[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 65 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3294-S3305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 601, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 601) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for the interest of all Senators, I wanted 
to thank everyone for cooperating with us. We have handled a number of 
amendments, one quite controversial and nongermane, but we dealt with 
it. It is not on this bill, I am happy to say. We are trying to keep 
this bill a water infrastructure bill. There may be a few exceptions, 
but, for the most part, that is what we want because it will increase 
the chances of passage all the way through to get it to the President's 
desk.
  The bill we are dealing with, the Water Resources Development Act, 
was last authorized in 2007. It is high time we did a follow-on bill. 
What we are talking about here is flood protection, projects we need 
all over the country to protect our people from the ravages of floods.
  We need to make sure our ports are operational. I know my friend in 
the chair certainly deals with all these matters in his great and 
beautiful State of Hawaii. We need to make sure our ports are deep 
enough, they have enough funding to stay modernized, and can move that 
cargo in and out with ease. We have environmental restoration. We have 
to take care of all of our water infrastructure.
  I know Senator Merkley is here to say something about the bill, which 
I am very pleased about, so I am going to be very brief. I will talk 
for about 2 more minutes and say we have a great committee, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, when it comes to 
infrastructure. We see eye to eye. We work together. Yes, we have our 
differences, but we can breach those differences.
  This bill is a product of working together. It is a product of 
collaboration--not only in the committee where we work together, but 
even here when it got to the Senate. We have worked, Senator Vitter and 
I, with individual Members to meet all of their needs. There are no 
earmarks in this bill. Whatever we do is setting policy.
  It is an exciting bill. It includes reforms I think are important. 
Most of all, I think the people at home are going to like it because it 
puts them in the driver's seat and protects them from delays and other 
problems as they move forward with projects their people need.
  We have some terrific supporters of this legislation--I will close 
these early remarks--with organizations such as AFL-CIO, the Chamber of 
Commerce, the American Society of Civil Engineers, we have the 
Association of Equipment Manufacturers. We have many. I will show you 
the next chart and name a couple: The Transportation Construction 
Coalition, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, storm management 
agency, surveyors, engineers. I think what you see here is mainstream 
America is behind this bill.
  The bad news is our infrastructure has been rated at a D-plus. You 
can't be the greatest Nation in the world and have an infrastructure 
that is rated D-plus.
  While we have major problems on other fronts in our committee--and I 
have to admit today was not a good day for me, the committee, or the 
American people, when the Republicans boycotted the markup of Gina 
McCarthy to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency after 
she answered more than 1,000 questions. She is the most qualified ever 
to be nominated, having served, how about this, four Republican 
Governors.
  What more do they want? The fact is 70 percent of the American people 
want clean air, want clean water, want safety reform. Gina McCarthy 
deserves a vote, not a boycott. They say they don't like her answers. 
Well, I am not surprised. She is not Mitt Romney's nominee for the EPA, 
she is not Rick Perry's nominee for the EPA, she is Barack Obama's 
nominee for the EPA. It is her position, as it is the President's, that 
we should enforce the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and 
so on.
  When your Republican Presidents put up nominees for the EPA I didn't 
agree with, I didn't filibuster them. I said, okay, I will vote no; let 
them go. It is a sad day for me on the environment side of our 
committee.
  On the public works side of my committee, it is a good day, because 
we are making progress. We have now about a half dozen amendments that 
have been cleared on both sides. We are trying to make them pending. We 
cleared them. We are asking all Senators, please get your amendments in 
because this can't go on forever. We need to pass this bill, as 550,000 
jobs are supported by this legislation. Hundreds and hundreds of 
businesses are looking forward to our doing this. That is why we have 
this amazing array of support.
  With that, I would say to Senator Merkley, the floor is his.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one particular 
aspect of this bill, which is WIFIA. Before I explain what WIFIA is, I 
want to thank the Chair for managing this bill in a very bipartisan 
discussion of the committee. It has come to the floor with full 
committee examination, thorough debate, and amendment process. Here we 
are having a very thorough, visible, accountable process for 
considering this bill on the floor of the Senate. That is a very good 
example of the Senate working well. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MERKLEY. The heart of the WIFIA program is about jobs. It is 
about infrastructure. Five years after the greatest economic crisis in 
80 years, we still face a serious jobs crisis. Too many are out of work 
and too many are unemployed. A good, living-wage job is the most 
important pillar of the American dream. There is no public program that 
can compare to the importance of a living-wage job for the stability 
and success of a family. We have to do more to create those jobs, a lot 
more. Wouldn't it be great if we could both create jobs and fill a 
desperate national need at the same time?
  Well, that is exactly what WIFIA--which is short for Water 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act--does. Low-cost loans for 
water infrastructure projects create good jobs now while protecting our 
communities from devastating costs or public health crises in the 
future. WIFIA does all of this while making taxpayers money over time.
  The need for water infrastructure is great. Across Oregon and across 
America, our infrastructure is aging. That aging infrastructure needs 
to be replaced. Our communities are growing. The demand for water 
infrastructure increases, whether it is water treatment on the front 
end or water treatment on the back end--sending water out to our homes 
and businesses and then treating it after it comes back. Much of our 
infrastructure is approaching the end of its lifespan and needs to be 
replaced.

[[Page S3295]]

  We should recognize that America is behind much of the world in terms 
of investing in infrastructure. That is not only not good for our 
future economy, it is certainly not good for creating jobs. China is 
investing 10 percent of its gross domestic product in infrastructure. 
Europe is investing 5 percent. Here in America, which had a phenomenal 
infrastructure buildup after World War II, we are investing only 2 
percent. That is barely enough to repair the aging infrastructure that 
previous generations so thoughtfully funded, let alone prepare the 
infrastructure to meet the expanding needs of the Nation.
  Infrastructure can be thought of as the bread and butter of success 
of our Nation. Building and maintaining infrastructure is one of the 
most effective ways also to create jobs in the short term. Having 
infrastructure in place is absolutely critical to strong, private 
sector economic growth over the long term.
  It is time to take water infrastructure seriously as a public policy 
challenge. For too long, we have been putting water infrastructure on 
the back burner. We are not investing enough in water infrastructure to 
keep clean, affordable water accessible to all Americans. In fact, we 
are not even coming close. There is a gap, a significant gap, a growing 
gap in the area of water infrastructure needs versus actual funding. If 
we do nothing and stay on the same course, that gap will be $90 billion 
per year by 2040. That is a disaster for our communities. That gap 
would leave municipalities with a terrible decision--allow the 
infrastructure to continue to degrade, which is obviously not a good 
idea, or have to raise utility rates astronomically to pay for long-
neglected improvements.
  Already, we are seeing this kind of lose-lose proposition play out in 
my State in Oregon. Some communities have to set aside their plans 
because they can't afford them: to expand their infrastructure, to 
improve their infrastructure, to replace their infrastructure that is 
aging. Other communities are proceeding to upgrade their infrastructure 
but at costs that are doubling or even quadrupling the cost of water to 
the citizens.
  We need a new way to finance critical water projects. That is why the 
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or WIFIA, that is 
contained in this bill, fills a key missing link in our system. 
Currently Federal funding for water infrastructure and sewage through 
the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 
State Revolving Funds Program is helpful, but many projects do not 
qualify, and we need to expand the amount of funding available.
  Into that gap comes WIFIA, modeled after the very successful 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or TIFIA, so 
we have a proven finance model for infrastructure in transportation. 
Let's take that proven model and apply it to the challenge of our 
communities on water.
  I hold a meeting with our local officials--our city officials and our 
county officials--before each of my townhalls, and I hold a townhall in 
every county every year. There is hardly a meeting with multiple 
officials that goes by that there aren't two or three or four critical 
water project needs discussed. And that was the motivation for having 
this WIFIA Program before us today.
  I applaud my colleague from Oklahoma Senator Inhofe, who has come 
forward and said: Let's not only make this work, but let's lower the 
minimum threshold for projects so we make sure we can get smaller 
communities, more rural communities involved. That was previously 
addressed in the bill by saying that smaller communities could 
aggregate their projects and submit their application, but this was a 
very helpful addition to the conversation, and I appreciate that type 
of bipartisan problem-solving which is evidenced in this bill as it is 
and as in the amendment proposed by my colleague from Oklahoma and 
passed yesterday.
  The reason that funding in this pilot project--and we are talking 
about $50 million a year for 5 years--is effective is because it has a 
huge leverage it can fund because it is guaranteeing loans that rarely 
go bad. The historical default on water and sewer bonds is less than 1 
percent. In fact, it is less than one-tenth of 1 percent. So that $50 
million to cover defaults can be extraordinarily leveraging. The 
communities get the funds they need to complete their projects at the 
lowest interest rates possible, and the American public can sleep 
soundly at night knowing that the treasury funds being invested are 
being invested in a manner that is both prudent and productive.
  This source of financing will allow communities to take on three 
types of projects necessary for safe and reliable water systems: 
repairing the aging infrastructure, upgrading the old systems to modern 
standards, and expanding the projects to meet growth needs.
  Another advantage of this structure of financing is that under WIFIA, 
projects would be selected by a competitive process rather than by 
State-by-State allocations, so we get funds to the greatest need across 
this Nation. We have communities all across Oregon, in every corner of 
our State, that are facing these infrastructure challenges. I know from 
talking with my colleagues that the same is true in States across our 
Nation. And communities that are in good shape now in 5 or 10 years may 
see the challenge of meeting new standards or meeting the growth in 
their communities.
  I would like to talk about another key aspect of our recovery; that 
is, manufacturing. If we don't make things in America, we will not have 
a middle class in America. Our manufacturing sector lost 5 million jobs 
over the last 14 to 15 years. It is starting to make a comeback, but we 
should do more to help create good manufacturing jobs.
  One very simple thing we can do is support ``Buy American'' 
provisions in legislation such as this. We recognize the principle. We 
are using taxpayer dollars to complete a public infrastructure project 
in America, so it only makes sense for American businesses and workers 
to do as much of the work as possible. For that reason I will be filing 
an amendment to this bill to expand the ``Buy American'' provisions for 
our water infrastructure. These two are very much connected. Yes, we 
need to be building infrastructure, but we need to make sure those tax 
dollars build our American economy when the work is being done.
  In closing, let's pass this bill, which has a tremendous amount of 
good in it, and one of those very good points is this water 
infrastructure act--WIFIA--which does support good jobs and good 
infrastructure across America.
  I also wish to mention the great work my science associate Mirvat 
Abdelhaq has done on this bill. We are fortunate as Senators to have 
folks come to work for us for a year or so, bringing their tremendous 
expertise in trying to develop a very important piece of legislation. 
She has been very involved, and I thank her, and I thank the program 
for making this kind of expertise available to our offices.
  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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up as 
pending amendment No. 802.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. If there is objection, I can talk about the amendment 
now. I will talk about the amendment now and then attempt to call up 
the amendment later in the day. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am trying to get pending for the WRDA 
bill would delay the increase in flood insurance rates for people in 
this country who are going to be suffering in unbelievable ways. And I 
am not just speaking of homeowners or business owners but communities 
across America. This isn't a Louisiana issue. It is not a Louisiana-
Texas issue. It is a national issue, as this chart will show.
  These are all the States in the country that have flood insurance 
policies. Starting with Florida, which has the most, there are over 2 
million flood insurance policies in the State of Florida. Texas is 
second with 645,000. Louisiana has 486,000 policies. California, the 
fourth State, has 256,000. New Jersey has 240,000. South Carolina has

[[Page S3296]]

205,000. New York has 178,000. North Carolina has 138,000. Virginia has 
over 100,000. Georgia has close to 100,000. Mississippi has 75,000.
  Time and time again, I have been on this floor, warning about 
affordability problems in the National Flood Insurance Program and 
offering proposals to address this. Despite my advice and objections, 
last summer Congress made a mistake and passed the Biggert-Waters bill 
which contained huge rate flood insurance rate increases for many 
homeowners and businesses.
  Our families and entrepreneurs across the Nation are beginning to see 
the disastrous consequences of that vote now. Some already see their 
premiums rising by 25 percent a year and many more will see these 
changes over the next 2 years. These rates must be stopped until an 
affordability study can be conducted and Congress can react to those 
results.
  FEMA has never done an affordability study--it cannot even quantify 
how strong an impact these exorbitant rates will have on our citizens. 
In the bill last summer, Congress required FEMA to conduct an 
affordability study. Don't you think we should wait for that and know 
if these rate increases are affordable before we start such rapid 
increases? Congress can't possibly have asked FEMA to conduct this 
study and not want to use those results to make an informed decision on 
how best to structure rate changes.
  I can tell you that the 480,000 policy holders in Louisiana are 
already telling me the rates are not affordable. Families and 
businesses in Louisiana are already paying exorbitant rates for flood 
insurance and some could see those rates go up dramatically under these 
proposals. Eliminating grandfathered rates, as the--Biggert-Waters bill 
did, means their property values will plummet.
  If people cannot afford flood insurance policies, they will drop out 
of the program. When future disasters hit, they will be entirely 
dependent on federal aid to help them rebuild.
  I agree that the National Flood Insurance Program needs to be self-
sustaining, but not on the backs of Louisiana families and businesses 
and not on the backs of all 5.5 million policies holders in the 
National Flood Insurance Program. This is not the right way.
  Flood insurance is not just about business and commerce; it is about 
culture; it is about a way of life; it is about preserving coastal 
communities; it is about being resilient in storms. We must make the 
flood insurance program resilient without endangering the financial 
future of our coastal residents.
  This is a very serious issue, and I thank the chair, Senator Boxer, 
who has worked so hard on the underlying WRDA bill, which is so 
important. I also thank those Members who came to the floor last night. 
I understand Senator Menendez gave a very fiery and passionate speech 
about the problem he faces in New Jersey. I thank Senators Schumer, 
Gillibrand, and Lautenberg for cosponsoring this important amendment.
  We want to work with the chairman and the ranking member to pass a 
WRDA bill. There is no State that benefits more from the WRDA bill than 
Louisiana, and I am extremely grateful for her leadership not just on 
this bill but on the RESTORE Act, which she helped shepherd through, 
which has helped the gulf coast in immeasurable ways, and her support 
of the FAIR Act on revenue-sharing, which will help the gulf coast get 
the revenues we need--just as interior States have--to build our own 
levees and not have to be such a drain on the Federal Treasury.
  We can and are willing to do our own work. But the flood insurance 
bill, known as Biggert-Waters, never passed the Senate, and I wish to 
call that fact to Senators' attention. The bill was never brought to 
the Senate floor. The flood insurance bill that is called Biggert-
Waters came out of the Banking Committee with a bipartisan vote--a 
similar bill. That was a House bill, and so a similar bill came out of 
the Senate, but it never came to the Senate floor for a vote. None of 
us ever got to debate it on the floor.
  If you are not on the Banking Committee, wake up because this bill is 
going to affect your State, and if you are not on the Banking 
Committee, please listen to what I am about to say.
  The bill never came to the Senate floor although some of us protested 
that at the time. There are statements in the Record that show the 
protests any number of us made at the time. The bill then sort of went 
dark. The next time it appeared, it was tucked into the Transportation 
bill, which had the RESTORE Act in it and the Biggert-Waters flood 
insurance, which might have passed the House of Representatives--I am 
not sure. Maybe it just came out of the House committee. I am trying to 
get clarification on whether this bill ever was passed by either body, 
and I will get that clarification in a few minutes. But it most 
certainly never came to the Senate floor, so no one here, except 
members of the Banking Committee--which Senator Vitter is a member of, 
and so he knows this issue very well--voted on this.
  So while it is not a surprise to me, it may be a surprise to others 
to find out that flood insurance rates based on the reform bill that 
was tucked into the Transportation bill and into the RESTORE Act bill 
are now going to raise rates by 25, 50, or 100 percent on home owners. 
And when the grandfather clause expires--which was put in the bill to 
grandfather many property owners--my constituents tell me their 
properties will become worthless.
  One can understand that a property worth even $1 million or $\1/2\ 
million or $250,000 has a flood insurance premium attached to it of a 
reasonable amount of money--$500, $600, $700. And that is still a lot 
of money, but people who live along the coast understand that we have 
to pay a little higher flood insurance rates and we have to build 
smarter and better, which we are doing as fast as we possibly can with 
the monies we have. There is not a coastal community in America that is 
not fully awake after Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and Sandy. Trust me, 
from the east coast, to North Carolina, to the entire gulf coast 
region, we are awake. We are understanding what is happening, and we 
are trying as hard as we can to make our communities as resilient as 
possible.
  We are not completely to blame for the increased frequency of the 
storms or the rising sea levels. We all have a share of that, and it is 
happening, and we are on the frontline. Our communities have been 
devastated. Our people are literally drowning. We lost 1,800 people in 
Katrina--2,400 between Louisiana and Mississippi--from drowning and 
literally dying through these storms. We lost several hundred people in 
Sandy. So we understand what is happening, and we are doing everything 
we can.
  This flood insurance bill that never passed this Senate--and I am not 
sure it passed the House, but it did come out of both committees, 
different versions of it--is now known as Biggert-Waters. I understand 
Mrs. Biggert is no longer a Member of Congress, but Congresswoman 
Waters is here. So the bill was pushed as a way of getting the Flood 
Insurance Program on a financially sound footing. I understand that.
  We most certainly don't expect all the people of America to subsidize 
coastal communities, some of which may be second homes, et cetera. But 
in my communities, we are not talking about second homes; we are not 
talking about vacation properties, in large measure. We are talking 
about primary homes of fishermen, of dock workers, of people who work 
on the river, of boat captains, of industries such as the oil and gas 
industry, the roughnecks, the engineers who have to work, by the nature 
of their work, near the coast, which is where the trade and commerce of 
this Nation comes from.
  If we could operate our trade and commerce only on railroads and 
highways, maybe we could all go live in Oklahoma or in Nevada. But, Mr. 
President, you are from Hawaii. You understand we have coastal 
communities all the way from Oregon to California to Texas to Louisiana 
to Mississippi; and, yes, there are some lovely vacation spots along 
the coasts. But there are also communities like those I represent, such 
as in Terrebonne Parish and Lafourche Parish and Jefferson Parish, 
where people wake up before the Sun and do not come home until it is 
dark. They are working at coastal businesses that are very important to 
the entire economic strength of this Nation.

[[Page S3297]]

  This bill, Biggert-Waters, puts the entire burden of supporting 
coastal communities on the people who live on the coast, while some 
people who have a lot of money and can afford a mountaintop view go on 
the top of the mountains in other States. I am not picking on Colorado 
and Utah, but those come to mind--multimillion-dollar homes with 
beautiful views that look out across lots of land. Maybe they are not 
mindful of the work that is done on our coasts.
  This is an issue that is important for the whole Nation. To have this 
bill pass--and I knew it when it happened. Mark Pryor, I understand, 
put something in the Record at the time, but now we are on the water 
resources bill, a very important bill for coastal communities. It is an 
opportunity for us to fix this bill or to get a reprieve for a short 
period of time until we can find a better approach for thousands of 
properties along the coast--whether it is in Texas or California or 
Florida or New York or New Jersey that was battered badly by Sandy--
rather than to put additional stress on these communities.
  While I do not have the specific answer as to how to fix it in the 
long term, my amendment would simply hold off these rate increases for 
a year. It does not repeal the bill. It will just hold off these rate 
increases for a year, giving these Members in Congress time and an 
opportunity to fix what is terribly broken and to try to find a better, 
more affordable way to do so.
  There are 480,000 policy holders in Louisiana who are already 
complaining about the flood insurance rates as they are today. When I 
go home now--and I go home often, very frequently--this is all people 
are talking about. There are other important issues that are going on, 
but I do not blame them, and I certainly understand it as a homeowner 
in Louisiana. Our delegation understands this. People are saying they 
are getting notices from their company that their insurance is going to 
go up hundreds if not thousands of dollars. What happens with respect 
to the grandfather clause, which is about to happen in October of 2014?
  This flood insurance issue is a very important issue for the people 
in Louisiana, as I said, in Texas, in Mississippi, and in Florida, and 
that is what my amendment will address. My amendment is not pending, 
but I filed an amendment. We are waiting for a CBO score. We most 
certainly want to offset this if we can find the revenue it will take 
to offset this temporary reprieve.
  I ask both the Republican and Democratic leaders to work with me and 
work with the other Senators who are interested in finding a solution 
to send a signal to these coastal areas that Congress understands the 
pressures of flood insurance in our low-lying areas--that would be in 
Maryland or Virginia or New York or New Jersey--that we hear them. We 
understand what is about to happen, and we would like a chance to try 
to adjust it, to fix it, et cetera, et cetera.
  I am going to be working with the leadership. I know there are other 
Members who have amendments important to the WRDA bill. It is not my 
intention to stop this WRDA bill. It is a bill I certainly support. 
Louisiana can be greatly benefited. I thank Senator Vitter for his 
strong work as the ranking member of the EPW Committee on WRDA. We have 
some very important authorizations.
  Let me also say something about this WRDA bill in relation to actual 
dollars. I sit on the Appropriations Committee for energy and water. I 
appreciate serving on that committee. Our job is to actually find money 
and direct funding to build some of these water resource projects.
  Just yesterday, Senator Feinstein held a hearing--she chairs our 
committee; Senator Lamar Alexander is our ranking member--on the budget 
for the Corps of Engineers. I see my good friend Ben Cardin here and 
others who are very interested in projects on the WRDA bill, but they 
will be shocked to know when we asked--I asked--Jo-Ellen Darcy, the 
leader of the Corps of Engineers, the civilian leader of the corps, 
what was the number of backlogged projects, new construction projects 
that were backlogged and how much money was in the bill to build them 
this year, the first number was $1.6 billion. That is how much is in 
the appropriations bill roughly to build new water projects in the 
country, $1.6 billion. It sounds like a lot of money until you hear the 
second answer.
  Then I asked her how many projects are in the queue for funding, 
ready to go, meritorious projects, urgently needed new construction. 
She said $60 billion worth. We have $1.6 billion in the budget to 
spend, and we have $60 billion worth of projects. We follow these 
numbers pretty closely because many of those projects are in Louisiana. 
So while it is important to get the WRDA bill passed, which is 
authorizing not only new projects, but it is also putting in some very 
important corps reforms to expedite the way some of these projects are 
built, the real problem and the real dilemma is closing the gap between 
what we have authorized and what we can actually afford to build.
  Again, there is only $1.6 billion in the corps budget for new 
construction, and pending, even without this WRDA bill, is $60 billion 
worth in backlogged, authorized, important programs in all of our 
districts. With this WRDA bill there are an additional $23 billion in 
authorizations. So, yes, I support new authorizations. Yes, I support 
the WRDA bill. Yes, I most certainly support the reforms to the Corps 
of Engineers that are embedded in the language of this WRDA bill, but I 
cannot allow this to move forward, at least without raising a red flag 
and asking for some reprieve on the flood insurance issue.
  I want to be flexible. I want to be open. I want to be a team player. 
This is not the time for my way or the highway. I have tried as much as 
I can to avoid that kind of politics because it is very difficult for 
all of us to move forward together. I have so much respect for Senator 
Boxer and a good bit of respect for Senator Vitter who is the ranking 
member. But this is the only way I know right now to raise this issue 
and to say we cannot, in Louisiana, with 480,000 flood insurance 
policies, manage to build our communities, to recover. We are doing 
beautifully. We would like to go faster, but you have not heard a lot 
of complaints coming from us. Our people are working hard, rolling up 
our sleeves. Our communities are coming back. We are using the 
insurance money. We are using the community development block grant 
money to build as smart and quickly as we can.

  We have created the Water Institute. Every single one of our parishes 
has gone through what we call charrettes and community meetings to see 
how we can elevate our homes and build them more resiliently.
  This is a huge and very tough burden to lay on the shoulders of the 
people in our coastal communities, not just in Louisiana but in 
Terrebonne and Lafourche, in Cameron, Calcasieu, Saint Mary Parish, and 
the river parishes, Saint John, Saint James, Saint Charles and 
Jefferson Parish. It is hurting north Louisiana as well.
  We have flood insurance policies all the way up in our State. We 
would have flood insurance. Why would we have flooding? Because we have 
the Mississippi River. We are happy to have the Mississippi River, but 
the Mississippi River does not belong only to us. May I remind everyone 
that the Mississippi River, the Missouri River, the Ohio River are the 
spine, the backbone of our commerce for the whole Nation? Why should 
the people of Louisiana, who drain the entire continent--the mouth of 
the river runs right through New Orleans--why is it the people who live 
in south Louisiana have to pick up 100 percent of that risk? That is 
the way this bill is structured, to put on us the burden, 100 percent, 
instead of spreading it to everyone, to the whole country, in a 
reasonable and responsible way.
  The way this bill is structured is to say we have to be self-
sustaining in our flood insurance policies. We are sorry, but the 
people who live at the mouth of the Mississippi River, which provides 
commerce and wealth and creates huge amounts of wealth and jobs for all 
of us, have to take the water and pay for it ourselves. That is not 
going to work for us. It is not working for us. That is why I am 
standing on this floor. I want to work this out.
  I am open to a number of suggestions. I hope the Senators who have 
lots of flood insurance issues, such as the Senators in Missouri and 
Illinois and the Senators in other States, will

[[Page S3298]]

give us some suggestions about how to move forward.
  If this bill had passed the Senate and it was the will of the Senate 
and I had been on the losing side of that, I would not be standing here 
today. This bill never came before the Senate. It never came before the 
Senate. It was tucked into a bill that we had no chance to amend--none. 
You cannot amend a bill coming out of conference. There was no chance 
to amend this, no chance to fix it, which is why I hope my colleagues 
will understand and be patient with me. This is not about losing an 
issue last year and coming back and crying about it. This is about we 
never got a chance to even talk about this on the Senate floor.
  This is a water bill. It has everything to do with the subject 
matter. It is not ``not germane'' to the subject matter of this bill. I 
would like to have a vote on my amendment or a vote in some way to 
declare that we are acknowledging this problem; that we might not have 
a solution today, but we most certainly are willing to work on it 
because this is devastating for coastal communities all over the 
country.
  It is not fair for our working coast--whether it is fisheries or oil 
and gas or wind or manufacturing--for our coastal communities, our 
commerce and trade, to pick up the entire burden of this Flood 
Insurance Program. Let's try to be reasonable. I am going to be as 
patient as I can. I understand how important this bill is to everyone. 
I am most mindful of how important it is to my State. We have been 
trying to get a WRDA bill out here on the floor for several years, and 
we finally have one.
  I am going to leave my amendment as it is. It is not pending. It has 
been filed. I am going to ask for this vote to be worked out, and until 
then I will object to any other amendments coming up for a vote until 
we get some way forward.
  Again, I want to be flexible, I want to be open, and I would like 
eventually to see the WRDA bill passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object for just a moment, and I, 
of course, will not object, I just want to make it clear that at noon 
the two leaders are coming to do a back-and-forth. So up until the time 
they arrive--I just wanted to let my friend know. Then after the 
leaders, Senator Vitter should be recognized to speak about the issue 
Senator Landrieu just raised, to be followed by me, if that is OK, if I 
can do that in the UC? It would be Senator Cardin, the two leaders, 
Senator Vitter, and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cardin pertaining to the introduction of S.J. 
Res. 15 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to continue to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cardin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                               The Budget

  Mr. REID. Madam President, it has been 47 days since the Senate 
passed its sensible progrowth budget. As my friend the minority leader 
has said many times, after the Senate passed a budget, the next logical 
step would be to go to conference and try to find common ground. This 
is what Senator McConnell said earlier this year:

       We ought not to ignore the law any longer. And I think it's 
     a good step in the direction of getting back to regular 
     order, which we ought to follow.

  After years of calling for regular order, Republicans ought to be 
eager to go to conference. Senator McConnell and the Republican caucus 
pulled a 180--a flip-flop. They were for regular order before they were 
against regular order.
  For weeks Republicans have refused to go to conference, and they have 
refused to explain why. The only excuse Republicans offered came not 
from the minority leader but from the junior Senator from Texas. 
Senator Cruz objected to the budget conference on the grounds that 
Democrats must concede basically everything before Republicans will 
negotiate anything.
  As one news reporter put it, the Republicans' offer is: ``First 
surrender, then we will fight.'' Republicans know as well as Democrats 
that is not any way to negotiate. Unilateral disarmament in the 
legislative process is not the same thing as compromise.
  Democrats--along with the media and the American people--are left to 
wonder and guess the real reason the Republicans are so determined to 
avoid a budget conference. Are Republicans afraid to defend or debate 
their extreme budget in full public view? Probably. It cannot be easy 
to defend a budget that will end Medicare as we know it. It cannot be 
easy to stand strong for a plan that asks the middle class to foot the 
bill for more tax breaks for the rich--a politically unsustainable 
position already rejected by the voters. It cannot be easy to stick up 
for the arbitrary meat-ax cuts of the sequester, which guts the safety 
net protecting the elderly, the poor, the middle class, veterans, and 
sometimes the helpless.
  Is it possible that Republicans are simply hoping to delay compromise 
long enough to create another manufactured crisis as the Nation once 
again approaches a default on its bills? Americans are tired of the 
type of knockdown, drag-out debt ceiling battles that caused our credit 
downgrade and cost our economy billions of dollars last year. Middle-
class families have been through enough economic turmoil. It is 
unbelievable that Republicans would once again hold the full faith and 
credit of our government hostage.
  I hope my Republican colleagues will come to their senses. The way to 
put our Nation on sound fiscal footing is to set aside this obstruction 
and set sensible policy through regular order in the legislative 
process, not to extort concessions through dangerous hostage taking.
  Passing the budget in each Chamber was a first good step toward 
restoring regular order. The next move is to go to conference and set 
our minds on reaching a reasonable compromise that reverses the painful 
cuts of sequestration.
  Right now the Republicans are the only thing standing between the 
Congress and compromise. I am optimistic that they will not continue to 
put American families through more financial pain for their own short-
term political gain.
  I yield to my friend from Washington for a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


               Unanimous Consent Request--H. Con. Res. 25

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that 
the amendment, which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the 
budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; 
that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate 
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees of the Senate, all with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I ask consent that the 
Senator modify her request so it not be in order for the Senate to 
consider a conference report that includes tax increases or 
reconciliation instructions to increase taxes or raise the debt limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what the 
Senator is asking is that we go back to what we had votes on throughout 
the entire budget debate way into the morning hours on the issues of 
reconciliation, on the issues of revenue that were all debated and 
voted on--some passed, some were defeated. We are not going to take 
those up again. We are going to go to conference with

[[Page S3299]]

the budget that was passed by the majority in the Senate and by the 
majority in the House, and those views will be represented in 
conference. We cannot get to that debate and that discussion without 
moving to conference, so I object to his unanimous consent and ask for 
consent on my request again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modified request.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this is so challenging. It has now been 
47 days since we passed our budget. Senate Democrats have now requested 
unanimous consent to move to conference--the next step--five times. We 
want to take the next step in this process. We want to move forward 
under regular order and continue this debate in an open and public way, 
but every time we try to take it to the next step, Senate Republicans 
stand and they say: No. I think this comes as a surprise to the 
American people. I think they are disappointed. I know I am. I think a 
lot of people, myself included, expected that after calling for regular 
order so consistently for so long, Republicans would be eager now to 
take the next step in the process. Some Republicans say they want to 
negotiate a framework behind closed doors before they agree on going to 
conference, but that is what a budget is. It is a framework that lays 
out our values and our priorities and helps us plan for our country's 
future. Why can't we discuss that framework in a formal, public 
conference, which is what we call regular order?
  I am sure Republicans are not excited about the prospect of defending 
their extreme budget all over again in a public conference committee. 
We all know Americans are not interested in more tax breaks for the 
wealthiest, they are not interested in Medicare vouchers, but 
Republicans wrote that budget, they voted for it, they passed it, and 
they ought to be happy to defend it. I know Senate Democrats are happy 
to stand and talk about ours.
  The American people now deserve to see those two visions. They need 
to see our visions side by side, contrasted with each other, and they 
need to see who is willing to compromise and who is not.
  We have heard the House Republican leadership doesn't want the Senate 
to appoint conferees because they don't want to go to conference 
because they might have to take a lot of difficult votes in the 
House. I am sure my colleagues remember the vote-arama we had before we 
passed our budget. We considered over 100 amendments. We were here 
until 5 in the morning, the entire time voting on amendments, until 
every Senator who wanted to be heard to offer an amendment did and we 
had a very thorough and open debate and we voted a lot. So I don't 
think the American people are going to be very sympathetic to the 
argument that the Republicans don't want to go to conference because 
they are afraid the House has to take a few votes.

  This is deeply disappointing to me. The Republicans are now running 
away from regular order. In fact, they are running right toward another 
crisis, and they are willing to take our American families and our 
economy along for the ride.
  It should be noted the House Republicans have announced a new 
conference, but it is not a conference on a budget deal; it is a 
conference of their Republican Members to decide what they are going to 
demand in exchange for taking our economy over the debt ceiling. It is 
absurd, and it is not going to happen. We know because we went through 
this same thing the last time we approached the debt limit. Just a few 
months ago, Republicans realized how dangerous it would be to play 
games with the debt limit and how politically damaging it would be to 
play politics with potential economic calamity for our country, and 
they finally dropped their demands. The so-called Boehner rule died, 
and no amount of wishing by the tea party is going to bring that back.
  The Republican strategy now of holding our economy hostage and trying 
to push us to another crisis is absolutely the wrong approach, and 
holding our budget conference hostage so they can get to that point is 
not going to be considered well by the American people.
  Getting a deal is not going to be easy. Any one of us knows that. It 
is going to take compromise. But this constant lurching from crisis to 
crisis that the House is demanding and is strategizing around is not 
what the American public wants or deserves.
  I am here to say Democrats are ready to take the next step. We need a 
negotiating party on the other side. They can bring all of their bills 
to conference and we can talk about it. We can come to a compromise. 
Compromise is not a dirty word. Oftentimes we don't hear it a lot 
around here. But I believe many of our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, frankly, want to return to regular order. They want to move away 
from these constant crises. I know that is what the American public 
wants. They want to see we can govern.
  I urge those who are coming here time and time again, blocking us 
from getting to a point to debate our two different budgets and from 
getting to a compromise, to allow us to get the work of the American 
people done and allow us to go to conference.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before my friend leaves the floor, I want 
the record spread with this. The admiration the Democratic caucus has 
for the Senator from Washington is significant. She is an elected 
leader. She was the person chosen to be the chair of the supercommittee 
to come up with a plan to solve the Nation's crisis we have 
economically, and she did yeoman's work. It was all done until a letter 
was received from virtually every Republican Senator saying, fine, 
great deal that Chairman Murray has done, but we are not going to agree 
to any revenue. To work through the contentious problems we have had on 
the floor and come up with a budget is remarkable, and it is a budget 
we are very proud of.
  I would say to my friend, I think we are making some progress because 
just within the past hour the Speaker has said this: ``We can't cut our 
way to prosperity.'' That is a significant step forward. The Speaker of 
the House of Representatives, for the first time in some time, has 
spoken reality, the truth, the facts. I quote directly: ``We can't cut 
our way to prosperity.'' That is right.
  That is why we have to get to regular order. We have to do what this 
body has been doing for 200 years or more: go to conference when there 
is a difference between what the House wants and what the Senate wants. 
That is all the chairman of the Budget Committee Senator Murray is 
asking--that we get together with our Republican colleagues and work 
out our differences.
  I think our budget--and we were led by Chairman Murray--is a very 
good budget. Is it perfect? Of course not. We would be willing to sit 
down and talk to our Republican colleagues in conference the way we 
have done for centuries and try to work out our differences. For them 
just to stonewall us and say, as the junior Senator from Texas said, 
fine, we will go to conference, but you have to agree to what we want 
before we go, what in the world is that all about?
  I admire Senator Murray, as does the entire Democratic caucus, and I 
am confident the people of Washington are very proud of this stalwart 
Senator who has done so much for this country. I want to make sure the 
Republicans understand she will be the chair. She is going to represent 
us. I am not going to be negotiating this. Senator McConnell is not 
going to be negotiating this. It is going to be done by the senior 
Senator from the State of Washington, and she is willing to deal with 
whomever the Republicans decide she should deal with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wonder if the Senator from Washington would enter into 
a colloquy with me at this time, through the Chair.
  I wish to join with Senator Reid in thanking Senator Murray for her 
amazing leadership. I was on the Budget Committee for several years, 
and I know that as a result of the Senator from Washington becoming 
chairman and, of course, being the most senior member next to Kent 
Conrad for so long, she knows this budget inside and out. It is filled 
with complexities--the mandatories, the discretionaries, the

[[Page S3300]]

defense and nondefense--all the things she knows in her head. She knows 
how to get us to balance not only in terms of the numbers she will move 
toward balance in her budget but also in terms of our priorities.
  I wish to make sure my people at home understand this. What the 
Senator from Washington is telling us is that for several years now--2 
or 3--the Republicans have been chastising the Democrats for not 
passing a budget in the Senate; am I right on that?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. The reason we didn't do it is we had another law that 
actually set our caps; am I right on that? So we didn't go through the 
budget.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. So the Senator from Washington decided, with 
Senator Reid and the leadership team, to bring a budget to the floor. 
Then--I will never forget it--we stayed here until 5 o'clock in the 
morning handling over 100 amendments; is that right?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. We passed a budget; the Senate passed its version of a 
budget. The regular order, as I understand it, having asked the 
Historian to go back and look, is that we then take the House budget 
and the Senate budget and we go to conference and the conferees resolve 
the differences. All my friend is asking--and she has asked it or 
someone has asked it in her stead five times--we are asking our 
Republican colleagues to allow our leader to name the conferees--of 
course Senator McConnell will name his--and walk into that conference 
committee to finish the budget. The budget is unfinished; am I right? 
We have two versions. We need one version. What the Senator from 
Washington is telling us, in no uncertain terms, is that the 
Republicans are stopping this country from having a budget; am I 
stating it correctly?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is stating it correctly.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, I hope she plans to be here as 
often as she can, and those of us who can help her will be here to 
continue to ask for conferees so we can get to the next stage.
  When Senator McConnell said he would amend the request of the Senator 
from Washington, was he not prejudging what would happen in the 
conference? He said no reconciliation, and he said something else. I 
don't remember the other condition.
  Mrs. MURRAY. And no revenue.
  Mrs. BOXER. And no revenue. That is akin to the Senator from 
Washington saying, I will go to conference except I don't want to see 
any more cuts in afterschool programs or senior citizen programs or 
veterans programs. In other words, we don't take our priorities as 
individual Senators into the conference. It is a team approach where we 
will have to compromise.
  So isn't Senator McConnell, by laying out his conditions, completely 
sidestepping regular order?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator would be correct, and I would add one other 
thought. What he is now asking us to do is to go back and vote on votes 
we already took when we went through the budget process and amendments 
did not pass. So he is saying, my amendments didn't pass, but I am not 
going to let a conference happen unless I get my way.
  We have a majority. We have a minority. We went through hundreds of 
amendments. Some of them passed and some of them did not. It is the 
process we go through.
  Then we take what we passed--the House, by the way, passed a very 
different budget--we go to conference and resolve the differences. That 
is what a conference is. But if every Senator came out here and said on 
every bill we ever did we are not going to go to conference unless I 
get the amendment I lost on the floor, we would never do anything in 
this country. That is not how a democracy works.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I got into this a little bit with 
Senator Cruz the other day. He doesn't want to go to conference because 
he is afraid we could pass the Buffett rule. We could come out of there 
with the Buffett rule, which says the billionaire executive should have 
to pay the same effective tax rate as a secretary. God forbid. He is 
afraid of that. So I just say, they are afraid of the process. What are 
they afraid of? They control the House. We control the Senate. 
Obviously, in conference we are going to have to meet somewhere in the 
middle.
  It seems to me they have a fear of democracy, and it seems to me--and 
I don't like to use this word but I will; it rhymes with democracy and 
it is called hypocrisy. They said they want to do a budget and now they 
are stopping the budget.
  I thank my friend. I want to make sure America understands this. They 
ran around the country running against our candidates saying our 
candidates wouldn't do a budget and now they will not allow us to do a 
budget. It seems to me ridiculous. I am so happy our leader and the 
Senator from Washington are here to bring this issue the attention it 
deserves.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 
today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar 
Nos. 39 and 41 under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. With this consent, there will be up to two rollcall votes 
at about 2 p.m. today--there may be only one but up to two--on the 
nominations of Shelly Deckert Dick to be a district judge for the 
Middle District of Louisiana and Nelson Stephen Roman to be a district 
judge for the Southern District of New York.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the bill we 
are considering, but also to speak, in particular, about one aspect of 
the bill. We know the legislation as the so-called WRDA bill, the Water 
Resources Development Act, and I want to express strong support for the 
legislation.
  This bill is, in fact, bipartisan, which is something we need more of 
around here. It provides for, among other things, flood protection, 
safe drinking water, wastewater infrastructure, and protects the flow 
of commerce along our Nation's rivers and waterways.
  I am grateful for Chairman Boxer's efforts, Ranking Member Vitter, 
and all the Members and staff of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee for their dedication to writing a bill that addresses the 
challenges facing our country's water systems.
  I want to speak in particular about inland waterways.
  Our Nation has--for many years now, many generations--a system of 
locks and dams that play a vital role in creating and sustaining jobs 
and supporting economic growth throughout the country.
  I know in my home State of Pennsylvania, even though I had been a 
State official for a number of years, I did not have a full 
appreciation of what this meant until about July of--I guess it was the 
first week of July 2007, when I was able to tour and actually see these 
major barges up close out in southwestern Pennsylvania and to be able 
to see the movement of coal or other commodities or energy resources 
across our waterways and what that meant to the economy of southwestern 
Pennsylvania but, indeed, the economy of our Commonwealth and our 
country.
  So when we hear the phrase ``locks and dams'' in Pennsylvania, 
especially in southwestern Pennsylvania, we do not think of some far 
off concept; we think of commerce and the movement of commerce and the 
jobs and the economic growth that comes from that.
  Unfortunately, this system, this inland waterways system, is facing 
major challenges--challenges that threaten in ways that some of us 
could not imagine even a few years ago.
  The inland waterways system offers the most cost-competitive way to 
transport our commodities. It moves some 20 percent of the coal that is 
used to power our Nation's electricity, much of it from Pennsylvania; 
also 22 percent of our petroleum products; and more

[[Page S3301]]

than 60 percent of export grain, which is moved because of this system.
  The shippers who produce or manufacture these commodities are in 
danger of losing their competitive edge unless we focus on proper 
funding for the lock-and-dam infrastructure.
  Unfortunately, the locks and dams of our Nation have far outlived 
their design life. There has not been sufficient investment to make 
headway in replacing these locks and dams. But I am hopeful provisions 
I and others have worked on in the Water Resources Development Act, 
which we are considering now, will address the challenges facing this 
system.
  Provisions from my bill--which, by the way, goes by the acronym 
RIVER; the RIVER Act--that are included in the bill we are considering 
will institute a number of project management reforms that will make 
sure future lock-and-dam projects are built in the most cost-effective 
way possible.
  We cannot ask for a greater commitment to the system or a greater 
investment without making sure we are also providing reforms.
  These reforms include risk-based cost estimates and an external peer 
review process for Army Corps projects across the Nation. This will 
help ensure that locks and dams in the projects that are undertaken are 
constructed in the way that is most efficient. We also want to make 
sure we have cost estimates that are realistic and, of course, avoid 
cost overruns.
  One of the provisions of the bill will also adjust the current cost-
sharing system by increasing the threshold for the industry to 
contribute to major rehabilitation projects to $20 million. This will 
allow for more funding for lock-and-dam projects, which is badly needed 
right now.
  These provisions in the overall water resources bill are common 
sense. They also happen to be fiscally responsible proposals that will 
significantly improve our Nation's inland waterways system and help to 
ensure our Nation's waterways can continue to be an effective method to 
ship commodities.
  Well, how do we pay for that? Well, a rather interesting development 
for Washington, which I am about to describe for you: I am grateful so 
many of the provisions in my bill have been included, but we also need 
to have an important conversation about how to finance this system and 
to keep the inland trust fund sustainable in the long term.
  I filed an amendment, amendment No. 854, that will raise the barge 
user fee from 20 cents per gallon to 29 cents per gallon. This fee has 
not been raised since 1986 and, as a result, is not keeping up with 
inflation and project costs.
  We have great bipartisan support for this amendment. Senator 
Alexander is leading this effort with me, and the amendment is 
cosponsored by the following Senators: Mr. Blunt, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Franken, and Mr. 
Harkin--indicating the wide reach of the inland waterways system and 
its impact on so many industries in so many States across the country.
  The current rate--the barge user fee of 20 cents per gallon--right 
now is not raising sufficient funding to keep up with operations and 
maintenance needs along the reach of the system. If we do not make this 
investment now, it could have dire consequences to multibillion-dollar 
industries that rely on the use of locks and dams to move their goods. 
Just consider coal being one of those examples.
  All 300 users of the inland waterways system support this increase. 
Let me say that again because this does not happen very much in 
Washington: All 300 users of the inland waterways system support this 
barge user fee increase from 20 cents per gallon to 29 cents per 
gallon.
  Here we have an example of an industry that is forward looking in 
asking Congress to allow them to pay more in order to make critical 
investments in their own infrastructure.
  In addition to the support of industry, the user fee increase is 
backed by a diverse array of organizations across the country, 
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Farmers Union, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the 
AFL-CIO, and over 250 national and local organizations, including barge 
operators, agriculture, energy and civics and conservation groups.
  In southwestern Pennsylvania alone over 200,000 jobs rely on the 
proper functioning of locks and dams on the lower Monongahela River. 
For those who do not know, it is a river on the western end of our 
State that flows into the city of Pittsburgh--one of the three rivers 
we describe as part of our landscape in Pittsburgh.
  If one of these locks were to fail, it would endanger all 200,000 
jobs and have a negative impact of over $1 billion just in that region, 
not to mention the adverse impact beyond the region. Raising the user 
fee now will help prevent a catastrophe in the near future.
  I understand there are objections to addressing important concerns 
about including a funding fix for locks and dams in this bill due to 
the so-called blue-slip concerns that involve the House of 
Representatives.
  I will work to look for other vehicles so we do not continue to kick 
this can down the road, and I will talk to Members of the House to 
include this fix in their version.
  If we cannot raise revenue on an industry that is asking to pay more 
so they can invest in their infrastructure, I am afraid the future of 
our waterways system is in great jeopardy.
  Many of my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle 
recognize the importance of providing a way to pay for investments we 
need in our locks-and-dams system, and I urge the House to follow suit. 
I have no doubt they want to do the same.
  We cannot squander critical foundations that have made America what 
it is. Reinvesting in our Nation's waterways will allow us to seize 
economic opportunities to remain competitive in the world and protect 
and create jobs for generations to come.
  I will note one citation of history, from a major volume in 
Pennsylvania history. This goes back to the 1800s when we developed a 
canal system to move commodities and commerce across our waterways. I 
will read one sentence from page 180 of a book entitled ``Pennsylvania: 
A History of the Commonwealth.'' Here is what they said all those years 
ago in the 1800s, talking about coal:

       Through those routes, anthracite coal left Pennsylvania for 
     England, Russia, Central Europe and Asia.

  But the reason that coal was able to get to those places is because 
we had a system in place to move it.
  What we do not want to have today in our time is a system that breaks 
down because we are not willing to make the investment. As I said 
before, this investment is supported by all of those organizations but 
especially the 300 users who are willing to invest more so that 
tomorrow will be bright and we can move commerce across the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, before the Senator from Pennsylvania 
leaves the floor, I would like to thank him for his forthright and 
courageous statement on the situation in Syria. I thank him for his 
involvement and his commitment to the freedom of the people of Syria.
  (The remarks of Mr. McCain pertaining to the introduction of S. 912 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of 
amendment No. 802 to the WRDA bill offered by my friend, great 
legislator, chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Senator 
Mary Landrieu. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment.
  The amendment would delay flood insurance premium increases until 
FEMA has completed a study on the impacts on the affordability of 
planned premium increases. Nobody in this body knows better than 
Senator Landrieu the challenges faced by communities in the wake of 
natural disasters, and she has been beyond generous in sharing her time 
and expertise and lending her vocal support to the States, such as 
mine, so greatly impacted by Superstorm Sandy.
  Last year Congress passed a flood insurance reauthorization and 
reform

[[Page S3302]]

bill, the Biggert-Waters Act. We passed the Biggert-Waters Act because 
if the program expired, flood insurance would become unavailable or 
unaffordable for people who needed it.
  Congress also needed to reform the program going forward because it 
is billions of dollars in debt and needs to be put on a better 
financial footing.
  In my home State, one of the counties received a very poor and unfair 
map, which was undone in the bill.
  In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, many middle-class families in 
New York are struggling to get back on their feet. Many lost 
everything. They have had to drain their savings to rebuild. They have 
been out of their homes for months. The kids get on a schoolbus and 
have to go 20, 30 miles to school.
  Imagine losing everything in your home as so many have. It is an 
awful feeling, not just the chair you were comfortable sitting in, all 
of your appliances and all of that, but that picture of great-grandma 
and great-grandpa which was priceless is gone. It is a horrible thing.
  Adding another layer of difficulty to this situation, the flood 
insurance reforms enacted by Congress last summer result, in many 
cases, in huge insurance premiums. Our families in New York are caught 
in limbo.
  Families in Breezy Point, the Rockaways, Broad Channel, Staten 
Island, Brooklyn, on the south shore of Long Island, from Long Beach 
all the way out to Mastic and Shirley, are still trying to make 
decisions, are repairing their homes and investing tens of thousands of 
dollars to do so. Many of these homes are very middle-class homes. 
These are not rich people. They have worked hard. Some of them are 
teachers, policemen, firemen, construction workers or small business 
owners. Many of them are being told their insurance rates could be 
$10,000 a year or more. What kind of insurance is flood insurance if it 
is $10,000 a year? It puts homeowners in the worst possible position. 
They either have to come up with an additional $10,000--worse in Sandy 
because they have already paid money to redo their homes, but even for 
a normal homeowner $10,000 a year and you don't get a mortgage. Ten 
thousand dollars a year, this is absurd.
  I don't know what is wrong with the flood insurance program, but any 
program that has to charge an average homeowner on Long Island, 
Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island $10,000 ought to be reexamined by 
this Congress. It is confounding. People are upset and they should be.
  Recognizing the burden these changes could put on families, FEMA was 
required to conduct a study on the affordability of flood insurance, 
the effects of increased premiums on low-income homeowners and middle-
income homeowners, and ways to increase affordability. The study was 
originally supposed to be completed within 270 days. That was 9 months 
after the bill was passed.
  That deadline has come and gone. FEMA hasn't even begun to collect 
the necessary data. We know FEMA has been busy responding to Sandy and 
other natural disasters.
  At the same time it is unfair to hit homeowners with massive new 
flood insurance premiums without any plan of how to address the needs 
for those who can't afford these skyrocketing, out-of-control, and out-
of-reach premiums. The amendment is a recognition of that fundamental 
fairness.
  Large parts of New York City are having their flood maps revised. As 
a result, New Yorkers, many, could face the prospect of crushing 
increases in premiums. Right now, far too many Sandy victims are still 
in the process of rebuilding their homes. They simply cannot afford a 
whopping increase in flood insurance premiums.
  Common sense and a sense of fairness dictate that we should delay any 
unnecessary increases until we know exactly how hard they hit our 
communities and until we can come up with a solution that makes flood 
insurance reasonable and affordable--particularly if it is mandated, as 
it often is--in effect or by law.
  That is what the amendment does. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the amendment.
  I also wish to mention an amendment offered by my good friend from 
across the Hudson River, Senator Menendez of New Jersey, a State also 
suffering from Superstorm Sandy, that seems to address many of the same 
concerns.
  His amendment would delay flood insurance premium increases until 
FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds have been expended. This 
commonsense amendment would give homeowners a chance to use the Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program for its intended purpose, to rebuild stronger 
and safer, resulting in lower flood risks.
  This amendment simply says: Let's wait until people have taken this 
opportunity to reduce their future flood risks before we increase their 
flood premiums. It makes abundant sense. I hope my colleagues would 
pass both Senator Landrieu's and Senator Menendez's fine amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as 
in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, all over America concern has been growing 
that the implementation of ObamaCare will cause serious damage to our 
economy and to our health care system. Lost wages, soaring insurance 
rates, more bureaucracy, and less access to care are just some of the 
adverse consequences we are beginning to see. There are as many reasons 
for concern as there are flaws in this ill-advised law.
  Today, I wish to focus on just one of these flaws; that is, the 
Affordable Care Act's definition of a full-time employee. I also will 
comment on legislation I have introduced to fix this one flaw.
  My preference, of course, would be for us to repeal ObamaCare and 
start all over, taking some good features of the law, such as the 
feature that allows young people to stay on their parents' health care 
policy until age 26, some of the provisions having to do with 
preventive care, and some of the provisions having to do with 
preexisting conditions.
  We should have crafted a bill that focused on lowering health care 
costs because it is the high cost of health care that is the reason we 
have millions of Americans who are uninsured. Here we are with a deeply 
flawed law that is having very serious adverse consequences for the 
people of our country.
  Let me talk further about the issue of the definition of a full-time 
employee. Under ObamaCare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is 
defined as full time. That is a definition that is completely out of 
step with standard employment practices in the United States today.
  According to a survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
the average American works 8.8 hours per day, which equates to 44 hours 
per week. The ObamaCare definition is nearly one-third lower than 
actual practice; likewise, the ObamaCare definition of full-time 
employee is one-quarter lower than the 40 hours per week used by the 
GAO in its study of the budget and staffing required by the IRS to 
implement this new law.
  In that report the GAO described a full-time equivalent employee as 
the measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works the 
equivalent of 40 hours per week for 52 weeks.
  We also know, generally speaking, that employers are required to pay 
overtime to workers after 40 hours a week. That is another indication 
that 40 hours a week is the standard definition of a full-time 
employee. Yet, inconceivably, ObamaCare defines a full-time worker as 
one who works only 30 hours a week.
  The effect of using such a low hourly threshold is to artificially 
drive up the number of full-time workers for purposes of calculating 
the Draconian penalties to which employers can be exposed by ObamaCare. 
These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 employees, plus 
$2,000 for each additional full-time equivalent employee.
  Needless to say, these penalties will discourage businesses from 
growing or adding jobs, particularly for employers who are close to 
that 50-job trigger. In addition, these penalties create a powerful 
incentive for employers to cut the hours their employees are allowed to 
work so they are no longer considered full-time for the purposes of 
this law.
  This is not some hypothetical concern. I have heard from employers in

[[Page S3303]]

Maine who feel they are going to be forced to stay under the 50-
employee threshold, and they are even considering, very reluctantly, 
cutting the number of hours per week their employees are working. 
Similar accounts have appeared in the media. For example, last week the 
Los Angeles Times reported that the city of Long Beach, CA, is limiting 
most of its 1,600 part-time workers to just 27 hours a week to make 
sure they do not work over the 30-hour threshold. This is a 
municipality that is cutting the hours and thus the wages of its 
workers simply because of the requirements of ObamaCare.
  According to this news story, the parent company for the Red Lobster 
and Olive Garden restaurant chains is limiting the hours of some of 
their employees for the same reason.
  I would ask unanimous consent that the Los Angeles Times article 
entitled ``Part-timers to lose pay amid health act's new math'' be 
printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  Bringing it closer to home, one Maine business I know has 47 
employees. It is doing pretty well and would like to create more jobs 
and hire more employees, but it simply will not because of the onerous 
penalties it would incur once it gets to 50 employees. If more 
businesses follow suit, millions of American workers could find their 
hours and their earnings cut back, with jobs lost to them at a time 
when our country is still struggling with an unacceptably high rate of 
unemployment.
  A study just published by the Labor Center at the University of 
California, Berkeley, underscores the danger. That study, which 
examined the hours worked in businesses with 100 or more employees, 
found that 6.4 million workers in these firms worked between 30 and 36 
hours per week and another 3.6 million workers have variable work 
schedules that make them vulnerable to having their hours cut as a 
direct result of ObamaCare.
  The study identified 2.3 million workers as being at the greatest 
risk. Not surprisingly, these are workers who are employed in the 
retail trade, nursing homes, restaurants, and hotels. These are some of 
the most vulnerable workers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the study I just referred to immediately following my remarks.
  Let me cite an actual example from my State of Maine.
  Peter Daigle, who runs Lafayette Hotels, the largest hotel chain in 
the State of Maine, has told me that many of his 800 employees work 
between 30 and 40 hours a week, and that, from a financial standpoint, 
it would make sense for his company to limit their hours to ensure they 
do not go over the 30-hour threshold. This is an artificial limit that 
is driven solely by ObamaCare. As Peter puts it:

       It concerns us that employers are being put in a position 
     that they would have to cut associates' hours just to meet a 
     Federal regulation.

  Believe me, the owners of the Lafayette chain of hotels are civic-
minded, good employers, who care deeply about the well-being of their 
employees.
  During the consideration of the budget resolution, the Senate adopted 
my amendment calling for legislation setting a more sensible definition 
of ``full-time'' employee for purposes of ObamaCare penalties. Last 
month, I introduced a bill to protect Americans who may otherwise find 
their hours are curtailed and their earnings cut as a result of the 
unrealistic definition of a full-time employee that is included in 
ObamaCare. Under my bill, a full-time employee would be an individual 
who works a 40-hour workweek. That only makes sense. This is a 
sensible, commonsense definition in keeping with actual practice.
  I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, S. 701. It will not 
solve all of the problems--the many problems--of ObamaCare, but it will 
help to ensure millions of American workers do not have their hours 
reduced because of an artificially low, unrealistic definition in the 
law that is completely inconsistent with actual practice in this 
country.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the UC Berkeley Labor Center]

    Which workers are most at risk of reduced work hours under the 
                          Affordable Care Act?

       The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to provide 
     coverage or pay a penalty based on the number of employees 
     working 30 or more hours per week. This data brief looks at 
     which industries have a high percentage of employees working 
     fewer than or slightly above 30 hours, placing them at risk 
     for reduced hours by an employer wishing to avoid penalties. 
     We also look at the distribution of hours worked by type of 
     health coverage. While the penalty only applies to firms with 
     more than 50 full-time equivalent employees, due to data 
     limitations we show all results for workers in firms with 
     more than 100 total employees. Thus, the tables may slightly 
     understate the number of potentially affected workers.
       Table 1 below shows the distribution of hours worked by 
     industry in the United States. From this we see that 6.4 
     million U.S. workers, 8.9 percent of the workers in firms of 
     100 or more, work 30 to 36 hours a week. An additional 3.6 
     million workers report that their ``work hours vary'' and may 
     also be vulnerable to a reduction in work hours. The 
     industries with the highest percentage of employees working 
     slightly over 30 hours are Restaurants, Nursing Homes, 
     Accommodation, Healthcare, Retail Trade, Education and 
     Building Services. The right most columns show the number of 
     workers who are most vulnerable to work reduction, namely, 
     those working 30 to 36 hours, with incomes below 400% of the 
     Federal Poverty Level and not covered by their own employer. 
     The industries with the highest concentration of such workers 
     are Restaurants, Accommodation, Building Services, Nursing 
     Homes and Retail Trade. Retail and Restaurants account for 47 
     percent of the most vulnerable group. While Healthcare has a 
     higher than average share of employees working between 30 and 
     36 hours, most in that hours category are in higher income 
     families and/or receive health coverage through their 
     employer.

                                   TABLE 1--HOURS WORKED BY INDUSTRY, WORKERS IN FIRMS OF 100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES, U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of workers (thousands)                                  Percent of workers
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Most
                                                                               Most                    Below 30    30 to 36                vulnerable to
                                       Hours    Below    30 to     37 +    vulnerable to  Hours vary      hrs         hrs      37 + hrs        work
                                        vary    30 hrs   36 hrs    hrs         work        (percent)   (percent)   (percent)   (percent)    reduction*
                                                                            reduction*                                                       (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Forestry, Mining.......       53       15       19      661              10         6.0         5.0         3.4        85.5             1.5
Construction........................      103       41       63    1,801              20         6.8         2.3         4.8        86.0             1.0
Manufacturing.......................      361      157      276    8,227              88         2.9         2.4         4.2        90.5             1.0
Utilities, Transp, Communication....      353      298      242    4,478              77         8.3         5.0         4.9        81.8             1.4
Wholesale...........................       81       51       46    1,652              19         3.4         3.7         7.7        85.2             1.0
Retail Trade........................      572    1,589    1,217    5,319             570         3.8        13.0        10.6        72.5             6.5
Financial...........................      170      215      213    4,850              59         3.5         5.1         4.4        86.9             1.1
Education...........................      438    1,495    1,040    7,331             237         4.3        14.5        10.1        71.1             2.3
Accommodation.......................       55       72      119      574              68         6.7         8.8        14.5        70.0             8.3
Other Services......................      723    1,092      966   13,912             324         4.3         6.5         5.8        83.3             1.9
Restaurants.........................      314      815      719    1,328             515        11.3        23.8        20.7        44.2            16.2
Bldg. Services......................       11       48       38      232              25         6.4        14.9         9.9        68.8             7.6
Healthcare..........................      359      872    1,280    6,094             194         5.5        12.0        13.7        68.7             2.3
Nursing Homes.......................       53      118      194      723              82         5.0         9.6        18.8        66.6             7.6
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................    3,647    6,876    6,431   57,182           2,288         5.3         9.2         8.9        76.6             3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Current Population Survey month of March for 2010-2012; ages 19-64, hours worked at main job
* Those in the industry working 30-36 hours, below 400% FPL and do not have insurance through their own employer.

       Table 2 shows the distribution of worker health coverage by 
     the number of hours worked. While 68.8 percent have insurance 
     through their employer, this only holds for 23.5 percent of 
     employees working fewer than 30 hours a week. For this part-
     time group, 33.5 percent have insurance through a family 
     member, 10.7 percent have public coverage, 10.3 percent 
     purchase coverage through the

[[Page S3304]]

     individual market and 21.9 percent are uninsured. Slightly 
     more than 50 percent of those working between 30 and 36 hours 
     do not have coverage through their own employer, though only 
     slightly more than one quarter are uninsured or purchase 
     coverage in the individual market. These workers are the most 
     likely to receive subsidized coverage through the Exchanges.

            TABLE 2--HOURS WORKED BY HEALTH COVERAGE, WORKERS IN FIRMS OF 100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES, U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Below 30     30 to 36
                                                  Hours vary      hrs          hrs        37+ hrs       Total
                                                  (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coverage type:
Employer-sponsored insurance thru employer.....         52.1         23.5         49.4         77.5         68.8
Employer-sponsored insurance thru family member         17.1         33.5         17.4          9.8         13.0
Public.........................................          6.5         10.7          7.4          2.3          3.7
Individual Market/Other........................          5.3         10.3          4.8          2.0          3.2
Uninsured......................................         19.1         21.9         20.9          8.5         11.3
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................        100.0        100.0        100.0        100.0       100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Current Population Survey month of March for 2010-2012; ages 19-64, hours worked at main job.

       The 2.3 million workers identified as at greatest risk for 
     work hour reduction represent 1.8 percent of the United 
     States workforce. This is consistent with the research on the 
     impact of Hawaii's health care law on work hours. Hawaii 
     requires firms to provide health insurance to employees 
     working 20 hours a week or more, so the cost to employers for 
     full-time workers are much greater in Hawaii than under the 
     ACA, while the hour threshold is lower. Buchmueller, DiNardo 
     and Valetta (2011) found a 1.4 percentage point increase in 
     the share of employees working less than 20 hours a week as a 
     result of the law. In Massachusetts, where the employer 
     penalty is smaller than in the ACA ($295 per year), there was 
     no evidence of a disproportionate shift towards part-time 
     work compared to the rest of the nation.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 2, 2013]

           Part-timers to Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

                           (By Chad Terhune)

       Some workers are having their hours cut so employers won't 
     have to cover them under Obamacare. But many will benefit 
     from the healthcare law's premium subsidies and Medicaid 
     expansion.
       Many part-timers are facing a double whammy from President 
     Obama's Affordable Care Act. The law requires large employers 
     offering health insurance to include part-time employees 
     working 30 hours a week or more. But rather than provide 
     healthcare to more workers, a growing number of employers are 
     cutting back employee hours instead.
       The result: Not only will these workers earn less money, 
     but they'll also miss out on health insurance at work.
       Consider the city of Long Beach. It is limiting most of its 
     1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week, on 
     average. City officials say that without cutting payroll 
     hours, new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more 
     next year, and that extra expense would trigger layoffs and 
     cutbacks in city services.
       Part-timer Tara Sievers, 43, understands why, but she still 
     thinks it's wrong.
       ``I understand there are costs to healthcare reform, but it 
     is surely not the intent of the law for employees to lose 
     hours,'' said the outreach coordinator at the El Dorado 
     Nature Center in Long Beach. ``It's ridiculous the city is 
     skirting the law.''
       Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of other hourly 
     workers may also see smaller paychecks in the coming year 
     because of this response to the federal healthcare law. The 
     law exempts businesses with fewer than 50 full-time workers 
     from this requirement to provide benefits.
       But big restaurant chains, retailers and movie theaters are 
     starting to trim employee hours. Even colleges are reducing 
     courses for part-time professors to keep their hours down and 
     avoid paying for their health premiums.
       Overall, an estimated 2.3 million workers nationwide, 
     including 240,000 in California, are at risk of losing hours 
     as employers adjust to the new math of workplace benefits, 
     according to research by UC Berkeley. All this comes at a 
     time when part-timers are being hired in greater numbers as 
     U.S. employers look to keep payrolls lean.
       One consolation for part-timers is that many of them stand 
     to benefit the most from the healthcare law's federal premium 
     subsidies or an expansion of Medicaid, both starting in 
     January.
       The law will require most Americans to buy health insurance 
     or pay a penalty. Yet many lower-income people will qualify 
     for government insurance or be eligible for discounted 
     premiums on private policies.


                  Quiz: Test your healthcare knowledge

       ``For people losing a few hours each week, that's lost 
     income and it has a real impact,'' said Ken Jacobs, chairman 
     of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. 
     ``But many low-wage, part-time workers will also have some 
     affordable options under the federal law.''
       Employers say these cutbacks are necessary given the high 
     cost of providing benefits. The average annual premium for 
     employee-only coverage was $6,540 in California last year. 
     Family coverage topped $16,000 a year. Those premiums have 
     shot up 170% in the past decade, more than five times the 
     rate of inflation in the state.
       Bill Dombrowski, chief executive of the California 
     Retailers Assn., said employers are reducing hours because 
     ``it's the only way to survive economically.''
       The full effect of these changes in the workplace isn't 
     known yet because many employers are still considering what 
     to do. Many companies waited to see whether the landmark 
     legislation would survive a Supreme Court challenge and the 
     outcome of last fall's presidential election.
       Now many employers are scrambling to understand the latest 
     federal rules on implementation and are analyzing what makes 
     the most sense for their workforce and for running their 
     business.
       There has been widespread speculation that many businesses 
     would drop health coverage entirely in favor of paying a 
     federal penalty of $2,000 per worker. Benefit consultants and 
     insurance brokers say many companies examined that scenario. 
     But they say most rejected it because of the disruption it 
     would cause for employees and the potential for putting an 
     employer at a competitive disadvantage in luring talented 
     workers.
       Instead, pruning the hours of part-timers has attracted far 
     more interest.
       ``That will be a widespread strategy,'' said Dede Kennedy-
     Simington, vice president at Polenzani Benefits in Pasadena. 
     ``Employers will be making sure their payroll system can flag 
     when part-time workers are getting close to the cap they 
     set.''
       Long Beach officials said they studied the various budget 
     options and opted for a plan that should affect only a small 
     portion of its workforce. The city estimates about 200 part-
     time workers will be among the most affected by a reduction 
     in hours, representing about 13% of its overall part-time 
     staff. The city calculated that the federal penalty for 
     dropping coverage completely for its 4,100 full-time 
     employees would have been about $8 million.
       ``We're in the same boat as many employers,'' said Tom 
     Modica, the city's director of government affairs. ``We need 
     to maintain the programs and service levels we have now.''
       Sievers, the outreach coordinator, has worked on and off 
     for the city since 1994. She agreed that the city has 
     experienced tough fiscal times as many municipalities have 
     since the recession. But the city expects a budget surplus of 
     $3.6 million for the coming year.
       ``Many part-timers are already struggling to get by in 
     these jobs,'' Sievers said.
       Virginia's Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, announced 
     this year that all part-time state employees should work 29 
     hours or less to avert the 30-hour threshold. Darden 
     Restaurants Inc., which owns the Olive Garden and Red Lobster 
     chains, began shifting to more part-time workers last fall in 
     a much-publicized test to keep a lid on healthcare costs. 
     Then Darden dropped the plan after being roundly criticized.
       Some California lawmakers worry that the federal penalties 
     for not providing health coverage aren't enough of a 
     deterrent. They have proposed additional state fines to 
     prevent major retailers, restaurant chains and other 
     employers from restricting hours and dumping more of their 
     workers onto public programs such as Medi-Cal. Opponents say 
     the proposal is unnecessary and could deter companies from 
     adding workers.
       Some supporters of the Affordable Care Act say they welcome 
     a gradual shift away from employer-sponsored coverage if new 
     government-run exchanges give consumers a choice of 
     competitively priced health plans. Some low- and middle-
     income workers who qualify for federal subsidies may end up 
     paying less by buying their own policy next year compared 
     with their contribution toward employer coverage.
       ``If the exchanges work,'' said Nelson Lichtenstein, a 
     professor of history at UC Santa Barbara and a labor expert, 
     ``then I'd be in favor of more people getting covered that 
     way rather than through employers.''

  Ms. COLLINS. 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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3305]]

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF SHELLY DECKERT DICK TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

                          ____________________