy program which has helped conserve new hampshire's forests. supporting our forest products industry and aiding wildlife preservation to make sure that we have healthy working forests

which is so important to our forestry industry. so i would like to call on my colleagues to act immediately to reauthorize this essential program which has helped preserve the beauty of new hampshire and our nation. and this is one, mr. president, that i hope with pending legislation we bring to the floor, that we will include a vote on reauthorizing the land and water conservation fund. our country is so beautiful, and this money was specially designated for this purpose. and we should stop diverting it and we should continue to use it for this very purpose so that everyone can enjoy the great outdoors and the beauty of the united states of america. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. i would like to -- mr. daines: i want to thank senator ayotte for the great comments and talk about your heritage as well that has been passed on to new hampshire. if i can think about that, in

this picture, that is not a selfy that was taken with a selfie stick. my son took that picture. these are lands that i hiked when i was a boy when my parents introduced me to the wilderness areas. that heritage is so important about who we are as americans and protecting our clean water and our clean air. and i know our state's governors don't want this program to lapse either. in fact, in a letter sent yesterday from the national governors association, they stated that a lapse in authorization would create uncertainties for our states. we can still do the right thing. we can still reauthorize this important program. there is appropriations bill that was passed that gave us level funding at the same level we had from last year at $306 million. it's short of where i'd like to have it. i know senator ayotte would like

to see it funded but at least we held our funding consistent. we were out last year. but the energy committee through the energy modernization act had the reauthorization provisions in it. that would reauthorize the program so we could tie it to that aappropriates bill and have $365 million fund for fiscal year 2016. there's a lot of options on the table to get this done. we can still do the right thing. we need to double down our efforts and reauthorize this most important program. i'm a proud cosponsor of multiple pieces of legislation to make lwcf permanent and continue to fight to reauthorize this program. in fact, i'm the only republican member on the senate energy and resources committee to cosponsor senate bill 338. that's senator burr's legislation, that will secure a permanent solution for lwcf. because permanent reauthorization to lwcf is also included in the senate energy policy modernization act when it's talked about.

it passed the committee on a large bipartisan vote. in the coming days i think the momentum behind reauthorization is only going to grow stronger. we have evidence of that here today as i'm joined by 00 number of my -- by a number of my colleagues who support lwcf. we're going to continue to fight for the permanent reauthorization of lwcf. it is a tool to ensure that mandelmontanans and americans ce access to their public lands. it is vital that we permanently reauthorize the land and water conservation fund and not allow reauthorization to lapse. we need to get this reauthorization passed and on the president's desk. i see that another supporter of lwcf, the senator tennessee, senator lamar alexander, has joined us today for this colloquy. and i'm glad to have you here,

senator, and look forward to your comments about lwcf. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i salute senator daines. since his arrival in the senate, he has been a great fighter for the great american outdoors. anhe and i were talking not long ago about his next hunting trip. the one thing that unites us on botsides of the aisle and in america is this country's heritage. epengland has its history and we have the great american outdoors. one of the best ideas that we have had in the united states government to support, protect, conserve the great american outdoors for the benefit of all americans is the land and water conservation fund. it was first proposed in the 1960's by the commission headed

by lawrence rockefeller, and it was a part of a commission that recommended a number of conservation issues. but the idea was very simple. it was to say, when we have an environmental burden, we should have an environmental benefit. if we're going to drill for oil offshore, for example, that's an environmental burden. let's take some of those revenues and use it for an environmental benefit of the and so we've had all since that time, since the 1960's, money for the federal government and for state and local governments to conserve important parts of america. i know that in our state of tennessee, we celebrated just in the last few weeks the acquisition of the rocky ford track, about 10,000 acres in two counties, the number-one priority of the forest service,

great opportunities for tennesseansing tfor -- fortenned hunting. we don't have a lot of federally protected land, like many of the western states. this is something that the fund helped us do. president reagan asked me to chair the president's commission on americans outdoors. i worked with gill grove groven. our recommendation included full funding of the lwcf. continue to tie it to some of the proceeds from offshore oil drilling. in the energy bill seven or eight years ago when senator domenici was chairman of the energy committee, we actually made mandatory a little bit of funding from offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico into the state side of the land and water

conservation fund. what we need do, mr. president, is to recognize the broad support for the land and water conservation fund, pass senator burr's bill, the senator from north carolina who has fought tirelessly to permanently reauthorize the fund, and then we need to take the appropriate amount of our money -- i think it's about $800 million -- for the land and water conservation fund and gradually set aside those special areas of our country that deserve to be protected. so i'm here today to say that even though it expires today, i'm very hopeful that we can take some action very quickly to extend it at least temporarily and that soon we will have a chance to do what senator burr has proposed, senator daines has proposed, something i propose and have during my entire adult life, and i see the senator from

maine, and i know her interest in conservation and the outdoors. we need to get this done, and the american people expect us to do it. and i fully support it. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mr. daines: i want to thank the senator from tennessee for his leadership and unwavering commitment through many, many years to lwcf and we also now are joined by the senator from maine, susan collins. senator collins comes from a beautiful state of maine, and i know she shares a passion for the outdoors and i'm grateful to have her with us today to talk about lwcf. senator collins. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. it's such a pleasure to joining my colleagues in supporting legislation that would provide a short-term extension for the land and water conservation fund, and i think you can see by

the breadth of the number of senators on the floor on the republican side of the aisle supporting this extension that this program has widespread support from montana to north carolina to tennessee to new hampshire to the great state of maine. all of us have come together to urge the senate not to allow this important conservation and recreational program to expire. mr. president, it was 50 years ago that the land and water conservation fund act established america's most successful conservation and recreation program. the fund was designed to assure that outdoor recreation lands would be secured on a pay-as-you-go basis for future generations.

as we mark this anniversary, it is inconceivable to me that we would allow this successful and valuable program to expire. the land and water conservation fund is arguably our most important and successful program of this type. there is nothing else like it, and it has widespread bipartisan support. while the funding for this program could continue to be appropriated beyond the september 30 expiration date, beyond date, the authority to collect -- beyond today, the authority to collect new revenue into the fund would expire. so we must act quickly today to reauthorize the lwcf so that we do not lose the important connection between the funding source for this conservation

program and the program itself. investments in this landmark conservation program ex-spanned access to the outdoors to all americans. we're living in a time where so many children, so many teenagers are spending you wil all of thee inside before computer screens and tablets and iphones. this is a program that helps ensure that they have access to recreational activities outside in the great american outdoors the land and water conservation fund has created numerous outdoor recreational opportunities in every single state in the nation, and 98% of the counties across our great country. it's funding has been used to open up key areas for hunting, fishing, and other recreational

access, to support our working forests and ranches, to acquire inholdings and protect critical lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, civil war battlefields, and other federal areas that are so special to our heritage, and to support state and local projects from ballparks to recreational trails. mr. president, if you have a bike trail, a ballpark, or a hiking path in your community, it may well have been constructed with funds from the land and water conservation program. i support the permanent reauthorization of the program that has been introduced by senator burr and believe that congress has an obligation to make good on the promise that was made to the american people

back in 1964 to take the proceeds from natural resource development and u invest a portn in conservation and outdoor recreation. the senate energy and natural resources committee has favorably reported a bipartisan bill that would permanently extend the program. a short-term extension is needed now to provide the time over the next few weeks for us to work together to achieve that permanent authorization and consistent funding for this program and to help ensure that the fund plays the strongest possible role in helping to re-vitalize local communities for another 50 years. i remain committed to working with senator daines and senator burr and the other leaders in this area, along with a

bipartisan coalition that truly spans the country to support creating a more stable long-term plan for the lwcf that allows land-owner states, local communities and conservation partners to plan for the future recreational and conservation opportunities for our country. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this 60-day extension. thank you, mr. president, and again i thank the senator from montana for organizing this colloquy and the senator from north carolina for his leadership in this area. thank you, mr. president. mr. daines: i want to thank the senator from maine for those great remarks and the importance of getting our young people outside, outdoors. in fact, as this picture was taken about five weeks ago, and my son took it with his smartphone. the good news? the smartphone wasn't working

because it's so far away from any cell phone towers. but the camera did work. he was able to take that picture. but it's so important we get out and pass this on to the next generation, to get our children out on our public lands and lwcf plays such an important role in providing that access for generations to come. so we've heard from senator ayotte, senator alexander from tennessee, senator collins from maine. i spoke from montana. you can see the geographic diversity across our entire country, the support for this program. but it's only fitting that the senator from north carolina is here now, senator burr. he has been the leader in permanent reauthorization for lwcf. that's why both senator collins and myself are proud sponsors of senate bill 338, which would permanently reauthorize lwcf. and i want to thank senator burr for his leadership and what he is doing here to remove this uncertainty we have today on

lwcf and get it prm permanently reauthorized. thank you for coming down today to speak. mr. burr: senator daines, thank you. let me say it was my intention today to come and ask unanimous consent for the senate to consider immediately a 60-day extension of the land and water conservation fund in its current configuration. i won't be doing that. i think we're making progress towards unanimous consent in the united states senate, which is the best way to get things done. so i will refrain from asking for that u.c. at this time. you know, mr. president, if we don't act now, this program, which has been successful for over 50 years, will expire today. tonight at midnight. this program has delivered on its promise to conserve anden a-

and enhance our natural landscape. lwcf was set up for three reasons. the one, to protect areas within our national parks and national forests. existing boundaries -- let me emphasize that. the existing boundaries. there's some that claim that the land and water conservation fund is only to create new national parks. or to expand our current national parks. no, in many cases we got end parcels that have been owned by individuals that we've waited for the generational change, for the opportunity to complete that footprint of an historic treasure. land and water conservation fund is that seed money to go in and match it with private dollars to get that end parcel and to buy it from a generation that also believes it should be protected. two, it provides burst o providr

military battlefields and parks. i might also add, military bases. fort bragg -- i called the pentagon of the army in fayett fayetteville, north chemical. actually received conservation awards for the last several years for how they treated the buffer zone around active military bases. everybody's in conservation to some degree. it also was designed to provide matching grants to states and local governments, working forests, state and local parks as well as recreation projects. what senator collins talked about, a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the capitol said we don't want to reauthorize this because it doesn't do anything. this ought to all go state and local. boy, i don't know how to do it any fairer than to let those that are really involved in conservation every day decides where the most valuable leverage

of those dollars can go. and you notice, mr. president, i'm tongue twisted because we always have a tendency here to say federal dollars. these aren't federal dollars. these are dollars that were designed as royalties off of the expiration of the outer continental shelf, should come to about $900 million a year but land and water conservation fund when they go through this procedure in washington with seems to only get between $3 hundred and $4 hundred million a year. orn a continual basis they have been cheated from what the american people said we want you to have this. imagine what they could have done if they had the money, but that gets thrown into the general fund and dissipates. some have said you don't need to reauthorize this today. there's $20 billion in the land and water conservation fund. no, i hate to tell you, america. it's sort of like social security. we used that money for something else. there's an i.o.u. in there but

it's been designated for generally funding reason. so it is important that we not decouple the funding mechanism, which is the royalty from the authorized program. now, some have said this is a land grab. let me suggest to my colleagues, this is a land solution. this is actually one of the federal government programs that i can honestly say works. the lwcf supported 41,000 projects across the country in its life. in my state alone, land and water conservation fund has protected over 900 sites from the great dismal swamp national wildlife refuge to mount mitchell state park, the blue of ridge parkway. in north carolina outdoor recreation contributes $7 --

contributes billions of dollars. this is not just about conservation. it is about the economy. it's hard for me to say to somebody from the west that the most visited national park in america is the great smokies, tennessee and north carolina where most americans would think it's out where you are. the most traveled national treasure, the blue ridge parkway is the entry point from north carolina to virginia. more americans travel that road than any road in our federal park system. now, let me just suggest that senator daines is not the only one that has pictures. this is from the pisga national forest, where we have many spectacular sites. but without the lwcf, we wouldn't have protected this

piece. an unbelievable environmental forest. this is catawba, acquired in 2010 through lwcf money. it made this fall open to the public. so for my detractors that say lwcf shuts it down and becomes part of the federal government and nobody can use it, no, lwcf's mission is to open up treasures like this for the use of the american people. and in the case that we put it to states, hopefully states can convert that to access to hunters and for recreational use. the last one -- i don't think senator daines has one that looks like this -- chimney rock. how do you not protect something like this? chimney rock is in north

carolina. the site is a good example of a project that will be suspended if lwcf is not renewed. it's probably one of north carolina's most loved monuments, but expansion of the site will halt eventually if lwcf does not receive the support. you see, the land and water conservation fund is dollar for dollar the most effective government program that's ever existed. it's hard for me to believe with as much support on both sides of the aisle as this fund has that it would be so difficult to get a unanimous consent request. but i am committed to work with my colleagues who still have reservations for some reasons to try to work through nose reservations and -- work through those reservations and shorten our differences with our brethren on the house side that might not see this in the same

light as i do. but i think when most americans see a picture like this, they see something to save, something to protect, something that is enjoyed not by federal bureaucrats. by the average folks who travel there over the blue ridge parkway and end up at the chimney rock, who go on the blue ridge parkway and end up at the great smokies. they weren't acquired because of the land and water conservation fund but they're protected in many ways because of the land and water conservation fund. so i urge my colleagues, let us have a unanimous consent request. let us pass this and send it to the house, and let us at some point in the not too distant future talk about a permanent, permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. this should not be an exercise that we have every predetermined number of years. it should last as long as the

revenue source, which is our ability to explore our natural resources, and those natural resources fund the preservation of these historic and significant landmarks of america. i thank the senator for his time, and i yield back the balance. mr. daines: i want to thank the senator from north carolina, senator burr, and thank you for your leadership in lwcf. senator burr has been truly out in front working first as the temporary reauthorization as a bridge until we get to permanent reauthorization. i appreciate his comments too. this is not about a land grab. this is a land solution. senator burr said it allows us in many cases to provide access to public thrandz that we currently don't have access to because it might be landlocked through private holdings. so thank you, senator burr. and in conclusion, i'm hopeful the momentum that we're seeing

here in the united states senate will lead the house to prioritize lwcf reauthorization in the near future. it is vital that we permanently reauthorize the land and water conservation fund and do not allow authorization to lapse. we have less than 11 hours and this program will lapse. we need to get reauthorization passed to get on the president's desk and get this signed. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. the american people have gotten used to hearing bad news about their health care ever since the democrats passed obamacare. it seems like each and every day there is another headline about another way that the health care law is hurting people. last wednesday there was a remarkable amount of bad news in just one day. this is "the wall street journal," wednesday, september 23. headline: health insurers defend

their deals. you flip the page over, the bottom half of that page. cost of a family health plan tops $17,000 with a chart of rising costs. the annual cost of an employer continues to go up. one day, one page. the top article is about a wave of insurance companies mergers which we have been seeing recently. the president said that his health care law would actually increase competition among insurance companies. but just like a lot of the other predictions that president obama made, this one has not come true. back in june the insurance company aetna announced plans to buy humana. then the company anthem decided to buy signa. if these mergers are approved it means the five largest insurance companies in the united states would be down to three. the president said there would be more competition.

americans are about to have much less competition. and it's not only because of the giant insurance company mergers. obamacare also set up health co-ops in 24 states. these co-ops were supposed to add competition to help keep prices down. taxpayers put up almost $2.5 billion to help these companies get started. over the past few months, what's happened? these co-ops have been dropping like flies. just the other day regulators in new york shut down the largest obamacare co-op in the country. why? because it's lost so much money. 215,000 new yorkers are now having fewer options for where they can go to buy washington-mandated insurance. this is the fourth co-op to fail in the past few months. another one failed right before it even enrolled a single person. think of that. government loan, set up a co-op,

don't enroll anyone and close shop. there's only one co-op in the original 24 that is actually making any money so it can stay in business. the american people know that they're not getting the increased competition that the president has promised. they also know they are aren't getting the lower prices that the president has promised. another article came out last wednesday to talk about how much more americans are paying for their health care. this was a september 23 "new york times," the headline "health insurance deductibles rising faster than wages. health insurance deductibles rising faster than wages. here it is. unaffordable care. this is from 2010 top 2015. wages up 10%, premiums up 24%, deductibles up 67%.

the article describes a recent study by the kaiser family foundation. according to kaiser, health insurance premiums for a single person have gone up more than twice as fast as people's earnings since obamacare became law. we're talking about all the people that get their health insurance through work, which is about 150 million americans. this isn't just a small group of people. all the people that get their insurance through work. deductibles have gone up almost seven times as much as earnings. it is an enormous hit to the finances of american families. the article talked about how these high deductibles are hurting a woman named beth landry. she is 52, she's a teacher. the article says about two years ago beth saw the deductible on her family's plan increase to $3,300 a year. she's a teacher. she's 52. $3,300 a year deductible under obama's health care law.

a couple of years ago is when a lot of these obamacare mandates were really starting to bite. the woman survived a brain tumor ten years ago, so sheer she is, she has insurance. she is had a brain tumor ten years ago, successfully treated but she is putting off having the m.r.i. that's been recommended by her doctor. she says, "my doctor is mad at me because i haven't had the m.r.i. they want to see if there is any recurrence of the tumor." she said she and her husband need to save mon to pay for the test, the $3,300 deductible. she has health insurance under obamacare and she can no longer afford to get care. coverage without care. the president continues to ignore this fact about his unaffordable health care law. can't afford to get care, not under obamacare. president obama promised that people would save $2500 per family per year under the health

care law. but average premiums are up nearly $4,000 since the law passed. does the president really believe it's aaffordable? the new study by kaiser only looked at insurance people get through their jobs. they didn't look at the deductibles people are getting when they buy their health insurance through the obamacare exchanges. president obama said that these plans would be cheaper than a cell phone bill. that's what he said, cheaper than a cell phone. easier to use than amazon for shopping on the web and cheaper than a cell phone. let's look at an article in "the new york times." not how it worked out for rebecca bullard. rebecca is 27 and purchased her plan through her state exchange for $129 a month. to get that plan, she had to accept a deductible of $6,000. but she has obamacare. oh yeah, the president can say i did her a favor. $6,000 deductible.

the article says that when she worried that she had a cracked rib and she chose -- you know how she chose to take care of it? she chose to ask friends on social media about what to do rather than go to a doctor because of the obamacare it was actually not worth very much to her. that's how concerned she was about paying the out-of-pocket costs that obamacare brought her. she says, "now i don't even want to go to a doctor." is that what the president promised the american people? deductibles so high that people don't even want to go to their doctor? people may have coverage but they cannot afford care. it is unaffordable under the president's plan and mandates. people are paying more and they're getting less. so it's not surprising that this administration is starting to worry. they have to figure out how to convince people that it's worth signing up for this outrageously

expensive obamacare insurance that's what the "wall street journal" said in another article on september 23. there's a picture of the head of the -- or the secretary of health and human services, sylvia burwell, there's a picture of her right here. it says, "insuring more people seen as tough." "insuring more people seen as tough." according to the article, the secretary of health and human services says that this open enrollment is going to be tougher than last year. we know it's going to be tough for families that are getting hit with higher premiums and other costs. now, the obama administration isn't worried about these people. what the obama administration is now worried about is going to be how tough it's going to be to sign up enough customers for this awful law. and, you know, by now, they were supposed to have actually 21 million people signed up for obamacare by next year. supposed to of 21 million people signed up by next year. right now they have less than

10 million. they're not even halfway to where they need to be and where they said they would be. well, what this means is if they don't get more young, healthy customers to sign up, this whole system is likely to collapse. that's why the obama administration is worried. they're worried about the impacts of their ability to sustain this law. and there's a reason that people haven't signed up. the people who haven't signed up yet they know this insurance is not a good deal for them. it's not good for them personally. it's not worth it. about half of the people who still don't have insurance have less than a hundred dollars in savings. how is someone with less than a hundred dollars in savings supposed to pay a $6,000 deductible? why won't the president answer these questions? why won't the democrats come to this floor and answer these questions? i haven't seen a democrat come to address these issues or any of these headlines. look, president obama promised

the american people that his health care law would produce lower costs, produce more choice instead, he's given people fewer choices, more powerful insurance companies, higher deductibles and higher premiums. we've had too many of these alarming headlines and that is in just one day alone. too much bad news about obamacare. the american people get it. it's a bad deal for them personally. president obama is a lame duck. he's forced through congress a terrible program. it's time for democrats in congress to sit down with republicans and start talking about the kind of health care reforms that the american people need, the american people want and that the american people deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you.

thank you, mr. president. i was watching a few minutes ago when several senators came down to talk about the land and water conservation fund. and i know senator burr was hear and senator daines and i think there were several others that spoke about this very, very worthwhile program that's been on the books a very long time. and i wanted to come down and say i support their effort, i support the idea that we should be able to get a unanimous consent request so that we can extend the land and water conservation fund. i thought i would talk, first of all, just a little bit about the history because my father was one of the people that actually worked with the congress to create the land and water conservation fund. stewart udall back there in the 1960's worked with wilbur mills

in the house of representatives and a number of other members of congress. and the idea at the time was here we had these resources, offshore oil where we were taking a resource that was irreplaceable. the idea once you use it, it's gone. and we're saying, why don't we dedicate that, some of those resources, to permanent protection, permanent protection of land, of parks for the american people? and so that was the idea behind it and it was -- it was endorsed by a commission, a nationwide commission of very distinguished americans who said, we aren't keeping up with the amount of parks and other public lands that are growing population needs. and we all know at -- at the tie we knew this, the american people love their parks. the same is true today. and so this outdoor commission

recommended something along this line of how do you -- how do you make sure that we are able to create these great national parks and create parks at the state and the city level. and so the fund was designed in a way so that there was a state fund side of the program. and in the stateside fund of the program, you could take dollars that were dedicated to the -- to the state programs -- these would be federal dollars -- and match them at the state and local level and create a park. and so if you go today in most of your communities and drive around and you see a beautiful park, you go and look at the plaque and most of the time that plaque will say, done in cooperation with the land and water conservation fund. and what local people have told me many times over and over again in their planning that

they do to try and create a new park. they have an area that's growing. they have a housing development that's gone in. and they say, how do we get the money? well, if they know that there's going to be a federal match and they're able to get some federal money, they can do the planning, they can go to their local taxpayers, raise some funds and then pool the money together and get a city park or a state park, that kind of thing. we also, as everybody knows well, the land and water conservation fund has funded federal purchases of land, from our national parks to national wildlife refuges to many other public lands. and, for example, in my home state of new mexico, we have 14 national parks. we have a brand-new national park just put into place within the last year called the vias caldera national preserve, which

is one of the newest parks in the country. and here you have about 89,000 acres which is a collapsed volcano that has been used in many different ways in the past but now is available for hunting, fishing, camping and all sorts of outdoor recreation. so this is -- this is something that the people of new mexico know. and i think that the crucial point to make here is the economic one. we don't have any doubt -- we don't have fully doubt -- we don't have any doubt that investments in parks and wildlife refuges and other federal lands create many jobs outside those parks. they create jobs in the gateway communities but they create jobs in the outdoor industry. and we've seen with two national monuments that were just created in new mexico big economic growth six months and a year after the creation of those

monuments. and so this is something about the economic integrity of our communities. and so we have this in 11 hours -- less than 11 hours right now on the clock, the land and water conservation fund could expire. it's been in place for decades and we could let it expire because of the gridlock back here. well, we're not going to do that. and why aren't we going to do that? because we have members on both sides of the aisle that care about this. and i just want to say a word about senator burr. i mean, i -- i have worked with him very well. he's a member of the international conservation caucus here in the senate. he's taken a real interest in conservation around the world, has been a real leader there. senator burr has been outfront on this land and water conservation issue. he's wrote a letter to various officials that 53 senators signed to say we want the land

and water conservation fund reauthorized before it expires. and he's shown real leadership to make sure that as we approach this deadline, that this doesn't happen. and so i just -- i just -- senator burr was here a few minutes ago. i just want to say to him and the other senators that worked with him on this that i think it's very important that we continue to work in these last 11 hours to make sure that the land and water conservation fund is continued. obviously what we're trying to do right now is the a 60-day period. but as senator burr mentioned, the important thing is, is permanent, permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. and then the big task we need to get these presidential candidates to face is we've got to have the funding for it. it always had a funding level that was reasonable and rational

and supported, and unfortunately we don't ever meet the funding level. and the money's there. the money's in the fund. it comes out every year from the offshore oil resources into the fund. it's just taken for other purposes. and so we have to make sure that we get to permanent land and water conservation fund reauthorization and the funds in that are really going to make a difference. and i see my -- my good friend, senator casey, here from pennsylvania and i know he's waiting in line. i'm sure you're going to hear some wise words from him. and so at this point, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about the perkins loan program which we spent some time on yesterday and

over the last couple of weeks, and yesterday on the floor, senator baldwin from wisconsin was with us. she has worked so hard on this, as have many others. we have more than a quarter of the senate working together to try to get an extension of the perkins loan program. many americans are familiar with it. it's one of the best ways to guarantee access to higher education for young people across the country. we've always said and i've always said and we will say it again that if young people can learn more now, they'll earn more later. it's not just a rhyme. there is a direct connection between learning and earning, both in the context of early education as well as higher education. we need to make sure that all students, regardless of their income or the circumstances of their birth, have a fair shot to go to college and to have the opportunity to reach their full

potential. perkins allows those students to do just that. these are fixed rate, low interest loans meant for students with exceptional financial needs, and because these loans are part of a revolving fund, one student -- as one student pays them off, another student can use the dollars to receive a loan. just by way of example in one state, in pennsylvania in the academic year 2013-2014, some 40,000 students at some 100 colleges and universities were able to go to school because of these loans. nationwide, the 40,000 student number in pennsylvania is a much bigger number, of course, almost 500 -- almost 540,000. 539,000 students. so for many students, this is

the choice between going to college and not going at all. it's that stark. for example, the coalition of higher education assistance organizations tells us that one quarter of all loan recipients are from families with incomes less than just $30,000 a year. unfortunately, because of inaction here in the congress, these students would be left high and dry if we don't take action. i shared a story yesterday, nicki izolo who was going to school, a recent graduate at edinboro university in northwestern pennsylvania. i mentioned yesterday a kayla mcbride. she is from temple. i will refer back to her story in a moment. but when we -- when we consider nicki's story or kayla or so

many young people across pennsylvania and across the country, we have to focus on what our priorities are here in the united states senate. we do have a bipartisan opportunity here, democrats and republicans coming together to extend the perkins loan program. just by way of example, when you consider those students in pennsylvania, here's what it breaks down to when you go institution by institution. this will not be a full recitation of all the institutions in pennsylvania but just here's a few. in pennsylvania, here's what this could mean for individual students and schools. at temple university, 6,200-some students. at penn state, 3,100. at the university of pittsburgh, 2,800. westchester university, a thousand. so they're the kind of numbers, just to give you a few examples, of the impact. we know that perkins has been

part of our law and part of the life of our colleges and universities for decades. some 30 million americans have benefited. so we have to -- we have to consider what this means for those students, what this means for our states and of course what it means for the rest of -- the rest of the country. i know we're going to be having more of a discussion here and offering a consent request, so maybe at this time i'll yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: while it appears that we will avert a government shutdown, another serious deadline with serious consequences looms over this body. tonight, unless the senate acts by midnight, the federal perkins loan program will expire,

impacting the education of over half a million students across america. so i'm here now to call on all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the extension of this critical investment in our nation's students, and i'm not alone in my desire to see us take action instead of creating what i would consider another manufactured crisis, a crisis of our own making. in fact, we have already seen strong bipartisan support for this investment in our future. senators portman, collins, kirk, ayotte and thune have joined with more than 20 senate democrats on a resolution urging the continuation of the federal perkins loan program, supporting low-income students in their pursuit of a higher education. and yesterday, senators collins,

portman and ayotte joined me and senator casey and senator murray here on the senate floor in support of saving this program, and i am pleased that the junior senator from new hampshire and senator casey are here with me now once again calling to protect this incredibly important investment. mr. president, on monday, on monday, our colleagues in the house of representatives unanimously passed a measure that would extend this student loan program for one year, and i'm here to call on my colleagues in the united states senate to do the same. and while i look forward to a much broader conversation about improving federal support for students as we look to reauthorize the higher education

act, we can't sit idly by and watch it expire as america's students are left with such uncertainty. and so therefore, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3594, which is at the desk, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: reserving the right to object, and rather than making a statement, i hope it will be suitable to the senator from wisconsin for me to make my explanation of why i am objecting after i object. i will object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. alexander: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: the goal here is to help students. the goal here is to find ways to help college students find easier ways to apply to go to college, to avoid overborrowing. the goal would be to give them a year-round pell grant. the goal would be to simplify the application form that they have. the goal would be to keep the interest rates as low as we can. the goal would be to make it easier to repay the student loans. that is our goal. our education committee upon which the senator from wisconsin and the senator from pennsylvania are very valuable members, is completing work on the reauthorization of a higher education act with just those -- with just those goals. we've had eight hearings. we're considering a number of bipartisan proposals to, as i said, simplify the grants and loans for college, to provide for year-round pell to make it easier to repay student loans and to discourage overborrowing which is weighing down many

students. one of the most important of those proposals which is recommended to us by witnesses is that we should simplify the process so that there is one grant and one loan. that would be a pell grant and a loan. in the last authorization of the higher education act in 2008, congress agreed to sunset the perkins loan program, and that's what's happening now. i support sunsetting that, although it would allow students who are currently receiving perkins loans to continue to do that, and as i said our committee is hopefully finishing by the end of the year our work on -- on reviewing our student loan program, including perkins loans. the perkins loan has a higher interest rate than other undergraduate loans. it does not give students the advantage of participating in income-based repayment programs which allows -- this is -- this is the law for all the student loans which are still available,

not affected by this discussion -- which allow students to pay their student loans back at no more than 10% to 15% of their disposable income every year, and if after 20 years it's not repaid, it is forgiven. you can't get that with a perkins loan. according to the congressional budget office, reauthorizing the perkins loan will cost $5 billion over ten years. many witnesses before our committee have said that $5 billion would be better spent paying for more pell grants, which are going to result from our simplified student aid application, from our authorizing of a year-round pell grant and from simplifying the repayment process. so the question is do you spend the $5 billion for that or do you spend it for a program with a higher interest rate and a no-good income repayment program which many of our wits said it's time to expire. i'm one of a bipartisan group of senators who propose we replace the perkins program with

students' -- student loans that are simpler, with a lower interest rate and with more generous repayment opportunities. we'll finish our review of higher education by the end of the year, it will be ready for the full senate. we can look at the various loan programs, more than $1 billion a year. this is a very small part of that. all of those other loan programs are still available at a lower rate with a better income repayment program. in the meantime, as i said, students who currently have perkins loans will continue to have them while we continue the review. so our goal is to simplify the system, make it easier for students to apply for grants and loans, allow them to have year-round pell grants, allow them to not overborrow so much and to allow them to repay back their loans better, and the perkins loan is not as effective a loan in meeting those goals as the other loans that we have. so i object, at least until we have a chance to further continue our review in the senate education committee.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. baldwin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i am very disappointed that my effort to extend the federal perkins loan program was just blocked by my republican colleague from tennessee. and while i understand and frankly i share his desire to have a broader conversation about federal student aid as part of the higher education act reauthorization effort, i just do not think it is right or fair to end this program today with nothing to replace it, to the detriment of, frankly, thousands of students in need. i want to just mention briefly the issue of cost of its reauthorization because when the decision was made to sunset the

program, a clawback provision was included that basically collects the loan funds back from the institutions that loan it out, but it is actually a revolving fund which i will return to later that makes it such, i think, a fiscally responsible loan program. when i travel around my home state of wisconsin, one of the things i hear the most about these days from my constituents is the frustration that congress isn't doing enough to make higher education more affordable and more accessible. and yet today the fact that we just saw a single senator stand up and reject a bipartisan and commonsense measure to do just