crystal clear clarity. the president has met his constitutional responsibility. the senate republican leaders for the first time in the history of the united states of america are denying a supreme court nominee a hearing and a vote. that is fundamentally wrong under the constitution and fundamentally unfair to merrick garland. merrick garland was born in illinois, so maybe i'm partial to him a little bit, but he has quite a record. he has been touted as one of the best nominees in terms of qualifications. he is now the chief justice of the u.s. district court, right below the supreme court. that's a big job. he's the man for it. according to people from both political parties. the solicitors general of the united states of america just sent a letter to the congress, to the senate. nine of them signed, democrats and republican. men who have argued before the supreme court representing the united states of america. attorneys who were familiar with

that court, the gravity of the decisions that they face, the requirements to serve on the court. unanimously democrats and republicans said to the senate merrick garland is the right man to serve on the supreme court. we come today with sadness and even more with a sense of injustice that the republicans would allow this political gambit to continue. to think that they are waiting for president donald trump to fill this vacancy is almost impossible to say or to believe, but it is a fact. i will close by saying i have checked the constitution and i check it regularly. there has been no change in the provision that says in november of 2012 barack obama was re-elected president of the united states to serve for four years, four full years, and that would include this year. the republican argument that he's out of business now, we'll

wait for the next president defies the verdict of the american people in that election. by five million votes, they said barack obama, you are the president of the united states for four years, with the powers attendant to that office. the denial by republicans of that constitutional reality is a reflection of their opinions about a document which they have sworn individually to uphold and defend. mr. president, i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, two weeks ago, we received a initial report on economic growth in the first quarter of 2016. the news was not good. as my colleague, the senator from alaska, senator sullivan, has pointed out many times here on the floor and in other

forums, our economy grew at a dismal rate of .5% during the first three months of 2016. .5% economic growth. in other words, mr. president, the economy barely grew at all. while this report was particularly terrible, the truth is weak economic growth has become the norm under the obama administration. since the recession ended in june of 2009, the economy has grown at an average rate of just 2.1%. in the typical post-1960 recovery by contrast, economic growth averaged 3.7%. that's a huge difference, mr. president. it's the difference between a stagnant economy and a flourishing economy, and for millions of american families, it's the difference between surviving and thriving. middle-class families today are making 6.5% less than they were making in 2007 before the start

of the great recession. and a large part of the reason for that is the sluggish economic growth that we have experienced in the obama recovery. for too many families, this slow recovery has meant the end of cherished dreams. the dream of owning their own home, the dream of sending their kids to college, the dream of a secure retirement. and the kind of growth that we need to escape from these economic doldrums is nowhere in sight. in fact, the obama economy has led some economists to wonder if 2% growth is the new normal. right now the federal reserve is projecting that the economy will grow at a median rate of just 2.2% in 2016 and 2.1% in 2017, and i would argue, mr. president, based upon the .5% economic growth in the first quarter of this year, that they may be dramatically overshooting the rate of economic growth if

the current trend continues. and the st. louis fed expects that weak growth to continue for the next decade. that's very bad news for the american families who are facing a less prosperous future with less economic opportunity and mobility. during the entire postwar period from 1947-2013, our nation averaged 3.3% economic growth. at that pace, americans' standard of living almost doubles every 30 years. incomes rise, financial security increases and more people are able to afford homes, take vacancies and save for higher education. at the pace of growth that we have seen since 2007, on the other hand, it will take far longer for the standard of living to double. now, mr. president, fortunately we are not condemned to weak economic growth. if you look at the president's record, it's easy to see why our economy is still sputtering

along. we had a failed trillion-dollar stimulus program. $1.7 trillion in new taxes. the president's health care law which raised premiums for families and increased costs for small businesses. more than 2,700 new federal regulations, and that's counting. we're not done yet. it gets added to by the day. a federal debt that has nearly doubled on the president's watch. and more. but the president's policies don't have to be permanent. we can repeal obamacare and the incredible burdens it's placing on so many families and small businesses and replace it with something that makes more sense, that creates competition, gives consumers more choices and drives prices down. we can replace the president's tax hikes with comprehensive tax reform that focuses on lowering taxes for families and making america the best place in the world to do business.

we can take serious action to address the spending that's fueling our national debt. and we can repeal some of the thousands of burdensome regulations the president has imposed during his tenure. it's easy to forget that every regulation the government imposes, no matter how small, has a cost, and those costs are paid by american families and american businesses. take the national energy tax that the president imposed on coal-fired power plants. this rule will drive up electricity bills for families potentially by hundreds of dollars each year and it will be especially harmful to low-income families and seniors who are living on fixed incomes. or take the president's decision to allow the e.p.a. to regulate ponds and ditches on private land. this regulation will have significant economic impacts for farmers and property owners who will likely be hit with new federal permits, compliance costs and the threat of

significant fines. over the past seven-plus years, the obama administration has imposed more than 2,700 regulations, including hundreds of major regulations. when i say major, those are regulations that cost american families and businesses more than $100 million each year. out-of-touch washington bureaucrats reaching into our states and imposing regulatory burdens from afar has become all too common in the obama administration. repealing some of the worst of these regulations would drastically reduce the burdens facing american families and businesses, and that would put, mr. president, more money in american families' pockets and free up american businesses to do what they do best, and that is to innovate and create new good-paying jobs. mr. president, if we continue on the path that we're on right now, we might be the first generation of americans to leave

the next generation of americans worse off, but we don't have to be. we can reverse the course that the president has set during his administration and put in place the kind of policies that will create conditions that are favorable to economic growth, to grow our economy and to lift the burdens on american families. republicans in the senate have already been working to undo the worst policies of the obama administration. we are going to continue to fight until our nation's economy is thriving and all families have the opportunity to achieve the american dream. mr. president, if we can just achieve one percentage point additional growth in the economy each year, we're told by leading economists that that would add 1.3 million jobs to our economy, raise wages by $9,000 a year and generate an additional $300 billion of federal revenue that would make our fiscal picture look a lot smaller by

comparison. mr. president, we've got to get spending under control. we've got to reform entitlement programs that are unsustainable, that are going to bankrupt future generations of americans to get our fiscal house in order, but we also have got to grow the economy at a faster rate. .5% is not adequate nor is 1% nor is 2%. we need to get back to a normal growth period in our economy. as i said, since the end of world war ii, 3.3% has been the average. 3.7% has been the norm in a recovery coming out of a recession. if we get to that level of growth, we will see millions of new jobs in our economy. we will see american families getting their wages back to where they are growing with the economy, better-paying jobs for american workers and a fiscal picture that looks a lot more manageable than the one that we face today. economic growth is key to so

many things that affect americans' lives on a daily basis, and we here in the united states senate ought to be focused like a laser on what we can do to put the right policies in place that will encourage and promote economic growth rather than coming up with new ways to make it more difficult and more expensive in this economy to create jobs, and far too often, everything that happens in washington, d.c. today leads to more expensive, more mandates, more requirements, more regulations and higher taxes, making it more difficult for our economy to get to that faster growth that is so important if we're going to make americans' standard of living and quality of life better and hand off to the next generation a standard of living that they deserve and that will improve on the one that we enjoy today. mr. president, that's really what this is all about, and that's what we ought to be focused on. i'm pleased that the senator from alaska is here. i'm told that the senator from indiana will be joining him here in just a moment to discuss this

subject. the senator from alaska, senator sullivan, has been a great advocate of growth in our economy and has been down here on the floor talking about the implications of half a percent of growth and what that means, that if we don't change that trajectory and change it soon, we're going to continue down a path that makes it more and more difficult for american families to get ahead. that needs to change, faster growth, higher growth, the right kind of policies make that possible. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to compliment my good friend from south dakota, the chairman of the commerce committee, for coming down here and leading the discussion on a really important topic. but to be honest, we are not talking about nearly enough in the senate and certainly the obama administration is not talking about nearly enough, and that's the importance of our

economy. now, i was on the floor a couple of weeks ago and i made a prediction. i said that there is going to be big economic news coming out, and my prediction was that nobody in the administration was going to talk about it, and nobody of our friends in the media were going to talk about it. unfortunately, my prediction came true. the big news, as chairman thune said, is last quarter we grew at .5% g.d.p. growth. we essentially didn't grow, didn't grow. the great american economy, the thing that's made us great as a country for 200-plus years just stalled, and nobody talked about it. the obama administration didn't talk about it. the media didn't talk about it. so when we talk about gross domestic product, mr. president, this is essentially the health of the economy, right? it's the measure of opportunity

in america. and unfortunately what we saw last quarter was additional proof that the obama administration's -- obama administration, on this critical issue, economic growth for our citizens, is one of the worst in u.s. history. and it's not just me saying that, mr. president. people should take a look at these numbers. these are numbers actually from the administration, other administrations. this just looks at recent economic growth, the last 50 years, starting with president kennedy's administration, but as my colleague from south dakota said, you know, the average growth for the united states in our 200-plus-year history has been about 3.7% g.d.p. growth. so you look at this chart -- and this is very bipartisan, of course. almost 4% g.d.p. growth.

the average for the country is really what's made us great, strong. you look at this chart. it shows the ups and downs. this red line here is 3% g.d.p. growth, which is considered pretty good, not great, but pretty good. we certainly should be targeting that. look at the obama administration right here in the corner. it's never even hit 3% g.d.p. growth. not once. not even in one-quarter ever. what you're seeing right here in the almost ten years of president obama relative to any other administration, democrat or republican, johnson, nixon, even carter, reagan, clinton, real strong growth there, the obama administration has been clearly by any measure a lost decade of economic growth. a lost decade of economic

growth. and unfortunately, mr. president, you don't hear the administration talking about it at all. now, you can understand why. it's an abysmal record. but the truth of the matter is if you look back in history and we had.5g.d.p. growth, we weren't growing and that news came out, whether it was a democrat or a republican administration, almost every time something like that, the secretary of the treasury would have come out and said, don't worry, america, we know you're hurting. we have a plan. the secretary of commerce, we have ideas on growing the economy. we know that.5% g.d.p. growth, essentially flat growth, no growth, is not the historical tradition of america. cabinet members in any

administration historically, all of these would have come out and told us, we know it's a problem and here's how we're going to fix it. two weeks ago when this news came out, we heard nothing from this administration, nothing. now, when they do talk about the economy, it's typically three type of responses. one is my colleague from south dakota mentioned, there's this kind of talk in washington about the -- quote -- new normal. the new normal. in my view, one of the most dangerous phrase being bantered about in d.c. because the new normal says, hey, we know america has been growing at this robust rate, almost 4% g.d.p. growth for most of our history but there's new factors we should not expect that anymore. heck, we shouldn't even expect 3%, where the red line is. let's just dumb down our expectations. so they talk about the new normal. new normal should be about 1 and

a half, 2% g.d.p. growth maybe. and the people in washington are telling the rest of the country you guys should be satisfied with that. well, we shouldn't be. that's a surrender. that's a surrender of the american dream. so that's one response, the new normal. the other thing the president has done for a while but he can't do anymore, unfortunately, he's looked around the world and said, well, hey, at least we're growing better than europe or japan or brazil. really the only measure that actually matters, it's not another country. how do we stack up against america? but he doesn't want to talk about that. so he talks about europe. well, you can't talk about europe anymore because we're growing at.5% g.d.p. and europe grew, better than ours. certainly they have to get rid of that talking point. so the third thing they do is just actually come out and try to tell us, hey, you know what? you're actually doing better.

i know you're feeling horrible and your wages haven't gone up, but you are doing better. trust me. so the president recently in a "new york times" article said that he kind of lamented looking back that he didn't sell all the great stuff he was doing better on the economy, he didn't sell it better. i don't think he needs to sell t. most people feel it and it's not great. but he even said, we're absolutely better off today than seven years ago and those who say otherwise are not leveling with you, they're not telling you the truth. by almost every economic measure we are significantly better off. it's a quote. two weeks ago by the president. i think it's astounding that the president of the united states is saying that kind of stuff to the american people because it's simply not true. let me provide some facts, mr.

president, and the story to tell of a country that in almost every economic measure is actually worse off than we were when the obama administration started. so in the past eight years, the labor force participation rate has slid to its lowest measure since the mid1970's. that's essentially people who have quit looking for a job because they can't find one. the percentage of americans below the poverty line in the last eight years has grown according to most recent census data, it's up almost 4%. real median household incomes, what people are bringing home to their homes in the last eight years has declined from $54,900 to $53,600. food stamp participation since the president took office has actually soared, up by almost

40% and the percentage of americans who own homes, a marker of the promise of the american dream is down 5%. this is all in the eight years, seven and a half years of president obama. the late vice president hubert hum friday once said -- quote -- propaganda to be effective must be believed. to be believed it must be credible. to be credible, it must be true. mr. president, no matter how much this administration uses soaring speeches or articles from media sources that have been favorably disposed of them or clever tweets insisting that the economy is doing well, it simply is not. these are the facts. these are the facts.

and americans know it. americans know it. we are spending more on housing and food. wages are snag nant. -- stagnant. many as i mentioned have given up looking for good jobs. some are questioning the ability at all to put their kids through college. now what's interesting, mr. president, is washington, d.c. is doing fine. when you grow the government the way we have in the last eight years, this part of the country actually never had a recession. and it's not one of richest places in america, right here in washington, and that's why so many in the d.c. press corps weren't writing about this. the president says the economy is doing well so must be doing well. but i think the good news is, mr. president, that even now the media is starting to pick up on this. because the problem is so

pervasive and in this election season, this is what we're hearing americans talk about. here's a heading from a recent atlantic article. quote, "the lonely poverty of america's white working class." another from the same pub lition -- quote -- "the resurrection of america's slums." here's another one, "poverty in america: the deepening crisis." recently there have been numerous articles about how poverty leads to addiction and higher mortality rates. the new yorker had a recent piece entitled "life expectancy inequality grows in america." "the washington post" is now starting to do some stories, heartbreaking stories about poverty, death, and economic despair in our great country. and just today in the post, talking about the recent west virginia primary election, "the washington post" stated -- quote

-- "many poor, less educated americans who have been left behind in the 21st century, the ones who have seen their wages stagnate, their opportunities disappear and their life expectancies shorter are looking to disrupt the status quo that has not worked for them. " so, mr. president, what does all this mean? what does this mean for our great country, our citizens? one indication is that poll after poll, americans are telling us that they're running out of hope. 65% of americans now believe that the country is on the wrong track. that's not surprising. never hit 3% g.d.p. growth in the last decade that we had in these past ten years. the vast majority of americans don't believe that their kids

are going to be better off than they are. they are telling us that the quality that has made america great, the quality that is in the d.n.a. of the united states and that's progress is losing out to this idea of the new normal, a new normal where our children are not going to be better off than we are, where we can't grow the economy, but, mr. president, the american dream is all about progress. and we need to remember that. we can't settle for another lost decade of economic growth. we can't settle for stagnation. mr. president, a number of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, come down to the senate floor. i have a lot of respect for everybody in this great body. and they talk about the moral imperatives that they believe are important, moral imperative

on this topic, moral imperative on the other topic, but they rarely talk about the moral imperative of growth and opportunity. and to me that is the biggest moral imperative that we have with the exception of national defense in this body. it is a moral imperative to recognize that we have experienced a lost decade of growth. we have a moral imperative to talk about the pervasive pover poverty, what that does to our citizens, how it creates holes in the social fabric that hold us together, and how when our own citizens fall through those holes, a piece of all of us goes with them because although we are individuals, we are all americans together. we have a moral imperative to tell our fellow citizens that working together we don't have to accept this, the new normal. and we have the moral imperative

to lift up american workers with pollties that actually help them -- policies that actually help them. mr. president, i was shocked like most americans when presidential candidate hillary clinton said that under her administration she would put coal miners out of work. here's the quote. quote -- "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal businesses out of business." that is shocking. that is shocking. think about that. now, i come from a state where there's a lot of mining. these are great jobs. these are important jobs. these are important for the national economy of america. to have a candidate say that she intends to put coal miners out of work is part of the problem,

part of the problem. and as senator thune mentioned, the other part of the problem is that washington has -- it's no longer a partner and opportunity for coal miners, for workers, for growing the economy but it's become an obstacle. mr. president, we have to do a lot to get this economy moving. my colleague from south dakota just mentioned a number of ideas. we're going to be on the floor talking about a number of these ideas. the moral imperative to provide economic opportunity and hope for americans. one thing for certain that we have to do is get control of a federal government that wants to regulate every single aspect of our lives and economy. this is a chart that shows how federal rules from this town just go straight up. every year there's more. as a matter of fact, the obama administration is going to be the first in u.s. history to have proposed in a single year

80,000 pages of new federal regs, 80,000 pages. if you think that that is going to help the coal miners or other americans or working class families with hope and opportunity, that's not the right solution. what we need is less government, more economic freedom, and the truth about what's going on in this great economy of ours and our great country. and that's what we're going to continue to do, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: mr. president, i thank my colleague from alaska, senator sullivan, for the word that's just presented to us

here. he hit the nail right on the head along with our colleague from south dakota. mr. coats: i want to add my voice to what has been said here. as chairman of the joint economic committee, we pay a lot of attention to the state of the economy. we're presented with numbers and facts about where we are as a nation. and where we are as a nation is the refrain that's becoming all-too-familiar. that is, we really are the stagnant -- we really are in a stagnant position, not going anywhere. of all the statistics that come to us, two stand out here just recently. one is the fact that the april jobs report was about half of what it needs to be in order to provide meaningful jobs for meshes that are -- for americans that are searching for those jobs, trying to move from the part-time jobs that they may be able to secure to full-time,

permanent jobs, to put some certainty into their life. just 160,000 jobs in april, basically what covers those that are retiring and even less than that, but certainly not a number of new jobs that give any indication whatsoever of growth in the economy. that was disappointing -- that was a disappointing number. obviously, wall street paid attention to it. hopefully that won't be repeated. but it is a worrying signal that we are not creating the kind of dynamic growth economy that will put our out-of-work individuals across this country back to work, that will provide opportunities for our young people coming out of graduation here from college and high school this month and next month. nowhere near the number of jobs we need to even reach, as my

colleague from alaska said, an average growth rate over the years. if you measure back through all the way to the end of world war ii and going forward, i think the number is we've had about eight or nine major recessions. out of each of those recessions, the recovery rate has been in the 4-percent-plus growth category, providing a -- providing new hope for people that have lost their job, new hope for those that were coming out of educational institutions to secure a good job and begin the process of building a family, buying a home, living the american dream. yet in this recovery from a recession that began in 2008, late 2007, with the collapse of lehman brothers and the bank

failures, it was a deep recession, yes it was. and it's taken a considerable amount of time to get moving in the right direction. but, clearly, after the last 7 1/2 years of the obama administration, we have not begun to achieve the kind of recovery that has been the average of all recoveries since the end of world war ii. we've been about half of that. and by being half of that, we simply have not been a i believe to provide the opportunities for the kind of growth and the opportunities that come from that growth to the american people. now, what we have seen here, i think, can best be defined as failed policies by this administration. we have policies that have raised taxes significantly on the american people, even though their incomes haven't raised. we've had policies of overspending money here in

washington to the point where our national debt, based on years of deficit spending, has almost doubled from $10.7 trillion when this administration began to now over $19 trillion, after their 7 1/2 years of governing and putting in place the policies that clearly have failed. you can come to no other conclusion, despite what the white house puts out. the american people know better because they contrast what is said about things are really moving well, things are going well, we're on the march forward. they compare that with their situation, and there's no comparison to be made whatsoever. deficit spending, plunging into debt, overregulation burdening innovators, burdening businesses from having the ability to expand their business, and

overregulating, as i said -- overtaxing and clearly overspending. those three policies are what drives economic growth. now, i've had the great privilege of representing a state that has done just the opposite; that has, under republican leadership, controlled spending, controlled regulations, and put innovative processes in place that have allowed our state to thrive and to grow. we came out of a deep deficit situation some years ago, but we have turned that around to the point where we now have a triple-a credit rating. we went from deficit spending, which caused borrowing, to a surplus well over $2 billion, and we've become a very attractive state to live in and to do business in. let me state a couple of things

here that have been said about our state. chief executive magazine just recently named indiana one of the top five states in the nation for business. the magazine asks 513 c.e.o.'s, chief executive officers, to rank the states that were familiar with on tax and regulatory regime. work-first quality and living environment. let me give you a couple of their quotes. "indiana has its act together. it is impressive." "indiana has consistently ranked in the top flee in offering not -- top flee in offering not just competitive but also packages that improve the skill sets for higher work forces." the executive officer of the indiana interactive intelligence inc. recently sawed that the state's low cost and low taxes allowed job creators to invest more resources into their businesses and their employees."

he went on to say, "limited regulations make it easy to grow here, freeing up time, which is perhaps an entrepreneur's most coveted gift. we have great universities, turning out lots of talented graduates. the public and private sectors work effectively together in an effort to improve conditions for everybody." oh, how i wish i could attribute that quote that would reflect what's happening here in washington, how i wish i could use that quote to say, this is what's happening across the united states. i wish i could use that quote to be able to stand here and say, under the direction of this president and the support of this congress, we have reined in our overspending, we have tamped down our overregulation, we have put incentives in place to

create jobs, we've put the policies in place that have created economic growth. unfortunately, that is not the case, as has been made by my colleagues and i'm trying to make now. the contrast -- the contrast between a geographic entity called a state and the federal government and the policies which govern that state and govern our federal government, the contrast on those three areas of taxation, regulation, and spending is dramatic. why wouldn't we look to the one that has succeeded? why wouldn't we look to the policies implemented by a state that has exceeded and has provided dynamic economic growth over the past same time frame as the federal government, who has done just the exact opposite

relative to taxation, regulation, and spending, and draw the clear colleagues -- the -- and draw the clear conclusion, the clear conclusion, that the policies that have been implemented by this administration have failed? let's stop pointing fingers at what the motives are. let's just look at the results and the results are very clear: a stagnant national government, a stagnant growth throughout the united states, people not receiving opportunities to increase their income, which, by the way, over this 7 1/2 period of time, has decreased on an average of $3,000 per family. if you go back to what the average earnings in america per family was before -- at the start of this administration, it was $3,000 higher than it is today. and so whatever release has come

out of the white house or whatever the spokesman for the president says or the president himself says just sumly doesn't match -- simply doesn't match up to the facts. but the facts are related to pols the policies -- but the facts are related to the policies that have been mut -- n put in place authority been put in place. it's clear in the remaining months of this administration those policies are not going to change. simply the denial of the fact that the country is not growing at a rate that provides opportunity for the future and gives us hope for the future. but we do have a model, and my state is not the only model. we have a model of states that have done just exactly the opposite; that, yes, have regulations but the they're for safety and health and they're beneficial and put in place and not trying to micromanage how

businesses operate that have been careful with the tax dollars that come in and the revenue that comes into the state and balance their fiscal budget on an annual basis, don't throw them ever -- don't throw themselves ever-deeper into debt and that spends taxpayers' money wisely. so overtaxation, overregulation, overspending clearly is not the path to economic growth. it's clear that the path is just the opposite of that. and so in the remaining months that i have here, i'm going to continue to talk -- keep talking about this. i hope my completion will pay attention -- i hope my colleagues will pay attention and make decisions on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of ideology, not on the basis of what they've been told by an administration or by a president, but look at the results.

and the results are dramatic in terms of application of the basic principles that stimulate economic growth, provide hope for the american people. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: i the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, when senators rise on this floor, typically we identify problems, we're talking about how to solve them, and we're talking about how prior actions haven't quite worked. today i have the pleasure of rising for the opposite reason, to talk about something that has worked, something this we did -- something that we did, something that we worked on together in a bipartisan basis that has made an emore news difference for the student -- enormous difference for the students of our country. in the spring of 2013 there was an impending deadline. the interest rate on student loans, which in the past have been set by statute by congress without regard to what the

underlying economics were at the time, what the borrowing rate of the effect, but it was an arbitrary number set by congress, was due to double. this was july of 2013. it was you don' -- it was due te to 6.484% there was a probably that was put forward that did not get sufficient votes. there was another proposal put forth by the representatives on the other side of the aisle which also didn't get enough votes. so we were left with a situation with no proposal on the floor and an impending deadline that would have doubled rates for student loans for millions of students across the country. at that point, a small group of us, bipartisan, got together and said, there has to be a better way to find a solution here. we can't let this happen to our students. this is a particularly important time of the year to be talking about this because this is when

students are finding out where they're going to college next year, they're mawing their arrangement -- they're making their arrangements for financial aid, and they're thinking about what is going to be their commitment. well, as of today, as of this afternoon, as a matter of fact, those students are going to be able to breathe a bit of a sigh of relief. because we just learned that the interest rate on student loans taken out for next year, based upon the cost of borrowing for the united states government, will be 3.76%, the lowest it's been in a decade and considerably below -- almost half of what it would have been had we not come to that solution in a hot summer day in the middle of the summer of 2013. now, the group of people that worked on this and put it together were, as i said, a bipartisan group. senator richard burr of north

kearlg, senator manchin, senator tom coburn, my friend from oklahoma, senator alexander, senator tom carper, senator dick durbin, and senator tom harkin. we had a lot of meetings, we had a lot of discussions, we had a lot of negotiations, and ultimately worked together to determine a fair and equitable way to set the rate for student loans from the federal government based upon the federal government's own cost of borrowing money and combine the best ideas from both plans. we got the strong support of the president who encouraged the democratic members of our group to join in these negotiations and we reached a consensus. the bipartisan student loan certainty act which passed this body with something like 80 votes, and that has made a real difference for our students. here are some numbers: 50

billion, 5 billion, 277 billion. those are the answers. what are the questions? the first is $50 billion is the amount of money that students will save over the next ten years based upon the difference of what the interest rate would have been and what it's going to be. this says 3.8%. it is lower. it's $3.76%. -- 3.76%. it is $5 billion a year in difference in what they will have to pay in interest and what they would have paid had the law not been changed. this is an enormous amount of money for our students. in the state of maine the new america foundation has estimated this translates into over $275 million in interest savings to students just in the state of

maine. well, those are big numbers, $275 million, $50 billion, $5 billion. so what does it mean in reality to an individual student? and here's what we're talking about. under the old law, an individual typical undergraduate would have paid $17,000 in interest as opposed to $10,000. that's $6,000 into the pockets of our students. that's going to make a real difference. now, i'm delighted that we've had this success and that we've been able to report something that has actually been done right around here and that has truly benefited millions of students across this country. but -- but we have plenty of work still to do. college is still too expensive. the burden of student debt generally is very heavy and weighs on not only the students but our economy. wed to reauthorize the higher education act and we need to enact meaningful changes in

the whole structure of how colleges can keep their prices affordable and that we give students the tools they need to succeed. we also need to look at the structure of these, of student loan programs to simplify, a, how you apply. and, b, how you pay them back, how the structure is and have simple, easily understood techniques to pay back according to your means, according to what you're earning at the time, an earnings-based repayment schedule so that students don't exit college with this enormous burden. one student told me, senator, i feel like i have a mortgage but no house. and that's essentially what's happening. so what i'm talking about today is truly good news, but it's not the end of the story and we should not say, well, we've taken care of that issue. let's move forward. but i do think every now and then it's important to

acknowledge that occasionally the policies work out, and this is one that has worked out spectacularly for the students of america. $50 billion over the next ten years will be saved by students who would otherwise be paying that money in interest and that's money that they can invest in their own futures and can make a better life for themselves, their families, and our country. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge the work that was done by this entire body and by the house and by the president to resolve what would have been a true crisis for our students and to move it toward a much more manageable solution. i look forward to continuing to work on this issue and to keeping in touch with members, with chairman alexander and members of this body who are interested in continuing to work on this issue of the cost of college and how student loans are structured in order to make

them work most effectively and fairly for the young people of this country. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wes -- nebraska. mrs. fischer: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: i rise to discuss my amendment number 3888. i'm proud to join my colleagues from nebraska, kansas, and colorado to introduce this bipartisan amendment. our three states are signatories of the republican river compact which allocates the water resources from the republican river basin as it travels across our states. through this allocation process, our states work closely with the republican river compact

administration and the bureau of reclamation to help ensure the most efficient utilization of our wawrkts as it heads -- water, as it heads to families and businesses across the region. mr. president, in nebraska, we value clean water. our citizens go to great lengths to preserve and protect these resources. however, in recent years, the b.l.r. are violated administrative order issued by nebraska, kansas, and colorado with no justification for their actions. this lack of accountability from the b.o.r. is costing money, and it is limiting citizens' access to precious water resources. our bipartisan amendment that's before us would halt funding for the b.o.r. when it violates state orders.

federal law already requires the b.o.r. to comply with the states through interstate compacts. our amendment would hold this agency accountable for its actions. our states have a right to manage their own water resources for the benefit of compact compliance, but through its actions, b.o.r. have effect tussle -- effectively altered those compacts. this agency was not created to operate unilaterally and exert veto power over the decisions states make to comply with compacts. our amendment will ensure that nebraska, colorado, and kansas retain control of their water. it will protect other states who have these interstate compacts from consequential actions of an unaccountable federal agency.

nebraska and its neighbors in kansas and colorado are good stewards of natural resources. we protect our water. we protect it at the state and the local level. and these states should be free to preserve their resources without unjustified intervention by the federal government. i urge all of my colleagues to consider this amendment, to consider the impact of a federal agency overreaching and violating the rights of states to determine how to control, how to manage, how to work together, how to work within compacts in order to meet obligations that they have. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. 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 tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i ask consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i have come across an embarrassing situation. the united states department of education has apparently earned an "f" from the nonpartisan congressional research service in its first attempt to write a regulation under the new law fixing no child left behind that passed this body with 85 votes last year, that passed the house overwhelmingly and that president obama signed into law in december calling it a christmas miracle. most of us will remember this law. i know the senator from pennsylvania had a major role in some provisions in it. this was a law to fix a law that everybody wanted fixed. it was seven years overdue. the law that needed fixed was

called no child left behind. over the last several years what happened was the u.s. department of education had become in effect a national school board, and everybody was upset with how much the, those who worked in the department of education were telling teachers and school boards and students and 100,000 public schools about what to do. they were telling them what to do about how to evaluate teachers, what to do about what their academic standards should be, common core, telling them what to 0 do about how to give tests, how many tests to give, saying how to fix a school that might be in trouble. there are seven defined ways to fix such a school. people grew so upset with that that we had a massive bipartisan uprising in the united states congress. it's not easy to get 85 senators in behalf of a big, complex

piece of legislation, but we did. and "the wall street journal" said that it was the largest transfer of power from washington, d.c. to the states in 25 years. almost everybody liked it except some people in the united states department of education who set about almost immediately trying to rewrite the law as if they had actually been elected to something. now we anticipated that because in this law we took the extraordinary step -- we in congress, who under article 1 of the constitution are elected to write laws -- we wrote prohibitions into the law that said you may not do thus and so. for example, in the law is a specific provision that said the u.s. department of education may not tell tennessee or pennsylvania or any other state what its academic standard must be, specifically it may not tell

it that it must adopt common core. that is in the law. that's a specific prohibition. what i want to talk about today is a report by the congressional research service that congressman klein, the chairman of the house education committee, and i released today which says in the very first attempt by the department to write a regulation implementing the new law, they flunked the test. those are my words, not the congressional research service, but their words are nearly as plain as mine. a new report by the c.r.s. says that their proposed supplement not supplant regulation goes beyond -- quote -- "a plain language reading of the statute" and is likely against the law. congressman klein said administration spent years dictating national education policy. they failed to deliver the quality education every child deserves.

now the department seems determined to repeat its past mistakes. there's no question this regulation would violate both the letter and intent of the law and it must be abandoned. congress and the administration promised to reduce the federal role and restore local control, and we will use every available tool to ensure that promise is kept. mr. chairman, i know, congressman klein knows and the members of this body know that the law is not worth the paper it's printed on unless it's implemented properly. and i'm determined as chairman of the senate of the committee overseeing education to make sure this law is implemented properly. we will have this year six hearings on the implementation of this law. there is a coalition of organizations that includes the nation's governors, the national education association, the american federation of teachers, the chief state school officers. these are people who don't always agree on education policy. they helped pass this law, and they're equally determined to make sure it is implemented correctly. and they're not just working at

a national level. the governors in tennessee and in other states are working with coalitions of those same organizations to make sure that the law is implemented properly. on april 12, we had a hearing in the education committee, and i talked with the newly confirmed education secretary about this. i urged the president to appoint an education secretary because i wanted someone there who is accountable to the senate, and he was confirmed. his responsibility is to discharge the duties -- his duties faithfully according to the law. but based upon this first regulation, no one seems to be taking that seriously. let me be specific about it. there is a provision in the law that goes back to about 1970 which says that if you're going to get money from the federal government -- we call that title 1 money -- that you've got to be spending a comparable amount of money in schools that can get the money and schools that don't, except teacher salaries

may not be included in that computation. that is in the law, mr. president. that's been there ever since about 1970. now we had a debate in our committee, and on the floor about whether we should change that law. the senator from colorado, the senator from bennett, feels very well strongly about it. he said we ought to change the law and say that teachers' salaries should be included in comparing title 1 schools and non-title 1 schools. i had a different proposal. i said well, i agree with your point, senator bennet, but my proposal, i would call scholarship for kids. let's just take the federal dollars in tennessee or pennsylvania or maryland, let the state decide to create $2,100 scholarships -- that's the amount it can be -- and follow each low-income child to the school that the child attends. neither senator bennet's proposal nor my proposal could be adopted by the senate.

so we did not change the law. we then put specifically into the law a provision that said you may not -- we said the department of education, you may not write a regulation in such a way that requires parity among school districts. that's in the law as well. yet what happens? in the first regulation that the department of education seeks to do in what we call negotiated rule-making process, they came up with a scheme because as the departing secretary said, his lawyers are smarter than the people in the senate or the people who work here. they came up with a scheme that would violate the law and the method they chose to do it is prohibited by law. i don't call that being clever. i call that just ignoring the law. ignoring the law. and i'm not going to put up with it. i'm not going to allow a

department of education to sit here and watch us in both bodies of congress by big bipartisan majorities, supported by governors as well as teachers unions decide we don't want washington dictating every little thing that happens in the schools, and then as soon as the president himself signs the law they start rewriting it over his own department. if this one provision, if this rule that the department came up with were adopted, these are some of the consequences. it would, number one, require a complete costly overhaul of almost all of the state and local finance systems in the country. maybe they need to be overhauled, but we did not decide that they needed to be, and no one is elected in the department of education to require that. number two, it would be, require forcing thousands and thousands of teachers to transfer from one school to another school. perhaps they should transfer, but there are 100,000 public

schools. there are 3.5 million teachers, and we did not decide in our law that they should transfer and the department can't decide that either. it would require state and local school districts to move back to the burdensome practice of detailing every individual cost on which they spend money to provide a basic educational program to all students, which is exactly what we were trying to free states and districts from under the law. we heard from superintendents, from school boards that this nit-picking, mother-may-i approach of the department of bureaucrats was wasting the time of superintendents and teachers so into the law we wrote more flexibility. the department now wants to take it back. according to the council of great city schools, this new proposed rule would cost $3.9 billion just for the 69 urban school systems to eliminate the differences in spending between

the schools. so, mr. president, i would like to ask consent to include within the law -- i mean to include within the record following my remarks today a copy of a statement that senator, that congressman klein of minnesota, the chairman of the house education committee, and i made concerning the report of the congressional research service that says that the department has -- quote -- "competed its statutory authority and appears to go beyond what would be required under a plain language reading of the statute." unquote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i would like, mr. president, to ask consent to include a statement that i made in connection with the april 12 hearing of our committee, in the united states senate, our education committee when secretary king testified. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and,

mr. president, i would like to include following my remarks an editorial from the "wall street journal" entitled "obama's end run" that was published on april 18 of this year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: the journal said among other things, the administration is now rewriting the parts of the law it doesn't like. a law passed with big bipartisan majorities. mr. president, this is an intolerable situation. this is complete flouting of the specific bipartisan intent of large majorities of the senate and the house by a small group of people in a single department who know better than to do this. they know better than to do this. they're ignoring what we have written into law. they are not elected to anything. if they'd like to be in the congress or the senate, they can resign their positions and the

elections come up this year. they can run and they can try to change the law. it took us seven years to debate. we debated these provisions, very good people. i mean, the senator from colorado, who weighed in on this whole question of parity between school districts is a former distinguished superintendent of the denver school district. he feels very passionately about it. i used to be the united states secretary of education myself. i have a different proposal about how to fix it, and i feel pretty passionately about it. but i feel even more passionately that if we're going to decide the question, we're going to decide it here and it's not going to be decided down the street by regulations that are not authorized by law and in a method that is specifically prohibited by the provisions of a law that was signed by the president in december. so this is the first such regulation, but there will be more. and i would hope that the

secretary of education and the men and women who work for him would stop and take a deep breath and realize that we were serious when we passed this law, that we have the broad support of the entire education community across the board, and that i'm not going to rest until i make sure that this law is implemented in the way it was written. and that means, mr. president, that we're going to continue to hold the remainder of our six hearings this year, that i'm going to work with the coalition of governors, teachers organizations, chief state school officers to put a spotlight on what's happening in the department, that i'm going to urge the state departments of education to begin to write their own plans, which they then later submit to the department in order to obtain their federal dollars under the -- under the law, and that if the regulations

are not consistent with the law, i don't believe they should follow them. that means the state should ask for a hearing, and if the department persists, then the state should go to court and sue the department. and if it persists, we have our own remedies here in the united states senate and the united states house of representatives. we have something called the congressional review act. it only takes 51 of us, 51 of us to overturn a final rule that we believe is not consist the president with the law. we can do that. i will be at the head of the line in trying to do it. and we have an appropriations process, and the united states department of education has to come before us and be accountable to us for all of the money they receive. so i expect from here on out for those who write the rules to follow the law, and if we have a specific authority, they should read it. according -- it's not just me saying this, it's not just congressman klein saying this. we have the nonpartisan

congressional research service that has examined this report, and i hope my colleagues will look at this and they have concluded, they have concluded that likely the regulation the department proposed does not follow the plain language of a statute that was enacted and signed into law only last december, only last december. we this is the first shot across the bow, as far as i'm concerned. i will be watching every single one of these regulations, and i hope this does not happen a second or a third time or there will be a large number of us seeking to do anything we can do to make sure that the law is implemented the way it should be. this was the most important law passed by the united states congress last year. it affected 50 million children, 3.5 million teachers and 100,000 public schools. it restored to the people closest to the children the authority for dealing with those

children. everybody wanted that. virtually everybody wanted that except a few people in the united states department of education who can't keep their hands off america's 100,000 public schools. they need to do that. they need to learn to do that. they are supposed to create an environment in which teachers and students and school boards can succeed. they're not supposed to serve as a national school board. so, mr. president, congressman klein, the chairman of the house committee and i released this report today. i call it to the attention of my colleagues. i call it to the attention of the governors and teachers organizations and all who care about our schools, and i can guarantee you that we're going to keep our eye on the ball and make sure that future regulations are within the authority of the law that we passed and that this law, the most important law passed last year by this congress and signed by the president, is implemented the way congress wrote it. i thank the president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that floor vistles be granted to michael laughlin who is a fellow on my staff during the consideration of h.r. 2028, the fiscal year 2017 energy and water appropriations act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i take this time to speak in support of an amendment that will be voted on shortly, i believe at 4:30 this afternoon, amendment number 3871 that i have offered. and i was listening to my friend, senator alexander. i know he was not talking about my amendment. i know he was talking about a different subject, but i always listen to senator alexander because he always makes such important points, and i couldn't agree with him more. laws are not worth the paper it's printed on unless it's implemented properly. that was the comment that he made. that's the reason why i filed the amendment, amendment 3871. let me just point out the

congress passed the fish and wildlife coordination act in 1958. it was that act that requires all federal agencies to consult with the u.s. fish and wildlife service and the department of interior and the head of applicable state, fish and game departments on water projects. and the concern we have today is that we have many water populations that are being initiated by a dam project, a levee project being done by the army corps and they are required to work with the regulations of the fish and wildlife as it relates to the impact it has on fish and wildlife, these projects, and in fact they're not doing it. and that's the reason why i have offered this amendment. to carry out congressional intent -- not only congressional intent, what we wrote in the law, so that it is very clear that as part of the consultation, the u.s. fish and wildlife of the states are to determine the potential impacts to wildlife resources, describe

the damage that will be caused by the project and develop mitigating measures to prevent those damages in approved wildlife resources. that's the current rules. the problem is that the federal agencies are not required to adopt the recommendations, i understand that, but they must give the recommendations for consideration, and they're not doing it today. at least they're not doing it as much as we think they should be doing that, and that is the purpose for this amendment. to make it clear that we meant what we said when we passed the law, similar to what my good friend said when we passed the education bill last year. the fish and wildlife coordination act review is long-standing, critically important component of water resources planning and utilization expert recommendations, and these reviews make sense. so, mr. president, let me just underscore what we're talking about. water projects are very important. i know that. i serve on the environment and public works committee, the authorizing committee on many of these issues. to get these water projects moving. i understand the challenges.

but one of the purposes is to make sure we preserve fish and wildlife. every year hunting and fishing contribute $250 billion to our nation's economy. it's a huge part of the reason why we require that type of consultation and working together. in order that when these projects move forward, the recommendations that are made by fish and wildlife and our local government entities, this is totally consistent with our local communities, that they are heeded and taken into consideration so that we not only get the needed water projects but we also reserve our fish and water wildlife habitats so we don't endanger the species as part of the project. i would like to emphasize not only is this an environmental issue, this is about state involvement. not only does the army corps need to ensure that projects meet federal requirements, it

needs to respect each state's unique situation. if state fish and wildlife experts express concern about a project, my amendment reiterates what the law is already, the army corps must listen. that's what it says, as simple as that. so i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it has the strong support of many of our wildlife federations , the national wildlife federation supports it, izaak walton league of america, the theodore roosevelt conservation partnership, wildlife federations from many of our states. mr. president, i'm going to ask consent that the letter in support of this amendment be made part of our record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: and i just encourage my colleagues just to read the language of this amendment. it carries out current law. that's simply what it does. current law requires this consideration by fife on these projects. this amendment makes it clear that we want the federal

agencies to comply with the law. that's why we wrote it that way. and this amendment would make sure that the intent of congress in implementing the statute is, in fact, carried out. with that, mr. president, 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. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for up to ten

minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor again today and discuss the zika virus which has been in the news quite often in my home state of florida and nationally. i wanted to enter into the record in a moment here a number of articles that have appeared just in the last week in papers across the state of florida. on may 7, the newspaper in pensacola with the headline "panhandle conditions create a zika powder keg." and the argument it makes is that that part of the state, as much of the areas in the south, is an area where you find prevalent a species of mosquito which is the primary one that is now transmitting the zika virus. it goes on to say that as temperatures rise and rainfall increases, these are the two elements that require -- that mosquitoes need to spread. so there is going to be a massive spread, as there is every year, in the specific species of mosquitoes that transmit the zika virus in the panhandle of florida.

and so i ask unanimous consent that this "pensacola news journal" article dated may 7 be entered into the record. the second article comes about and it finds that the zika findings can be game changers, opening doors to research. it begins by saying two groups of scientists reported wednesday that fetal mice infected with zika showed brain damage, a finding that confirms the prevailing view that the virus can disrupt the development of fetal brains in humans, provides a clear avenue to study the problem. the work should put to rest lingering doubts in some quarters that the zika outbreak sweeping through latin america and the caribbean is responsible for a surge in babies born with microcephaly and other brain anomalies. and it goes on to quote an associate professor of pathology at the university of texas medical branch in galveston. it says let me put it bluntly. these are game changers. we need to move forward now. there is an article dated may 10 in the "miami herald," the

headline, "two new zika cases in miami-dade raise the state total to 109." florida health officials confirmed two new zika infections in miami-dade on tuesday, raising the statewide total to 109 people who have contracted the virus this year, now more than any other state. in miami-dade alone where most of florida's zika cases have been reported, 44 people have been infected with the virus, said the state health department. the disease has not yet been transmitted locally by mosquito bites. broward county has reported 15 cases of zika. today i will -- by 5:00 today i will meet with the governor of our state who is up here asking for federal aid to prepare for and combat the virus in the state of florida. again, as the governor says -- quote -- it's going to get warmer, we're going to have more rainfall, we're probably going to see more mosquitoes in our state. our federal government has a variety of plans we are talking about. we have got to address the zika issue. hopefully we can get ahead of it. but this isn't just limited to florida.

here's an article from "usa today" dated may 6, 2016. headline -- gulf coast could be ground zero for zika. the gulf coast may know hurricanes, but this year the region of 60 million people could find itself unprepared and at ground zero for a different type of storm, a mosquito-borne zika epidemic. look at the region's urban hubs, small towns and rural outposts show a patchwork of preparedness. cities such as houston have robust plans in place while smaller towns such as corpus christi struggle with fewer resources. mr. president, this is just part of painting an overall picture of a very serious problem. by the way, i would just say that the notion that we should only be worried about florida or states in the gulf coast alone would not be wise. mosquitoes are found, the mosquitoes that infect people are found in 30 of the 50 states in this country. there are now zika infections and zika cases in multiple states across the country. and by the way, we now know that

zika isn't just transmitted through mosquitoes but can also be sexually transmitted. in fact, the only case of transmission in florida was one that was sexually transmitted in central florida. and so as we debate all these other important issues, this is a looming public health crisis. this is the situation that we are facing now in this country, and the time to act has come, the moment to act has come, because right now we are facing in this body and here in washington, d.c. a debate about this issue, about how much money we're going to spend on it. and look, i have -- the president has proposed $1.9 billion to deal with it. about $500 billion of that is designed to pay back the ebola funding that has been used in the short term to fill in the gap. but the rest of it is for real programs that go into dealing with this issue and particularly dealing with it on the island of puerto rico that has been disproportionately impacted by this. when i hear people say there hasn't been any cases of zika transmitted in the united states, they're wrong. the people of puerto rico are

american citizens. they travel to this country extensively. it is our responsibility to also fight and care for them in this process. but the bottom line is it is not a question of if, it is a question of when. there will be a mosquito transmission of zika in the continental united states at some point over the next few days, weeks or months, and we cannot get caught unprepared to deal with its consequences. and its consequences, by the way, are not just pregnant women, which in and of itself is enough reason to act. i don't mean to diminish it. the impact on pregnant women and their unborn children is extraordinary and devastating. the science on that is indisputable. we're seeing evidence of that all across the world and especially the western hemisphere being impacted by it. so that alone is reason to react. guillain-barre, an often debilitating neurological condition that we know is associated with this and these children being born after being

infected in the womb with zika. we don't know what the long-term prognosis s. just because they're not born with microcephaly does not mean they will not suffer from other neurological deficiencies or other neurological deficiencies in the years to come. we simply don't know. it's not just the first trimester threat anymore. we now know zika can be transmitted and can do serious damage in the second trimester as well. we know that soon the olympic games will be played in brazil and that means hundreds of thousands of people will travel from and through the united states to the olympics and back. we know that we have constant visitors coming in and out of this country. how do you think you get to 109 cases in florida? these are people that have either traveled abroad or have been infected by a partner in the one case that i've said. and so this is an issue we should jump on with a real sense of urgency. and it is a federal responsibility to be involved in this. it is the job of the federal government to keep our people safe from external threats and zika today is an external threat spreading to this country, a

country that is at the epicenter of global commerce and transit. it is just a matter of time before someone contracts zika through a mosquito bite here in the united states and we have not prepared for it. localities and states are doing the best they can with their limited resources but they do not have the comprehensive resources that the federal government can bring to bear. they don't have the resources for research that the federal government can bring to bear. they don't have the ability to deal with it at the ports of entry the way the federal government can. and so these are important priorities that i hope we will move on. now, in the last few hours i've heard encouraging reports that there are a number of efforts going on behind the scenes here in the senate, at least one of them in a bipartisan way to begin to address this issue. and over the next few hours we'll meet with a different state -- different stakeholders and others who are engaged in this issue to see if we com cocp with a way forward. here's what we won't dough. i hope we will -- won't do. i hope we will not politicize this. zika is not a republican or

democrat issue. it shouldn't be a campaign issue although i promise you it will become one if we have a zika outbreak in the united states and we're back home doing our constituent work, not here voting. and people are going to want to know, why did you do nothing on this issue? you knew it was coming. it was clearly broadcast and predicted. all the indicators were there and nothing happened. inaction on this is quite frankly inexcusable. and i don't believe voters will excuse this for refusing to act on this. but if shouldn't be a political issue. it shouldn't be a partisan issue. it shouldn't be used for one party to beat up on the other. i hope that we can take -- there are so many other issues we could have that fight over, not on this. not where real lives, real people are at stake. and so my hope here is that very soon, and i mean in the next couple of days, we can bring before this body a way forward on this issue that brings both parties together, that deals with this public health crisis in a responsible way, and let me say, look, we're running a debt in this country. and so there's a way to pay for it and i believe there can be a

way to pay for trks i'm all for it. i have ideas about how we can come up with some of that money. we can find 1.4, 1.5, $1.9 billion to cut somewhere to pay for this. and i think we should endeavor to do so. but even if we cannot, i -- we should never allow the inability to agree on how to pay for it to stand in the way of addressing a public health crisis that threatens to become a public health catastrophe. i prefer that we pay for t. i am for -- for it. i am for it but i'm not going to let that stand in the way -- objection to that stand in the way to addressing this issue. so through all the other issues we are debating up here, from presidential campaigns to water projects, i still do not believe that we have given sufficient intensity, urgency or attention to this burgeoning issue that threatens the safety and security of our people. so, mr. president, it's my hope that over the next few hours and days, we can come forward in a bipartisan way with a way forward and we'll continue to work to address that and achieve

it. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: