[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2482-S2492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning 
business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 677 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.


                     Stabbing at Lone Star College

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have a couple matters I wish to 
discuss, but before I get to that, we have been advised--through the 
news media--that there have been multiple victims who have been injured 
during a stabbing attack at the Lone Star College CyFair campus in 
Texas. One person has been taken into custody.
  Unfortunately, this is the second time, in a short period of time, 
that the Lone Star College campus has been struck with acts of 
senseless violence, and I think it is appropriate to say here and now 
that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. 
We hope law enforcement does its typically good job and finds those 
responsible to make sure those who are responsible are prosecuted to 
the fullest extent of the law.


                            Border Security

  Madam President, I wish to remind my colleagues that if they don't 
know where they are going, then they will probably never know when they 
get there. Stated another way: If you don't measure the size of a 
problem, you will never know how close or how far you are away from 
solving it. It seems like common sense. But since 2010, the Department 
of Homeland Security has used the metric or the measuring stick of 
operational control to determine how successful it is about detaining 
those who cross our southwestern border illegally. This is a matter of 
basic public safety since we know drug cartels, human traffickers, and 
other criminals regularly exploit this porous southwestern border in 
order to do their dastardly deeds.
  For some reason, the Department of Homeland Security has dropped this 
metric or measuring stick of operational control altogether, and so far 
they have yet to replace it with some other measuring stick or some 
other way to determine how successful or unsuccessful they have been. 
It has literally been 3 years since the Department of Homeland Security 
has had a functional measurement of border security.
  Again, this is about public safety. This is about deterring and 
stopping criminals and others who come across the border to deal in 
drugs or in human lives. During this same time period, the Government 
Accountability Office has reported that the Department of Homeland 
Security had achieved operational control--this was about 3 years ago--
of less than 45 percent of the southwestern border.
  The Los Angeles Times wrote a story recently that showed between 
October 2012 and January of 2013, the Department of Homeland Security 
failed to apprehend at least 50 percent of the people who attempted to 
cross the border without proper paperwork; in other words, illegal 
border crossers.
  I think, by any measure, whether one is a Democrat or Republican, 
Independent, no matter what your political stripes, this is 
unacceptable, and we need to do better.
  Earlier today, I introduced legislation that would require the 
Department of Homeland Security officials to verify how much 
operational security we actually have along our borders. The Border 
Security Results Act of 2013 would also require the Department of 
Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive strategy--something we 
have been missing for a long time--for achieving operational control of 
every single border sector.
  My State has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. We know that 
much of the illegal activity does not even start in Mexico but comes up 
through Central America. People around the world know that if they can 
get to Central America and pay the human smugglers enough, they can 
make their way into the United States. Even though we have beefed up 
the Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, and applied new 
detection techniques so our border is more secure than it was, last 
year alone 360,000 people were detained by coming across the southern 
border. If we believe the Los Angeles Times story, which I think rings 
true, at least twice that many people actually tried--half were 
detained, half made it across.
  This bill would define operational control as a threshold in which 
U.S. authorities in a given sector are apprehending at least 90 percent 
of the people who are coming across, and it would require the 
Department of Homeland Security to gain full situational awareness 
through technology, boots on the ground, and results-based metrics.

  Metrics is just a fancy word. It is a measuring stick. It is a 
yardstick. Not only do we need to talk about the numbers, we need to 
talk about the very human tragedy associated with these numbers and 
inadequate border security.
  As I said, a porous United States-Mexican border also encourages drug 
and sex traffickers, including all sorts of criminals who prey on 
children, the weak, and the vulnerable. By gaining operational control 
of our borders, we can save lives and protect innocent human life.
  We can also safeguard the basic property rights and civil rights of 
people who live along the border while we respect those who play by the 
rules and who are now trying to pursue their American dream as legal 
immigrants to the United States. This is not designed to deter people 
who want to play by the rules and who want to enter this country to 
work and provide for their family according to the law of the land and 
seek to achieve their American dream.

[[Page S2483]]

  This is also not an alternative to fixing our broken immigration 
system, but it is complementary of the work being done of the so-called 
Gang of 8--four Republicans and four Democratic Senators--as well as 
House negotiators who are trying to work out just exactly what border 
security actually means, how to measure it, and how to know if the 
Department of Homeland Security is doing the job. Even as we debate the 
larger issue of Homeland Security, everyone, Democrat and Republican 
alike, believes this is an essential component of a comprehensive bill.
  In short, we should be doing everything possible to encourage the 
type of legal immigration that benefits our economy and our broader 
society while discouraging and deterring illegal entry into the 
country, which unfortunately, is being exploited by drug cartels, human 
traffickers, and other criminals.
  The United States-Mexico relationship is about far more than just 
immigration security. This is not limited to just Mexico. This is very 
important. Mexico is our third largest trading partner. There are 6 
million jobs in America that depend on cross-border traffic and trade 
with the country of Mexico. By the way, their economy is growing at a 
much faster rate than ours. It is something we can look at and be 
envious of and hopefully we can ultimately emulate.
  The health and success of Mexico's economy is important to the 
economy of the United States for the reason I just mentioned. There are 
now millions of jobs which depend on trade with our southern neighbor, 
including hundreds of thousands of jobs in my State of Texas alone. 
Unfortunately, our land ports of entry along the United States-Mexican 
border have not kept pace with the rapid expansion of bilateral 
economic ties, and they are suffering from both inadequate 
infrastructure and inadequate staffing. Wait times at the border for 
people who are playing by the rules and trying to enter the country 
legally have grown unacceptably long.
  The Border Security Results Act would help mitigate this problem by 
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to devise a plan to 
reduce the wait times by at least 50 percent. I might add, when we 
think about security and the economy, these go hand in glove because 
the very same people who are working to provide security from illegal 
entry are the very same ones often facilitating legitimate trade and 
commerce. By reducing wait times at the United States-Mexican border, 
we would facilitate greater bilateral trade and faster job creation on 
both sides of the Rio Grande River. That is just one additional reason 
that the Border Security Results Act deserves to become law as soon as 
possible.
  Again, on this point, this is entirely complementary of the work and 
negotiations that are taking place now in the Senate among the Gang of 
8, who will report to us any day now on their framework and how they 
think we ought to move forward on the immigration issue. But until we 
regain the public's confidence that the Federal Government is doing its 
job at this international border in terms of legitimate trade, 
deterring common criminals, and drug and human traffickers, then I 
doubt our chances for success on the larger issue are very good.


                        President Obama's Budget

  Before I conclude, I wish to say a few words about President Obama's 
budget request. As we all know, the due date for the President's budget 
was February 4. One might say: February 4 has long passed. That is 
correct. It was the day after the Super Bowl. But here we are 2 months 
later, and the President has defied the requirements of the law which 
says the President must submit his proposed budget the first Monday of 
February.
  Unfortunately, he is the first President in modern history not only 
to have failed that deadline but to see the Senate and the House 
actually move forward with our respective budgets before the White 
House releases its own.
  If the President, who is obviously the leader of the free world and 
Commander in Chief of the United States military, wants to be relevant 
to the largest, most important domestic issue facing this country, 
which is how to get control of our debt and deficit and how to get the 
American Government to live within its means, I cannot think of 
anything more likely calculated to lead to his irrelevancy than to wait 
until the House and the Senate have already dealt with our budgets and 
submit his budget. That is what has happened.

  Tomorrow is the big day when we finally get to see the President's 
budget proposal. According to some press reports, we already have an 
idea of what is in it. For one thing, the President's budget will not 
balance. It is not a balanced budget. The President likes to talk about 
balance when discussing economic matters. Well, the President's budget 
doesn't balance in 10 years or in 20 years or ever. What it will do, we 
are told, is increase spending by hundreds of billions of dollars--
money we simply don't have. Right now the Federal Government is 
spending roughly 25 cents out of every dollar, of money we have to 
borrow from China or other creditors, just to pay to keep the 
government operating at its current level.
  We are also told the President's budget would impose hundreds of 
billions of dollars in new taxes--this is after, on January 1, the 
President signed into law a $600 billion tax increase as a result of 
the fiscal cliff negotiations. Meanwhile, the President's budget would 
make it harder for Americans to save for their own retirement. I find 
that bewildering. Why in the world would the President want to 
discourage the American people from saving for their own retirement, 
particularly at a time when he has done nothing to shore up Social 
Security or Medicare, which seniors rely upon. So if the Federal 
Government is not going to do that--in other words, not going to do its 
job of shoring up Social Security and Medicare--why in the world would 
we further discourage people from saving on their own?
  Indeed, from what we have heard, this budget is filled with the same 
sorts of tax and spend policies the President has been promoting since 
day one. I will give him credit--the President has been consistent 
throughout. Our country can't afford that kind of policy, not when we 
are suffering from the longest period of high unemployment since the 
Great Depression and not when millions of Americans have been jobless 
for more than 6 months.
  I would remind colleagues that President Obama has presided over an 
economy where half a million Americans left the workforce last month, 
bringing our labor force participation rate down to a 34-month low. 
What does that mean? Well, it means people have given up. People have 
been out of work so long--even though the unemployment rate has hovered 
around 8 percent, then 7.7, 7.6, the only reason it has come down is 
because hundreds of thousands of Americans have given up looking for 
work, so they have taken them out of that calculation, which actually 
gives a false impression of the unemployment rate decreasing. But we 
all know the economy is growing very slowly--.6 percent the last 
quarter. It needs to grow 3 and 4 percent for our economy to take off 
and create the private sector jobs that are important to get Americans 
back to work.
  The President of the United States may truly believe his proposed 
budget represents a compromise, but in the real world it does 
absolutely nothing to address our biggest long-term fiscal problems, 
including Medicare, which, for every dollar a typical Medicare 
beneficiary has put into the system, they draw down $3. That is 
unsustainable. The President's proposed budget contains, again, another 
massive tax increase even though President Obama has already presided 
over a Federal Government that has raised taxes on the American people 
by $1.7 trillion.
  Last week White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the President's 
budget ``is not what he would do if he were king.'' Well, we haven't 
had a king in a long time--never in this country--and I can only assume 
Carney meant President Obama would like to raise taxes even more if he 
could and increase spending even more if he could and do even less if 
he could to reform our vital programs, such as Social Security and 
Medicare.
  In so many ways this budget sounds more like a PR stunt than actually 
being designed to address the Nation's biggest challenges. It may help 
the

[[Page S2484]]

President secure favorable media coverage, but it fails to offer 
serious solutions to America's biggest long-term challenges.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I know that pending is the firearms 
legislation, which America is watching very closely, and which we will 
speak to at length as we proceed to this measure. I, of course, will 
come to the floor at that time to address some of the issues which were 
brought up in the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the bills that is 
being brought forward under this firearms act is one related to straw 
purchases--purchases by an individual who can legally purchase a gun so 
that firearm can be given to someone who could not because of a felony 
conviction, for example, or perhaps mental instability.
  Those third-party purchases--straw purchases--have become the scourge 
of many communities. One of them is the city of Chicago, IL, which I 
represent. We found that about 9 percent of the crime guns confiscated 
in Chicago over the last 10 years came from the State of Mississippi--
Mississippi. So how did those guns get from Mississippi to the mean 
streets and alleys and backways in Chicago? Well, some people decided 
they could make some money by filling up the trunk of a car with easily 
purchased guns in Mississippi, driving up to Chicago, and selling them 
to gangbangers and thugs and drug kingpins in some dark alley late at 
night. That is a profitable business for some, but it has proliferated 
firearms and weapons in the city of Chicago to a level that many people 
find incredible.
  Our superintendent of police, Garry McCarthy, came to Chicago from 
the New York City area. He learned that the per capita possession of 
firearms in the city of Chicago--per capita--is roughly six times what 
it is in the city of New York--six times more firearms. We are awash, 
flooded with these firearms, and most of them, virtually all of them, 
are coming in from outside the city--9 percent from Mississippi, 20 
percent from one firearms dealer in the suburbs of Chicago.
  Well, I can tell you these guns are not being purchased by end users 
in most instances. They are being purchased by girlfriends, by 
partners, those who could clear a background check and buy a gun and 
hand it over to someone else who commits a crime.
  One of the provisions in the firearms bill that I authored with 
Senator Kirk, Senator Collins, Gillibrand, and, of course, our 
chairman, Patrick Leahy, relates to whether we are going to throw the 
book at those who purchase guns with the knowledge or reasonable belief 
that they are going to prohibited purchasers or to be used in the 
commission of a crime; and we do. The penalty starts at 15 years of 
hard time. In Chicago at a press conference we said: Girlfriend, think 
twice. Is he worth it? Is he worth 15 years behind bars for you to go 
buy that gun in the suburbs, hand it over to that gangbanger who kills 
somebody that night?
  That is what folks have to put into their calculation of whether they 
are going to take that risk. That is one of the provisions in this 
firearms bill. I would like to think everybody would agree with this 
provision. Unless one happens to be in that rare group of Americans who 
believe selling firearms in volume, no matter whom they are sold to, is 
the best thing for our country, then they have to agree that clamping 
down with Federal hard time for those who make straw purchases is a 
good idea. I think it is. It is the lead measure in this firearms bill 
that will come before us.
  There are other measures in there that have been somewhat more 
controversial, and we will come to them during the course of the 
debate. But I have asked for this time as in morning business to speak 
to two unrelated issues, not to diminish the importance of the firearms 
bill, which I have spoken to already, but to speak to two other issues 
which I hope will be taken up seriously by the Senate soon.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 673 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                          For-Profit Colleges

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times to 
talk about for-profit schools. It is another consumer issue. It is a 
very serious one. I come to the floor to describe to my colleagues and 
put on the record of the Senate some of the things that are taking 
place across America today that I think are nothing short of 
outrageous, things that we can stop--we have the power to stop in the 
Senate.
  Let me tell the story of Sharon LoMonaco. Sharon is a 65-year-old 
woman who is on Social Security and in debt because of her student 
loans. Sharon attended the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, a for-profit 
college owned by Education Management Corporation. Sharon saw a 
commercial and was attracted to the school and called them. Then the 
recruiter at the school kept calling and calling her until she finally 
agreed to sign up. Sharon says the recruiter acted as if he were her 
best friend, told her everything would be great, and then practically 
filled out her financial aid forms for her. She ended signing up for 
$55,000 in loans, to the Art Institute of Pittsburgh.
  She started the program and started to question almost immediately 
the quality of the education she was receiving. But she stayed in 
school--that is, she stayed until her money ran out. Sharon received a 
Pell grant, which is a grant given to low-income individuals in America 
to go to college, but she had also exhausted her Federal student aid 
eligibility. She was borrowing money even while she was putting the 
Pell grant into the cost of her education. She could not get any more 
Federal loans and could not qualify for private student loans. She had 
no choice--she had to drop out of the Art Institute of Pittsburgh. She 
now attends a community college and is trying to finish her degree 
there. For now her loans are deferred, but every day, she wakes up and 
worries about what will happen when the day comes and she will have to 
start to pay them back.
  Unfortunately, Sharon is not alone. Every week, former for-profit 
college students who attended one of the schools like the Art Institute 
of Pittsburgh that are run by the EDMC corporation find they are 
drowning in debt and contact our office. We have invited them to tell 
us their stories.
  Let me talk a little bit more about the type of business EDMC runs--
that stands for the Education Management Corporation. It received over 
77 percent of its total revenue from Federal student aid programs. 
However, according to a 2012 HELP Committee report Senator Tom Harkin 
filed, if all Federal aid is included--that means counting GI Bill 
funds, Department of Defense tuition assistance money--EDMC receives 80 
percent of its total revenue from the Federal Government. This is not a 
business, this is an outlet for Federal taxpayers' dollars to subsidize 
a private company. Eighty percent of its revenue comes in the form of a 
check from the Federal Government.
  It is only 20 percent away from being a total Federal agency, but, 
believe me, the salaries that are paid and the profits that are taken 
by this so-called private sector company would not even be considered 
at the Federal level.
  For-profit colleges received $32 billion in Federal student aid funds 
in the 2010-2011 academic year. This might seem like a good investment 
for the Federal Government to make--that is, if students were actually 
learning, graduating, and getting jobs in their chosen fields and 
paying off their loans. They are not. Over 23 percent of the students 
who attended the Art Institute of Pittsburgh are going to default on 
their student loans within 3 years.
  Sharon LoMonaco is not alone. More and more older Americans are in 
debt either because they went to school later in life or, in a gesture 
of kindness, cosigned costly private student loans for their children 
or grandchildren. According to the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, outstanding student loan debt now tops $1

[[Page S2485]]

trillion in America. These are people who were retired and planning to 
live a life of comfort. They cannot anymore. A grandmother cosigns a 
granddaughter's student loan for her, the granddaughter defaults, and 
they are now collecting and garnishing grandma's Social Security check. 
In Sharon's case, she worries her Social Security check will be 
garnished in the future.
  While other types of household debt continue to decline, there is one 
that does not: student loan debt. Between 2004 and 2012, there was a 
70-percent increase in the average amount being borrowed for college. 
Borrowers like Sharon, clearly over the age of 30, make up 67 percent 
of the total outstanding student loan debt.
  There are some for-profit colleges that are doing the right thing--
educating students to succeed in the workforce--but there are other bad 
actors, such as EDMC, that continue to spend a large portion of their 
revenue on marketing rather than educating. This committee report from 
the HELP Committee in the Senate found last year that for-profit 
colleges spent an average of 22 percent of their revenue on marketing 
and recruiting. One particular school we looked at today is trying to 
hold out that it is educating and training members of the military. It 
turns out they have hundreds of recruiters trying to get military 
families to sign up and 1 job placement counselor. You know what their 
priorities are: Sign them up and get their money.
  Congress needs to raise the standards for for-profit colleges and 
stop this unrestricted flow of funds to these schools that are failing 
their students.
  I have been giving these speeches on the floor for some time now. 
Senator Harkin of Iowa, who is the chairman of the HELP Committee, has 
had extensive investigations of these for-profit schools. Some of them 
are struggling. Their share value has gone down. They are not making 
money the way they used to. But they are still very much in business.
  What we should remember is what I have told folks are the three most 
important numbers:
  Twelve. Twelve percent of all college students go to for-profit 
schools. University of Phoenix, Kaplan, DeVry, EDMC--12 percent go to 
these for-profit schools. These for-profit schools take out over $30 
billion a year in Federal aid to education. Twelve percent of the 
students, and they take 25 percent of all of the Federal aid to 
education. They know where the money is. They are grabbing it as fast 
as they can. Forty-seven is the third number you ought to remember. 
Forty-seven percent of the student loan defaults are students and their 
families from for-profit schools.
  Many of these schools are just plain worthless. Some of the students 
could never tell.
  They say: Well, Senator, wait a minute, if you are giving Federal 
Pell grants to these schools, then isn't the Federal Government 
acknowledging the school is a good school?
  Sadly, that is an in escapable conclusion, a wrong one. They are not 
good schools. Yet we continue to allow them to tap into Federal funds. 
Oh, there are exceptions. Some of them do train people for good jobs. 
But too many of them are worthless.
  These poor students, high school students are inundated with all of 
this advertising and marketing to go to those for-profit schools. They 
are lured into it. There was a commercial that used to run on 
television here in Washington. I think they finally pulled it off the 
air. It showed this lovely young girl. She was in her pajamas in her 
bedroom with her computer on the bed. She said: I am going to college 
in my pajamas. It was an advertisement for a for-profit school.
  I do not want to suggest that online education is a bad thing. I 
think it can be a good thing. But this notion that you can go to school 
so easily and come up with a valuable degree is one that people ought 
to stop and think about. What we know now is that many students who do 
not know which way to turn coming out of high school would be well 
advised to go first to a community college. It is local. It is 
affordable. It offers a lot of options. You can learn a lot about 
yourself and what you might want to be when you grow up and do it 
without going deeply in debt.
  What we are discovering is more and more students are signing up for 
debt they do not comprehend well. What does it say when a student has 
to borrow $20,000 a year to get an undergraduate degree, or $80,000 in 
debt for 4 years? Is it worth it? Many students are starting to ask 
this question.
  When I grew up college was a given. Go to college; it is the only way 
to succeed.
  Now students are asking the hard questions. Is it worth that much 
debt? Will it really help me that much? There are questions which need 
to be asked and answered. Sometimes these questions are being answered 
by young people who have had no experience in the world. They have not 
yet borrowed money for anything. Perhaps their parents never attended a 
college or any institution of higher education. They are excited about 
going to college and sign on the paper because they don't want to miss 
a class. The next thing they realize is they are stuck in these 
schools.
  After a period of time, possibly 4 or 5 years later, some may 
actually finish in these for-profit schools only to discover their 
diplomas are worthless and cannot help them secure a job.
  A young lady went to Westwood College, one of the most notorious for-
profit schools in the Chicagoland area, for 5 years. She completed a 
law enforcement degree from Westwood. There wasn't a single employer 
who would recognize her degree when she went out into the real world.
  Where is she now? She is living in her parents' basement. This is the 
only place she may reside because she is $85,000 in debt to Westwood 
College for a worthless diploma. This isn't fair.
  We need to do a better job at the Federal level in accreditation to 
ensure these schools are worth their tuition. Secondly, we need to 
demand full disclosure in terms of how much their education costs. What 
kind of debt obligation is the student incurring? What is the 
likelihood they will get a job? How many of these students are dropping 
out and defaulting on their loans long before graduation?
  These are important questions which need to be asked and answered. It 
is tough. This is an industry which is politically well connected and 
put themselves in a favored position in the bankruptcy court--through 
friends in the U.S. Congress. They wish to protect their profitmaking, 
even at the expense of a lot of these students and their families.
  We can do better. We need to establish standards which restore the 
confidence of American families and these future students in the 
institutions they attend.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor as someone who has 
just traveled around my home State of Wyoming for the last couple 
weeks, talking to people, listening to what they have to say. I do it 
as a doctor as well as a Senator, but people there know me as a doctor 
because I practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, taking care of 
families from all around the State. So it is not surprising that in 
every town I visit, people ask me what is happening with regard to the 
President's health care law.
  People around Wyoming continue to be very worried--worried that there 
is going to be a new layer of Washington between them and their doctor. 
People don't want anyone between them and their doctor, not an 
insurance company bureaucrat, not a Washington bureaucrat. So families 
are worried they are not going to be able to keep the insurance they 
have now and maybe insurance that works pretty well for them--insurance 
they like, they want, and they can afford. But they are concerned they 
are not going to be able to keep what they have.

[[Page S2486]]

  Employers are also worried. They are worried they are not going to be 
able to afford the health care mandates under the President's health 
care law.
  That is what I heard as I traveled around the State. I will be back 
in Wyoming again this weekend, traveling to a number of communities, 
and I expect I will hear the same thing this weekend. I am sure Members 
of the Senate have heard concerns similar to this from people all 
around their home State, as they visited around and listened to the 
voters over the last couple weeks.
  While we were out hearing from folks and families back home, there 
has actually been a lot in the national news the last couple weeks 
making the very same points I was hearing in Wyoming, and that is what 
I wish to talk about today.
  We have had one headline after another about the dangerous side 
effects of the health care law. For one thing, employers in Wyoming 
aren't the only ones who are worried about how much the law is going to 
cost, how it is going to have an impact on them and their businesses 
and their ability to hire more people.
  According to a news survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
health care law's expensive new mandates are now the No. 1 concern of 
small businesses across the country. Seventy-one percent of small 
businesses say the law makes it harder for them to hire new workers. 
One-third say they plan to actually reduce hiring or cut back hours 
because of the employer insurance mandate. Twenty-two million Americans 
are out of work or are working less than they would like, and that is 
what we saw in the dismal jobs report just this last Friday.
  You say, why is that? The Federal Reserve's Beige Book came out last 
month, and companies all around the country are saying: We are not 
going to hire because of the uncertainties and mandates in the 
President's health care law.
  The recession ended 4 years ago, but the only way our economy is 
going to get back on track is if we free the private sector to start 
hiring in far greater numbers than they are willing to do right now. 
But the President's No. 1 signature accomplishment, his law, makes it 
actually harder for businesses to hire more people. One would expect 
the President would want to make laws that would make it easier for 
employers to hire more people.
  There was another headline on how the President's health care law is 
hurting small businesses. Here is what the New York Times says: ``Small 
Firms' Offer of Plan Choices Under Health Law Delayed.''
  What they are talking about is the promise the President made that 
his health care law would help small businesses find affordable health 
care plans. Of course, that is a desirable goal. The problem is the law 
doesn't bring out what the goals may have been. The law was supposed to 
create a new insurance market for small employers. That is what they 
are promised. Their workers would then have a variety of choices so 
they could pick the plan that worked best for them.
  The New York Times article says:

       The promise of affordable health insurance for small 
     businesses was portrayed as a major advantage of the new 
     health care law, mentioned often by White House officials and 
     Democratic leaders in Congress. . . .

  That is what the New York Times says that the President of the United 
States was telling the American people:

       The promise of affordable health insurance for small 
     businesses was portrayed as a major advantage of the new 
     health care law, mentioned often by White House officials and 
     Democratic leaders in Congress. . . .

  So what is going on? The administration admits things haven't worked 
out the way they had promised.
  They can't meet the law's deadline, so it is going to delay the 
entire program for a full year to 2015. Of course, the Obama 
administration says it will not delay the mandate until 2015. So you 
have to provide the health insurance now, in 2014, but: Sorry. We made 
some promises, but they are not going to happen until 2015. You still 
have to pay right now and do this.
  So small businesses are going to get hit with the higher costs of 
providing the insurance, but they don't get the program that was 
supposed to help them in the first place--the program promised by the 
Democrats in this body who voted for it and promised by the President 
of the United States who in many ways went on to deliberately deceive 
and mislead the American people as a result of what we are now finding 
is in the health care law. I am happy to see the national press 
reporting it because we are sure hearing it from people around the 
country.
  What we see now is that if a business wants to offer its workers 
insurance through an exchange, it has to pick one plan for all the 
people. The workers are going to get none of the choices they were 
promised. According to Washington and this administration and this 
President, now one size has to fit all.
  Even in a business where the employees now currently have several 
choices, they are going to lose their options. They are not going to be 
able to pick the insurance plan that is right for them and for their 
families. That is what is happening to Zachary Davis.
  Zachary Davis owns a couple ice cream shops and a restaurant in Santa 
Cruz, CA. He has 20 full-time workers and today he offers them health 
insurance.
  Isn't that the goal? Workers--offer them health insurance. These 
workers range in age from college students to seniors, so they have 
different needs at different ages, different fears, different concerns, 
different needs. What the younger ones prefer are lower premiums and 
then higher out-of-pocket costs if they happen to get sick. That is 
because they are healthy and they do not really go to see a doctor very 
often. The older workers who work in the same company visit doctors 
more frequently, as would be expected, so they are more interested in a 
position where their policies maybe have higher premiums but lower 
deductibles. People want to make choices.
  Right now the employees who work for Zachary have actually three 
different plans that fit their needs. They get to choose. But what 
Zachary Davis has told CNN is that limiting his workers to a single 
plan would be a deal breaker and it would keep him out of the 
exchanges. He said:

       That would not be a good fit for us. For a business like 
     ours--and a lot of businesses I deal with on a regular 
     basis--I can't see that making sense.

  He is right. It doesn't make a lot of sense. But that is what 
President Obama's health care law has given the American people--
something that doesn't make sense and another broken promise, another 
hurdle to get in the way of job creators, another failure of the 
Washington bureaucracy, and another burden on workers who like the 
insurance they had before and now are not going to be able to keep it.
  During the 2 weeks we have been traveling our States and traveling 
the country, there has been headline after headline. Here is one more 
headline from an Associated Press story. This headline says: ``Health 
Overhaul to Raise Claim Cost 32 percent.'' That is a 32-percent average 
increase in claim costs. This is a new report by the Society of 
Actuaries.
  The Wyoming Tribune Eagle in Cheyenne--this is Wednesday, 27, 2013: 
``Health Overhaul Bumps Up Claim Cost 32 Percent. And If Insurance 
Companies Have To Pay More, You Can Bet We Will, Too.''
  ``And If Insurance Companies Have To Pay More, You Can Bet We Will, 
Too.''
  On average, insurance companies will have to pay out 32 percent more 
for medical claims on individual health policies because of the health 
care law, so that is going to drive up premiums for all of us. It 
drives up how much hard-working Americans have to pay to get medical 
care and to buy insurance. Why? The President's health care law.
  Here is how the Associated Press summarized it. It said:

       Obama has promised that the new law will bring down costs. 
     That seems a stretch now.

  This is not me, this is the Associated Press: ``That seems a stretch 
now.'' I would say it is actually an understatement. Costs will not go 
down because of the health care law because the law does nothing to 
help costs go down or make them go down. In fact, it does many things 
that actually cause costs to go up. All of the mandates, all of the new 
expenses, all of the new taxes--that is all going to add to the average 
increase of 32 percent. But that is just

[[Page S2487]]

the average. When we look at the increases in some States, we really 
start to see how much worse off a lot of people are going to be. In 
Ohio, we see an increase of 81 percent; in Wisconsin, up 80 percent; 
Indiana, up 68 percent; right next door to us in Maryland, up 67 
percent; Idaho, up 62 percent. In my own State of Wyoming, people are 
facing a 32-percent increase. It is right at the national average.
  This article in the newspaper, when you go to it, it says, ``Overhaul 
increases could top 50 percent for certain States.'' Here we see in 
many States that is the case. They have a list, State by State, of each 
of the State's claims--change in claims cost in health overhaul. That 
is what the American people are facing. These are terrible numbers, but 
they are absolutely predictable. In fact, some of us did predict that 
is what would actually happen. The American people cannot afford for 
health care costs to go up by 81 percent, as we are seeing in Ohio, or 
even by 32 percent, which is the national average. That is not what the 
President promised.
  Finally, I want to point out just one more headline, one more broken 
promise the President made. We all remember when the President said 
that if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it. He said, ``No 
one will be able to take that away from you.'' The President of the 
United States said, ``No one will be able to take that away from you.''
  Now we have another story from CNN. It says, ``Most Individual Health 
Insurance Isn't Good Enough For ObamaCare.'' This article talks about a 
University of Chicago study--talking about Chicago, the President's 
hometown. The study reported--from CNN--the University of Chicago 
reported that more than half of the individual insurance plans 
currently on the market will not be allowed to exist under the 
President's health care law--more than half. Fifteen million Americans 
buy individual plans, and half of those plans are going away. Even if 
these people like their coverage, the President says: Too bad. His 
health care law is taking it away from them.
  Not only will the law eliminate more than half of the plans, most of 
the ones that remain are going to cost more next year. Why? It is 
because of what the administration calls the essential health benefits. 
These are specific individual mandates that require insurance plans to 
cover a wide range of services. For most consumers, it is going to mean 
a more extensive and a longer list of benefits. These higher benefits, 
of course, mean higher costs.
  So people cannot just get the insurance that they and their family 
want, the insurance that is right for them as a family and the 
insurance that they can afford. No. They have to buy Obama 
administration-approved health insurance. That is insurance that is 
going to be much more expensive than what they might want, they might 
need, or they can afford. It may not even do them any good. So despite 
what the President has promised to the American people, they are not 
going to be able to keep the insurance they have. The options that are 
left to them are going to cost more.
  These are just a few of the headlines--a few of the headlines we have 
seen just since we went out a couple of weeks ago and traveled the 
States. These are all fresh, new headlines from the last 2 weeks, but 
every day we get more and more information about the bad side effects 
of this terrible health care law. The President's health care law is 
unraveling before our eyes.
  The American people knew what they wanted from health care reform. 
They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose, at lower 
cost. That is what the President promised the American people they 
would get from his health care law, but all the people of the country 
have seen are rising costs, less choice, and a larger Washington 
bureaucracy.
  It is time for President Obama to finally admit that his health care 
law is dragging down the American economy. It is time for Congress to 
repeal this terrible law and replace it with the kind of reform that 
works.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the 
President's budget, which we understand will be released tomorrow. The 
budget comes out at a time when there is a lot of economic news 
floating around. The jobs report came out last week and indicated that 
job growth had been much slower than expected. There were about 190,000 
jobs that were expected to be created, but there were only 88,000 jobs 
created, according to that report.
  Although the unemployment dropped a little to 7.6 percent--if we 
factor in the number of people who had quit looking for jobs, which was 
half a million people--we had a labor participation rate which is 
literally the lowest since 1979. We have to go back to Jimmy Carter's 
Presidency to find a time when the labor participation rate hit that 
low number where 63.3 percent of the people who are eligible to work 
are actually out looking for work. There a lot of people who have 
completely quit looking.
  We also looked at the U-6 number, which measures employment in a 
different way. It adds in the number of people who are no longer 
looking for work or who are working part time but would like to work 
full time. The unemployment rate for that is about 13.8 percent. This 
is a very sluggish, weak economy, where there are a large number of 
people across this country who continue to be unemployed, who continue 
to try and make their way without the advantage of having a job out 
there to pay their bills.
  It strikes me that as the President releases his budget, the 
fundamental question which should be asked in the context of the 
economic data I have just mentioned is what will his budget do to 
create jobs, grow the economy, and increase the take-home pay for 
middle-class Americans. To me, that seems to be the question we ought 
to use as we evaluate not only the President's budget but other budget 
proposals that have been made here in the last few weeks.
  When I say other budget proposals, of course, the House and Senate 
have both adopted budgets. The House passed their budget. They have 
passed their budget every year on time. The Senate, for the first time 
in 4 years, actually adopted a budget a couple weeks ago, and tomorrow 
we will finally have the President's budget, which, interestingly 
enough, was due on February 4. We were supposed to get the President's 
budget February 4. Typically, his budget would kick off the debate on 
the budget. It would be the starting point on which the two Houses of 
Congress--the House and Senate--base their budgets and gives them a 
little information as they move forward, but this is completely in 
reverse.
  In fact, I think this is the latest the President has released his 
budget since about 1920. We have to go back almost 100 years to find a 
time when the President has released his budget at a later date than he 
did this year. So his budget comes after the fact. That being said, I 
hope when it does become public and we begin to dig into it a little 
bit and look at what is in it, we will have a more definitive answer to 
the questions: What are we going to do to create jobs? What are we 
going to do to grow the economy? What are we going to do to increase 
the take-home pay of working Americans? To me, that is fundamentally 
what we ought to be focused on in light of the very abysmal jobs report 
from last week.
  What we are hearing about it--and again we will not know the final 
details until we see this tomorrow--is it is going to consist of a huge 
new tax increase. It will be another $1 trillion tax increase on top of 
the $1.7 trillion in tax increases that the President has already 
signed into law. If we go back to ObamaCare--the health care bill that 
passed a few years ago--it included $1 trillion in new taxes. We had 
the fiscal cliff deal, reached on January 1 of this year, which had 
$620 billion in new taxes. If we take ObamaCare, the fiscal cliff deal, 
and then add in some other taxes that have been imposed since the 
President took office, we are now over $1.7 trillion in new taxes and 
new revenue.

[[Page S2488]]

  So when the word came out that the President's budget was going to 
include another $1 trillion in new taxes on top of the $1.7 trillion 
already mentioned, we need to ask the questions: At what point does 
this do serious harm to the economy? At what point do we get to that 
juncture where we have so much burden, so many new taxes and new 
regulations imposed upon our economy, that it becomes increasingly 
difficult, if not impossible, to create jobs and get the economy 
growing at a faster rate. In fact, what we are hearing, at least at 
this point, is that we have $1 trillion in new taxes, which means 
overall we would have a $600 billion number in terms of deficit 
reduction.
  We have been told the President's budget replaces the sequester, 
which had $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. If there is just $600 billion 
in deficit reduction, what that essentially means is that all the 
deficit reduction is in the form of higher taxes. We have $1 trillion 
in new taxes, $600 billion in deficit reduction, and we are completely 
replacing the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that is currently in 
effect, unless, of course, as is proposed in the President's budget, at 
least we are told is proposed in the President's budget is going to be 
replaced.
  My point simply is this: In this country, we have a sluggish economy, 
chronic high unemployment, massive amounts of debt, all of which can 
be, if not entirely, at least partially cured and fixed by a more 
robust, more expansive and growing economy, growing at a more historic 
rate. The economic growth we have seen since this President took 
office, the average is .8 percent--eight-tenths of 1 percent is the 
average economic growth in 4 years since the President has been in 
office.
  The historic average over the past 60 years is about 3.3 percent, and 
that includes 11 recessions. We have been through 11 recessions in the 
last 60 years, and still we have an average growth rate of 3.3 percent. 
It is not terribly robust, but on average at least it is good enough to 
keep the economy chugging along, to keep throwing enough jobs out there 
to keep a majority--or at least keep the unemployment rate at a 
reasonable level and keep Americans employed. Yet in the last 4 years 
the average is .8 percent.
  Last year, we looked at 1.5 percent to 2 percent, in that 
neighborhood, but the fact is, until we start growing at a faster rate, 
we will be plagued by chronic high unemployment and we will continue to 
have these massive deficits year over year. As we all know, when we 
have a growing and expanding economy, people are working, investing, 
making money, and paying taxes. When the economy is growing, we get 
more tax revenue, and that makes the fiscal imbalances look smaller by 
comparison as well.
  The real objective we ought to have in front of us if we want to deal 
with the fiscal imbalance and if we want to deal with the sluggish 
economy out there is policies that will promote economic growth, 
policies that make it less expensive and less difficult for people in 
this country to create jobs. We should not add more taxes, not add more 
costs in the form of new regulations, not impose more burdens on the 
economy but unleash the economy and allow it to grow and allow people 
in the economy to create jobs.
  There are a number of reasons why that cannot happen. As I said, we 
have $1.7 trillion in new taxes that have been put on the economy since 
the President took office. His budget, as we are told, is going to 
include another $1 trillion in new taxes. We have new health care 
mandates that businesses--small businesses, large businesses, 
businesses of all sizes--are reacting to. It is something I hear more 
about now when I travel my State than almost anything else.
  When we talk to people who create the jobs, there is uncertainty 
about how this is going to be implemented. There are lots of delays in 
terms of its implementation. We are looking at significant increases in 
premiums across many different age groups.
  We heard the Senator from Wyoming, who was down here earlier, talking 
about the impacts of health care and what it will mean to the economy, 
what it will mean to people who buy their health insurance in the 
individual marketplace, people who acquire it through their employer. 
Obviously, there are people who might be forced into exchanges. There 
is just a tremendous cloud of uncertainty which hangs over our economy 
right now. Much of it is due to government policy generated in 
Washington, DC. Many of those policies come back to the budget. What is 
the vision we have for the future of this country?
  The budget is a vision statement, as has been stated by Vice 
President Biden in the past. It sort of lays out a policy framework for 
the two parties and their respective ideas about how to grow the 
American economy, how to get people back to work, how to improve the 
standard of living and the quality of life and the take-home pay for 
middle-class Americans. Again, that is what I would argue the budget 
discussion we have should be focused on.
  It strikes me as somewhat unusual and ironic that the President, 
after getting $1.7 trillion in new taxes since he took office, would 
submit a budget that is several months late, filled with new tax 
increases, and would put even more burdens on an already fragile 
economy. Yet that is what we are hearing is going to be in his budget.
  There are some other things which I would hope he will include in 
that budget. We are told he is going to propose a modest and what I 
think is a bipartisan entitlement reform known as chained CPI that 
would change the calculation in some ways and would be more reflective 
of cost and the economy when it comes to calculating benefits for 
certain programs. But it is a small change in terms of what the 
dimensions of the problem are.
  In fact, if we are going to do anything serious and meaningful to 
deal with the runaway spending and debt, we have to--in a structural 
way--reform these programs on the mandatory side of the budget that are 
growing at two to three times the rate of inflation and are 
unsustainable.
  If we look at what drives Federal spending today, it is mandatory 
spending, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--programs that are 
sort of on autopilot, if you will, in the Federal budget that today 
represent somewhere on the order of about three-fifths of all Federal 
spending. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, 10 years 
from now it will represent 91 percent of Federal spending if we 
continue on the path we are on today. That is completely unsustainable. 
That means we have 9 percent of all Federal revenue available to fund 
national security, fund nondefense discretionary spending, and to pay 
interest on the debt. That is a future we cannot comprehend.
  I think what it points out is we need to deal with these programs in 
a way that reforms them, that saves them, that protects them not only 
for generations of Americans today who depend upon them but also for 
future generations of Americans. On the current trajectory, on the 
current path, we simply cannot do that, and we have to make changes and 
reform these programs.
  So it would seem the President, in his budget, would contemplate what 
he might do, proposals he might make to address that. Again, we will 
not know for sure until we see it tomorrow, but my understanding is 
there will be very little in terms of consequential, meaningful change, 
meaningful reforms and restructuring of programs that will actually get 
us on a more sustainable fiscal path.
  I have to say the connection when we talk about policies--and I could 
go into a lot of different policy areas that I think drive up the cost 
of doing business in this country, one of which I already mentioned; 
that is, the new health care entitlement program that imposes lots of 
new requirements and mandates on employers as well as on individuals 
and is filled with $1 trillion in new taxes. But there are other areas 
of our economy as well.
  If we look at the power of energy in this country and what it could 
do to unleash jobs to help get our economy growing at a faster rate, we 
see we have enormous opportunity out there in that sector of our 
economy.
  We obviously have enormous opportunity if we are willing to take on 
our Tax Code. Our Tax Code is enormously complicated, complex beyond 
the comprehension of most Americans, which is why in many cases they 
have to turn it over to a professional tax preparer. But I believe it 
is fair to say if we could reform our Tax Code in a way

[[Page S2489]]

that broadens that base and does away with a lot of the loopholes and 
the special interest provisions--the exclusions, deductions, et cetera, 
in the Tax Code today--broadens that tax base, lowers the rates--we 
could unleash a period of economic growth unlike anything we have seen 
in a long period of time.
  If we go back to the last time this was done in 1986, we know we saw 
a long period of economic growth because people--there was a lot of 
pent-up uncertainty and there is today, I might add, as well--and there 
is a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines that could be deployed and 
a lot of jobs, frankly, and opportunities we are losing to global 
competitors because our tax rates are, frankly, just not competitive in 
the global marketplace.
  So I would argue that reforming our Tax Code would be enormously 
helpful if we are serious about growing the economy and creating jobs. 
That too is an area where I hope the President will engage. So far we 
have not heard from him on that except to say in terms of the corporate 
tax rate he would be willing to work with us on tax reform that would 
be deficit neutral. But if we look at what is coming out of his 
administration, these proposals, and the budget we will see tomorrow, 
most of it involves raising taxes--closing loopholes, perhaps, but 
doing it to generate new revenue to fund new Federal spending, not to 
reduce rates and to generate economic growth. Economic growth ought to 
be the goal in tax reform. It ought to be progrowth tax reform, and it 
would take us a long way toward that goal of getting this economy back 
on track and unleashing the economic growth we all want to see.
  But I have to say it is also important, if we are going to get the 
economy growing again, that we get Federal spending under control. 
There is a lot of research out there, a lot of study that has been done 
that has looked at the relationship between high levels of debt as a 
percentage of our economy, GDP, and high levels of spending as a 
percentage of our GDP and how that impacts or translates into economic 
growth and jobs. The studies suggest that when our debt to GDP reaches 
a certain level--and ours exceeds that by 90 percent according to one 
of the studies--that it costs 1 point to 1.5 points of economic growth 
every single year. In this country that is about 1 million jobs. So as 
long as we continue to have a debt to GDP that exceeds 90 percent--ours 
is now about 104, 105 percent of GDP--we are in dangerous territory 
when it comes to the fragile nature of our economy and what it means to 
our ability to grow in the long term as we project out into the future.
  If we look at many of the European nations that are strangled with 
high debtloads right now, a tremendous amount of leverage, we can see 
what is happening in their economies. How have they tried to cure that 
in most cases? They try to raise taxes, which makes the problem even 
worse because that slows economic growth.
  So what we need to be looking at in terms of a budget is one that 
takes on what is driving Federal spending over the long term--the 
mandatory part of the budget--reforms and restructures programs in a 
way that saves and protects them; that doesn't in any way impact people 
who are drawing benefits today but makes those programs more 
sustainable for future generations of Americans. We need a budget that 
brings the debt-to-GDP and the spending-to-GDP levels down to a more 
historic norm that are consistent with what we have seen over our 
Nation's history as opposed to what we are looking at today, which are 
extraordinarily high levels of debt and extraordinarily high levels of 
spending as a percentage of GDP.
  We ought to think about what we can be doing in terms of reforming 
the Tax Code and streamlining regulations to lessen the burden and the 
tremendous weight we put on our small businesses and our job creators.
  Those are the types of things we ought to be looking at in terms of 
policy. That is what the budget ought to be focused on, getting 
spending under control, getting it back down to a more reasonable level 
and a more historic norm. But until we do that, my fear is we are going 
to continue to see chronic unemployment, a lot of people leaving the 
workforce, and labor participation rates that are at historic lows. We 
are going to continue to see a sluggish economy that continues to 
stumble along at 1.5, 2 percent annual growth. We are going to continue 
to see take-home pay levels go down for ordinary, working-class, 
middle-class Americans who are out there trying to pay their bills, 
trying to take care of their everyday expenses and perhaps put a little 
bit aside for their retirement or for their children's education. Those 
are hard decisions that Americans are making at their kitchen tables 
every single day. These are kitchen table issues; they are pocketbook 
issues. They are the kinds of decisions that American families have to 
contend with. They don't have the luxury the Federal Government has of 
being able to go out and borrow.

  Of course, today, of every dollar we spend in Washington, DC, 40 
cents is borrowed. So we continue to borrow like there is no tomorrow. 
We continue to pile up massive amounts of debt, put it on the backs of 
our children and grandchildren, hand them the bill or the credit card 
overcharges we are making today. That is wrong. It is inconsistent with 
everything that has made this Nation great. Part of our Nation's 
heritage is we have been a country that has understood the idea that 
one generation sacrifices so the next generation can have a higher 
standard of living and a better quality of life. That is something that 
is very true in my part of the country in the Midwest, in South Dakota.
  My grandfather and great uncle are among those who came in 1906, 
didn't speak English, learned the language, worked hard building a 
railroad, and later were able to save enough money to buy a small 
merchandising store and continued in their pursuit of the American 
dream.
  That is what I think has characterized generations of Americans like 
them since, up until today. Today we are at a point in American history 
where if we don't get our fiscal house in order, if we don't deal with 
these imbalances that have gone on now for decades, we are going to 
relegate, if you will, future generations of Americans--our kids and 
grandkids--to a lower standard of living and a lower quality of life 
than what we have enjoyed.
  That is why the President's budget, as much as it is late, is so 
important, because it really does set that tone. It really does tell us 
what that vision for the future of this country is. If we don't have a 
leader in the White House who can lay out in a systematic way what he 
wants to do to address the economic data--the statistics I mentioned 
earlier, the high unemployment, the underemployment--we consistently 
see these economic numbers come out from one month to the next. When 
there is a little improvement, we get all excited about that, and the 
next month it takes another tumble.
  We find more and more people who are just leaving the workforce, and 
the labor participation rate is at a historically low level since 1979, 
and we haven't seen it down 63.3 percent, which is what it was for the 
month of March. If we are going to do something about that, we are 
going to have to have people who are going to demonstrate the political 
courage that is necessary to confront these big challenges and big 
decisions, and that means people in the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives. But awfully important to all of this is the President 
of the United States.
  There is only one person in this country, among 307 billion 
Americans, who can sign a bill into law. There is only one person in 
this country who has the bully pulpit and the capability to rally 
people in the Congress and people around the country as well as around 
great causes. I can't think of a greater cause today than doing 
something to deal with runaway spending and a debt that is hurting our 
economy, that is enslaving future generations of Americans to a lower 
standard of living and a lower quality of life.
  Those are issues that need to be addressed. The President's budget 
tomorrow could go a long way toward addressing that. I am afraid it is 
going to be a missed opportunity if what we hear about it is actually 
true. We hear it doesn't address the long-term drivers of spending and 
debt, it raises taxes $1 trillion, and it does $600 billion of deficit 
reduction but all in the form of higher taxes. That is not going to 
solve

[[Page S2490]]

our problem. We cannot raise taxes enough to deal with what plagues our 
country in terms of our fiscal imbalances. What plagues us is the fact 
that we spend too much, not that we tax too little; that we have a slow 
rate of growth in our economy, so slow we are not generating the number 
of jobs and the amount of investment that will get the economy growing 
and taking off again, but also improve the fiscal picture for our 
country's future.
  So I hope I am wrong about this. We will see tomorrow if everybody 
will be pleasantly surprised and the President will take on the big 
issues and do away with more taxes and more spending and more 
regulations and more costs for businesses that are trying to create 
jobs. But I think that would be the triumph of hope over experience. So 
far what we have seen out of this administration is that very formula: 
more spending, more taxes, more cost to small businesses to create 
jobs, and higher cost from regulations. They have been consistent on 
that. That is not the way to get the economy growing and expanding 
again.
  We believe we ought to be not growing the government but growing the 
economy. Frankly, if all of us in the Senate looked at every bill that 
comes before us in terms of what will it do to create jobs, what will 
it do to grow the economy, what will it do to increase the take-home 
pay for middle-class Americans, we would probably get a lot higher 
quality legislation, legislation that produces solutions for the 
American people, which is something we are not doing today.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, earlier today I met with families from 
Newtown, CT, to discuss the legislation we are currently debating. It 
is obviously very emotional and not an easy meeting to have, but it is 
a very necessary meeting to have. When there are parents of children 
who were murdered, or from the families of teachers who were murdered, 
it is difficult for everybody.
  I wish to thank them for sharing their stories of loved ones and 
their concerns with me. I hope many of my colleagues would consider 
meeting with these families as well. We are debating legislation they 
are supporting.
  In my State of Iowa, there is a great difference of opinion on the 
particular legislation we might be considering. I think it is something 
very worthwhile to sense firsthand the emotion of these discussions. At 
the meeting, they called for debate on the legislation. Currently we 
are in the process of debate.
  We most likely will move forward on this legislation. Under new 
procedures available under Senate Resolution 15, the majority leader 
may move to proceed on a measure and to vote on some amendments.
  A vote against the motion to proceed does not cut off debate or votes 
on amendments under the new procedures in the United States Senate.
  Nonetheless, we are in the unusual position of being asked to take a 
leap into the unknown.
  We are being asked to vote to proceed to an uncertain bill.
  That bill is not even the bill that we would likely consider if the 
motion to proceed were successful. The language on background checks 
would change. Remarkably, if the language changed, it would be replaced 
with language that does not now exist.
  The world's greatest deliberative body should not operate in this 
fashion.
  In the Judiciary Committee, four bills were considered separately. 
There was no consensus. Three of them have now been combined. But they 
are not ready for consideration. At the time, the sponsor of the 
background check bill said it was not ready. There are numerous 
problems with that bill.
  Movement of firearms from one law-abiding citizen to another would be 
legal or illegal based on arbitrary distinctions that citizens could 
not be expected to know. This is true even though when this language 
was the subject of a hearing in a previous Congress, a witness pointed 
out the problems. But no changes have been made to address those 
issues.
  Even an official with the ACLU says that criminal laws should give 
more guidance to citizens.
  The bill operates in a way that would make gun safety efforts more 
difficult. That does not make any sense.
  The bill requires recordkeeping for private sales. That is a step 
toward gun registration. Indeed, we heard testimony in the Judiciary 
Committee that ``universal'' background checks cannot be effective 
without gun registration. And the ACLU official is right to be 
concerned about the threat to privacy that the background check 
language presents. He notes that the government would possess 
information concerning gun owners that it would not be required to 
destroy within 24 hours, as it must for current background checks.
  He also points out that the bill contains none of the restrictions in 
current law that prevent other parts of the government from using the 
database for purposes beyond why the information was supposedly 
obtained.
  The background check provision is also not ready for consideration 
because of the new Federal felony that it creates.
  If a law-abiding gun owner's gun is lost or stolen, he or she would 
be required to report that to both the attorney general and appropriate 
local officials within 24 hours.
  At the markup, I asked a number of questions of the bill's sponsor 
about how the offense would work. For instance, who would pay for the 
additional law enforcement personnel who would take those calls? What 
would a citizen's legal obligation be if the gun were misplaced rather 
than lost? What would determine when the loss occurred that started the 
24-hour period?
  The sponsor said that these issues would be clarified. So far, 
however, they have not been. So law-abiding citizens will not know 
whether they are acting in compliance with the law or face a 5-year 
jail sentence.
  The issues have not been clarified, but we are being asked to proceed 
to the bill anyway.
  This new offense criminalizes inaction. That is a grave threat to 
freedom.
  Except for filing tax returns or registering for the draft, we punish 
bad actions. We do not punish inaction. This new crime punishes failure 
to act. And it only applies to those who lawfully own their guns. A 
criminal whose gun is stolen is not required to report that fact. With 
this offense, law-abiding citizens can be turned into felons, but 
felons cannot commit a crime.
  Under this new offense, law-abiding citizens might be looking at 5 
years in jail for doing nothing. And all that is necessary for the gun 
to be subject to the reporting requirement is that the gun once moved 
in interstate commerce.
  The Supreme Court has outlined three categories of situations in 
which Congress can rely on the Commerce Clause. This is not one of 
them. If Congress can do this, it can make people take all sorts of 
action simply because they owned a product that once moved in 
interstate commerce--Like bread or soap.
  And they can face jail time if they do not do what Congress demands 
that they do. Even the individual mandate from Obamacare only 
established a penalty, not a prison sentence. I do not think 90% of 
Americans would support this universal background check bill if they 
read it.
  The motion to proceed also goes to a bill that contains language on 
straw purchasing and gun trafficking. I voted to report that bill to 
the Senate floor.
  Many changes were made to that bill at my behest. An amendment of 
mine was adopted. At the time I expressed concerns. I spoke of my 
desire to have those concerns worked out before the bill went to the 
floor. I said I would not necessarily support that bill on the floor if 
those concerns were not responded to. They have not been addressed so 
far. And those provisions were tied to the ever-changing background 
check provisions.
  The whole process makes me wonder whether the efforts to pass a bill 
on this subject really are serious. It seems that if a half-baked bill 
is brought up, the majority can be sure that they can force Republicans 
not to agree to proceed to it. It seems like that may be

[[Page S2491]]

just what they want to happen. If so, that is a very cynical way to 
treat a very serious issue.
  How can we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains language that 
even its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration?
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am back again to speak about 
carbon and climate and to remind my colleagues that it is long past 
time for us to wake up and to address the causes and consequences of 
global climate change. Carbon pollution is changing our world, and it 
is time that our national policies reflect the reality of that changing 
climate. We cannot pretend the change is not going to happen when it is 
actually already happening all around us.
  Air and ocean temperatures are increasing, the sea level is rising, 
oceans are growing more acidic, seasons are shifting, and extreme 
events such as heat waves or powerful storms are becoming both more 
frequent and more intense. Well-established science tells us these 
changes are caused by carbon pollution in our atmosphere, mostly from 
burning fossil fuels. These changes to our planet will continue and 
likely accelerate, and the consequences will be dire. We had better be 
aware and prepared. Sometimes even little changes can have big effects.

  For example, take the winter flounder in the waters of Narragansett 
Bay in my home State of Rhode Island. I am sure the Presiding Officer's 
home State has winter flounder as well. Many of our colleagues will not 
give a hoot about the winter flounder, but Congress always tends to 
care a lot about money, and the winter flounder has historically been a 
very popular and lucrative catch for Rhode Island fishermen.
  In the 1980s, commercial landings of winter flounder averaged more 
than 2,500 metric tons per year, and as recently as 1989 it was still 
over 1,000 metric tons. Trawlers were a common sight on the bay in the 
winter and fishermen prospered. The most recent data from 2009 for the 
commercial landing of winter flounder is down to about 150 metric tons. 
It went from 2,500 metric tons down to 150, and today trawlers in the 
bay are a rare sight.
  Narragansett Bay waters are getting warmer--4 degrees Fahrenheit 
warmer in the winter since the 1960s. Spring is coming earlier, and 
that is not good for the winter flounder. NOAA scientists working in 
Rhode Island found that winter flounder that incubated in warmer water 
are smaller when they hatch than those that incubated in colder water. 
Smaller juveniles are easier prey when predators return with the warmer 
spring water.
  The juvenile winter flounder used to have time to settle to the 
bottom of the bay and grow larger before the abundant bottom feeders, 
such as the sand shrimp, were present. Now warmer water brings the 
shrimp in earlier while the flounder is still small enough to eat. So 
warmer waters load the dice against winter flounder in the Narragansett 
Bay, and the fishermen who relied upon them pay the price. They pay a 
real price.
  These changes to Rhode Island are not unique to Rhode Island. We can 
find examples all over the country. The Pacific Coast has ocean 
acidification--driven by the higher levels of carbon dioxide in the 
water--which is killing off baby oysters as they try to form their 
shells in the acidified water. Again, I don't know how many colleagues 
care about baby oysters, but oyster farming is a serious cash crop on 
the Pacific Coast. An oyster hatchery in Oregon has seen 70- to 80-
percent losses of its oyster larvae due to the acidic waters washing in 
from the sea.
  It is not just the oceans and coasts that are affected. In our 
Heartland, rivers and forests are facing the changes coming with the 
warming climate. The water hyacinth is an invasive species spreading 
rapidly across the Southern United States, blocking waterways and 
choking native species.
  The water hyacinth has been called the world's worst aquatic weed. 
The pest renders a body of water unsuitable for most other plants and 
animals, drains water from the drinking and irrigation supply, and can 
clog pumping stations and hydropower infrastructures, costing local 
economies millions of dollars. Water hyacinths cannot survive a winter 
freezing, but as the average temperature warms, this species spreads 
further and further.
  In the Rockies, pine beetles are devastating native forests. The pine 
beetle larvae are killed by hard frosts, and so this kept them in lower 
latitudes and in lower altitudes where the temperature was warmer. With 
global warming and winters that are not so cold, the beetle is 
spreading northward and upward to higher elevations.
  Fly over Idaho or Montana and look down. What was once miles and 
miles of green pine forest is now standing dead on the mountainsides. 
These forests provided timber, hunting, clear streams, and an entire 
forest environment for birds and animals. It doesn't look like they are 
ever coming back.
  Winter flounder, baby oysters, water hyacinth, pine beetles, these 
species pinpoint just a few of the many changes scientists are 
observing in nearly every corner of our country. Thankfully, we now 
have the beginnings of a blueprint for adapting to these changes.
  Last month, the Obama administration--in partnership with State and 
tribal industries--released its first National Fish, Wildlife and 
Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. It is an attempt to understand and 
head off--or at least prepare for--the changes carbon pollution is 
beginning to wreak on our country's wildlife, plants, coasts, and 
rivers.
  Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, 
called the adaptation plan a ``science-based . . . commonsense, `look-
before-you-leap' strategy [that] emphasizes long term planning and 
management for climate change on a fundamental level.''
  The adaptation strategy stresses that we need research to understand 
the specific effects of climate change on local fish, wildlife, plants, 
and habitat. The faster you are driving, the better your headlights 
need to be, and it is scientific research that provides the headlights 
for us to see what is now coming at us.
  We are past the point of avoiding what is coming at us. The big 
polluters have seen to that. With their lobbyists, their money, and 
their lies, they have prevented us from doing what we should have. Of 
course, Congress shares the blame. This institution prefers listening 
to self-interested polluters than listening to science or the signals 
of nature.
  There is no avoiding it now. The National Wildlife Federation now 
recommends ``managing for change, rather than maintaining status quo 
conditions,'' and urges that ``[f]ederal land and water management 
agencies should explicitly incorporate climate change projections into 
their resource management planning.''
  A coalition of 21 groups--including American Rivers, National Audubon 
Society, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Wilderness Society, 
and the World Wildlife Fund--have urged the Federal Government to 
account for climate change in all relevant programs and activities. 
They called this adaptation strategy ``a landmark . . . strategy for 
making wildlife and ecosystems more resilient to climate impacts.'' 
Clearly, they recognize that climate impacts are inevitable. Indeed, 
they are happening. The question is: How bad are they going to be? How 
much damage will we let the polluters do before we bring them to heel 
and ourselves to our senses?
  The Natural Resources Defense Council echoed a recent Government 
Accountability Office finding that our current adaptation planning is 
inadequate and that this--for those who only care about money--
increases the Federal Government's fiscal exposure to climate change.

  A group of 10 outdoor enthusiasts and sportsmen's groups, led by the 
Wildlife Management Institute, recently urged President Obama ``to 
stand firm on his commitment to develop and implement climate change 
adaptation strategies'' because they know we have to adapt.

[[Page S2492]]

  The alarm has long been sounded by the scientific community which 
overwhelmingly warns about the effects of our carbon dioxide emissions 
on our atmosphere and oceans. Our defense and intelligence communities 
warn of the threats posed by climate change to national security and 
international stability. Economists recognize the market distortion of 
overlooking the costs of carbon pollution.
  Let me say a word of appreciation to former Secretary George Schultz, 
who wrote an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal pointing out 
that this is, indeed, a market distortion that favors polluting fossil 
fuels and gives them an unfair advantage against other forms of energy 
that would do less damage to our planet.
  Of course, government accountants list climate change as a threat to 
our fiscal stability. Even faith leaders appeal to our moral 
responsibility to shield communities--and particularly the poorest 
communities here at home and around the globe--from the devastating 
effects of carbon pollution on God's Earth.
  Now the alarm is sounded by those dedicated to the conservation of 
America's wild spaces and living creatures. They are warning that 
thanks to Congress's neglect, change is coming to our planet locality 
by locality. They are warning that we had better understand and prepare 
for those changes and do what we can to minimize the eventual havoc.
  The American people are not sitting idly by on this. They are 
demanding action. Three-quarters of those recently surveyed by Stanford 
University think the Federal Government should do something to reduce 
the effects of rising sea levels.
  My Newport tidal gauge in my home State in the famous sailing port of 
Newport is up 10 inches since the famous hurricane of 1938. When the 
next big one comes, that 10 inches is going to mean a lot of additional 
damage. Americans believe national preparations for the climate change 
that is around us will more likely help the economy than hurt it, and 
they are right. These changes will help the economy.
  Sixty percent of Americans believe that taking steps now to adapt 
would actually create more jobs while only 13 percent thought it would 
create fewer jobs. Sixty percent as opposed to 13 percent of Americans 
recognize that the real economic strength we will get is by addressing 
this problem, not by ducking it because of the pressure from the carbon 
polluters.
  Americans clearly see the benefits of adapting for climate change. 
Again, for those who only care about money, Americans see the economic 
benefits of addressing climate change.
  I will say once again it is time for us in Congress to wake up. We 
are sleepwalking through history. We are asleep to the urgent demands 
of our time. It is time to wake up and prepare our national strategy to 
protect our Nation's precious resources, protect our coasts and forests 
and plains, protect our animal and plant life, protect our people and 
our communities against the inexorable change that looms.
  I thank the President and yield the floor. I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 32, S. 649, a bill to ensure that all 
     individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm 
     are listed in the national instant criminal background check 
     for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert Menendez, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Barbara Boxer, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Richard J. Durbin, Patty Murray, 
           Jack Reed, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Christopher Murphy, Elizabeth Warren.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum required under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________