Amendment Text: S.Amdt.823 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Proposed (05/09/2013)

This Amendment appears on page S3310 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages S3308-S3319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to 
support a bipartisan amendment I worked on with Senator Wicker to make 
our communities more resilient in an era of extreme weather that we 
live in. No corner of America is being spared: blazing wildfires in the 
West, massive tornadoes in the South, crippling droughts in the 
Midwest, routine hurricanes battering the gulf coast and the northeast 
coast.
  We cannot accept the status quo. I think we must do more, because as 
we have seen in New York, the storm of the century has literally become 
the storm of the year. In 2011, we saw widespread and devastating 
damage from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. One year later, 
Superstorm Sandy hit us harder than we could have ever imagined.
  The Federal Government must step in. It must step up to do the hard 
work, to lead the way in preparing for and protecting against these 
extreme weather events. This does not mean just building a higher flood 
wall or moving public infrastructure out of the flood zone; it means 
taking a smarter, longer term regional approach to disaster planning.
  Along with saving lives, this makes smart economic sense. For every 
$1 we spend to reduce disaster risk, we save $4 in recovery costs. Our 
bipartisan amendment can help achieve this goal. It is called 
Strengthening the Resiliency of Our Nation on the Ground--the STRONG 
Act--to give the Federal Government a real plan to strengthen our 
resiliency.
  First, the bill would investigate effective resiliency policies, 
identify the gaps, and identify the conflicting policies. Knowing what 
resources we have, what works, what does not, we can write and 
implement a national resiliency strategy to support the local efforts.
  This would include a one-stop shop to gather and share data to 
develop smarter resiliency policies, incorporating existing databases 
and ongoing efforts across a range of sectors, from weather and climate 
to transportation and energy. It also eliminates redundancies, ensuring 
all levels of government are coordinating effectively and efficiently, 
sharing their expertise, their data, and information.
  This national resource will work hand in glove with local efforts, 
providing the most recent scientific information and best practices to 
help our communities plan for and survive the worst. As we learn the 
lessons of Superstorm Sandy and other natural disasters, we need to 
ensure that our communities are thinking broadly about resiliency 
across all sectors of society. The STRONG Act is the foundation to 
build smarter and stronger cities, States and a nation. Only with 
communities built for the 21st century can we withstand the extreme 
weather of our time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to talk a bit about the health 
care bill. Every time I am home, I hear more and more concerns from 
more and more families and more and more individuals and more and more 
employers. In 2009, the President repeatedly said that if you like your 
health care plan, you can keep it. Notice nobody is saying that 
anymore.
  Maybe that is not what the measure should be because that is 
certainly not going to happen. I think the question is, are you going 
to have health care and can you afford it. During the Presidential 
campaign, the President said he liked the term ``ObamaCare.'' So I feel 
a little more free to use that than I did previously. I do not mean it 
to be disparaging in any way. I just happen to think it is a plan that 
will not work.
  In the 3 years since the Affordable Care Act became law, it has 
become increasingly clear that this plan will only deliver more broken 
promises and bad news. Opponents have long warned this overhaul is bad 
for the economy. There are now over 20,000 pages of new regulations. In 
talking to the people I work for, they say they were concerned when 
people did not read the 2,000-page bill. Since the election, there have 
been 20,000 pages of regulations. There will be at least 159 new 
bureaucracies, boards, and programs.
  A number of recent reports have reinforced everybody's concerns, 
noting that the health care bill will burden Americans with $1 trillion 
of new taxes over 10 years and penalties. It will stifle job creation.
  Investors Business Daily noted that retailers are cutting worker 
hours at a rate not seen in more than three decades, a sudden shift, 
according to them,

[[Page S3309]]

that can only be explained by the onset of ObamaCare's employer 
mandates--only explained by the onset of ObamaCare's employer mandates. 
In the April job figures, 288,000 people moved from full-time work to 
part-time work.
  Almost all of us in the Senate, as we talk to people in the States we 
represent, have talked to somebody who is figuring out how they can 
replace full-time employees--when they leave or maybe earlier than they 
wanted to leave--with part-time employees. The Congressional Budget 
Office warned that the President's health care plan will slash 
approximately 800,000 jobs, increase government spending by $1.2 
trillion, and force 7 million Americans to lose their employer-
sponsored coverage.
  On that last one, I think that is optimistic. I think it will be more 
than 7 million people who 2 years from now do not have health 
insurance, who had some kind of health insurance 2 years ago or even up 
until today. I think setting the standard that they have to meet that, 
and if they cannot meet that standard, just pay the penalty and do not 
provide anything is going to put people in a position they are going to 
find themselves very troubled to be in.
  A leading health care advocacy group recently noted that millions of 
people will be priced out of the health insurance market under 
ObamaCare thanks to a glitch in the law that hurts people with modest 
incomes who cannot afford family coverage offered by their employers. 
Of course, the only thing the employer gets any credit for offering in 
the new world we are about to move into is individual coverage.
  In fact, if someone has a family member who is covered in their 
family policy, the person they work for appears to get no credit for 
that coverage. An independent study by the Society of Actuaries--these 
are people who try to calculate benefits and life expectancy and all of 
that--estimates that insurance companies will have to pay out an 
average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health 
policies by 2017.
  Why would that be? Remember, these are health policies that there is 
a small penalty for not having but the insurance company has to issue 
to you whenever you decide you want it.
  I have talked to more than one hospital group that said we will just 
put the insurance forms in the ambulance.
  Under the law, as I have read the law, you can fill out the insurance 
form on the way to the hospital in the ambulance, and the insurance 
company still has to give the so-called guaranteed issue no matter what 
your health is.
  For Missourians, this study shows that medical claims costs could 
increase by almost 60 percent--the exact amount is 58.8 percent--per 
person. This actuarial study in my State says insurance claims costs 
could increase by 58.8 percent, making my State's projected cost 
increase the eighth highest in the country.
  At a time when millions of Americans are still searching for jobs, 
the last thing we should be doing is discouraging job growth, but every 
single person here has heard somebody that they work for in the State 
they represent say: We are not going to grow above 50 people or we are 
not going to hire full-time employees.
  Next year job creators will be forced to start complying with the law 
or pay a penalty. This will lead employers to reduce hours for full-
time employees to avoid paying those penalties or providing health 
care--either one.
  State governments, such as the State of Virginia right across the 
river from where we are working in the Nation's Capital, said that 
after July 1 none of their part-time employees will be allowed to 
work--that is the beginning of their spending year--that after July 1 
none of their part-time employees will be able to work more than 29 
hours. Why would the entire State of Virginia be saying that? Because 
the Federal Government says 30 hours is the time when you have to 
provide a benefit.
  Once we start saying something as a government that you have to do 
something, suddenly it seems to be OK to meet the exceptions. Companies 
that for five decades after World War II have done everything they 
could to provide benefits for health care at whatever level they 
thought they could because they thought it was either the competitive 
thing to do or the right thing to do or both, those same companies are 
now saying: Well, the exception in the law says I don't really have an 
obligation to provide you health care, and so I am not going to.
  As we see people move toward the part-time workforce, I believe we 
are going to see people having more than one job, but none of those 
jobs will have benefits. The person who served your breakfast or sells 
you your coffee in the morning may be the same person you see at a meal 
later that same day at another place because they are working two jobs, 
not one, and neither of those has benefits.
  For those employers who decide it is cost-effective to pay the 
penalty rather than comply with the law, those people who worked for 
them obviously will see their plans change or lose their plans 
altogether. Maybe that is why my friends across the aisle are beginning 
to say the things they have said about this.
  Everybody has heard the Senator Baucus comment that warned that 
implementing this bill will be a ``huge train wreck coming down.''
  Senator Wyden said:

       There is reason to be very concerned about what's going to 
     happen with young people. If their premiums shoot up, I can 
     tell you, that is going to wash up on the Senate in a hurry.
       The New York Times reported that Senator Ben Cardin told 
     White House officials that he was concerned about big rate 
     increases being sought by insurers in his State, one of the 
     first States to report what the new rates would be.

  Senator Jeanne Shaheen noted that she is ``hearing from a lot of 
small businesses in New Hampshire that do not know how to comply with 
the law.''
  Senator Jay Rockefeller said that he is of the belief that the health 
care act ``is probably the most complex piece of legislation ever 
passed by the United States Congress.'' He noted, ``It worries me, 
because it is so complicated. And if it isn't done right the first 
time, it'll just simply get worse.''
  The Secretary of HHS said, ``There may be a higher cost associated 
with getting into that market.''
  As I said, even the top health care official in the country, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, said that 
there might be a higher cost associated with getting into this market 
where folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the 
first time--or not. What she did say was that this insurance may cost 
more than what your employer used to think they could afford to provide 
to you, and now maybe they are not providing anything at all. Maybe 
they are providing something that meets new standards--not what the 
person paying the bill thought they could afford but what was the only 
option available.
  This isn't like, if you can do some of this, fine, you will just pay 
part of the penalty. It is not like that at all. In fact, what this 
really is, if you don't meet the standards that the Federal Government 
has decided should be the standards for employees of yours whom they 
have never seen, whom you pay $100 a day if you try to offer insurance 
that doesn't meet the insurance, per employee--that is, $36,500 a year 
is the penalty if you don't offer the insurance exactly as the 
government says it has to be offered at a minimum. If you decide not to 
offer any insurance at all, it is $2,000 a year.
  So now we have gotten to the point where the government is so right 
that it is a $36,500 penalty if you don't offer exactly the insurance 
they say you have to offer and it is a $2,000 penalty if you don't 
offer any insurance at all. What kind of parallel universe is this that 
this has taken us into that we have that kind of ridiculous situation 
develop?
  Last week President Obama said there may be ``glitches and bumps'' in 
the rollout of his massive government overhaul. The Chicago Tribune, 
one of his hometown newspapers, after he said that, said in an 
editorial: Give us the choice of ``train wreck'' or ``glitches and 
bumps,'' we are betting on train wreck.
  This is his hometown paper that is saying that. This is certainly not 
what the President and congressional leaders promised us when this 
became the law.
  We can all agree that we must fix our health care system. I think the 
path we are on is the wrong path to take. There are a number of things 
we could do: medical liability reform, more vigorous competition, 
buying across State lines, more individual ownership of policies set 
up, high-risk pools that work. The

[[Page S3310]]

choice should never have been ``you can do this or we can do nothing at 
all.'' There were things in the great health care system we had that 
could have been improved and still had the benefits of that great 
system. It appears that none of these are being allowed to happen until 
we see for sure that the new system either will work or won't work.
  I recently voted for the amendment to defund the program. Let's go 
back to the drawing board and see what we can do to get started again. 
I think this is a flawed concept. I think we have to replace this 
concept with commonsense reforms that put patients and doctors in 
control of health care, not new bureaucracies in Washington.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to lay out what we are 
going to do, and it will take me about 6 minutes maximum.
  The good news for the Senate--I am glad you don't object to good news 
because it is not always good news. What we have seen on this WRDA bill 
is that we have handled a number of amendments both through the 
managers' package that we substituted for the original text and in 
individual amendments. What we have seen is that the Boxer-Vitter 
substitute strengthened participation of environmental agencies in 
project delivery. We have addressed challenges in every part of the 
country. We reached agreement with appropriators on future harbor 
maintenance trust fund expenditures. We authorized additional regional 
programs. We accelerate investment in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
  Here on the floor, we adapted amendments to set up an oceans trust 
fund and a new program to address Asian carp. We have made sure that 
agencies are treated fairly in the WIFIA Program. We require 
performance measures for levee safety grants. These are good amendments 
offered by both sides of the aisle.
  We are about to, as soon as we do this little technical change to an 
amendment number--and it looks as though it has been done--we are about 
to adopt Senator Blunt's very important amendment that has so much 
support on both sides of the aisle for resilient construction, meaning 
we are going to make sure that as we enter a phase of extreme weather 
situations, we use the best materials on these projects. That is the 
Blunt amendment.
  Then we go to the Sessions amendment, which is land transfer to help 
his local communities--uncontroversial.
  There is a Coburn amendment to deauthorize projects that have been 
inactive for a very long time. This saves us money.
  Also, there is a Warner amendment that makes technical corrections 
for Four Mile Run.
  We will set aside the Inhofe amendment and that number, amendment No. 
797, that would be pending.
  I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the Blunt amendment No. 
800 in the previous order, the following amendments be the next 
amendments in order to the bill: Sessions No. 811, as modified with the 
changes that are at the desk, Coburn No. 823, Warner No. 873, and 
Inhofe No. 797; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order 
to any of these amendments or the Blunt amendment prior to the votes in 
relation to the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


      Amendments Nos. 800, 811, as modified, 823, and 873, en bloc

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments, 
which have been cleared by both sides, be considered and agreed to en 
bloc: Blunt amendment No. 800; Sessions amendment No. 811, as modified; 
Coburn amendment No. 823; and Warner amendment No. 873.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 800

 (Purpose: To provide for the consideration of resilient construction 
   techniques in certain studies relating to extreme weather events)

       Redesignate sections 11001, 11002, and 11003 as sections 
     11002, 11003, and 11004, respectively.
       At the beginning of title XI, insert the following:

     SEC. 11001. DEFINITION OF RESILIENT CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE.

       In this title, the term ``resilient construction 
     technique'' means a construction method that--
       (1) allows a property--
       (A) to resist hazards brought on by a major disaster; and
       (B) to continue to provide the primary functions of the 
     property after a major disaster;
       (2) reduces the magnitude or duration of a disruptive event 
     to a property; and
       (3) has the absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and 
     recoverability to withstand a potentially disruptive event.
       In section 11002(b) (as redesignated), strike paragraph (2) 
     and insert the following:
       (2) an analysis of--
       (A) historical extreme weather events;
       (B) the ability of existing infrastructure to mitigate 
     risks associated with extreme weather events; and
       (C) the reduction in long-term costs and vulnerability to 
     infrastructure through the use of resilient construction 
     techniques.
       In section 11003(b)(5) (as redesignated), strike the 
     ``and'' at the end.
       In section 11003(b) (as redesignated) redesignate paragraph 
     (6) as paragraph (7).
       In section 1003(b) (as redesignated), insert after 
     paragraph (5) the following:
       (6) any recommendations on the use of resilient 
     construction techniques to reduce future vulnerability from 
     flood, storm, and drought conditions; and


                     Amendment No. 811, as modified

 (Purpose: To require the Tennessee Valley Authority to grant certain 
                           use restrictions)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 5011. RELEASE OF USE RESTRICTIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority shall, without monetary consideration, grant 
     releases from real estate restrictions established pursuant 
     to section 4(k)(b) of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 
     1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)(b)) with respect to tracts of land 
     identified in section 4(k)(b) of that Act, provided that such 
     releases shall be granted in a manner consistent with 
     applicable TVA policies.


                           Amendment No. 823

  (Purpose: To ensure environmental infrastructure activities are not 
  exempt from review by the Infrastructure Deauthorization Commission)

       Section 2049(b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       (6) Application.--For purposes of this subsection, water 
     resources projects shall include environmental infrastructure 
     assistance projects and programs of the Corps of Engineers.


                           Amendment No. 873

  (Purpose: To include a provision relating to Four Mile Run, city of 
               Alexandria and Arlington County, Virginia)

       On page 216, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 3019. FOUR MILE RUN, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA AND ARLINGTON 
                   COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

       Section 84(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1974 (Public Law 93-251; 88 Stat. 35) is amended by striking 
     ``twenty-seven thousand cubic feet per second'' and inserting 
     ``18,000 cubic feet per second''.

  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider and lay those motions on the table.
  The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wish to thank everybody. We have made great progress on 
this bill. We will still be working very hard tomorrow, Saturday, 
Sunday, and Monday. We urge you, if you have amendments, we are just 
saying let them be relevant and not controversial. We can't solve every 
problem in America on this water bill, but we are trying our best to 
get a really good bill through the Senate.
  I understand from the House that they intend to look at our bill, 
work off our bill, and make their changes. Then we will go to 
conference and hopefully have a very good result.
  It is 3 o'clock on a Thursday, and we have disposed of numerous 
amendments. We are still looking at more. We are trying to resolve all 
of those. One way or the other, it is our plan to finish this bill next 
week. It is very rare to have a bill that is so bipartisan, that will, 
in fact, support over 500,000 jobs, and that has the support of 
business, labor, and all kinds of community groups. With that, I thank 
my colleagues for working with us.
  I have talked to the majority leader. There will be no further votes 
today. Next week we will finish this bill. I thank you very much.
  I thank my friend from Missouri. It has been a pleasure working with 
him and staff on his excellent amendment with Senator Nelson. We are 
very pleased we were able to clear this.
  I also thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Durbin. They had some 
issues, but they stepped back and let us move forward with these 
amendments.
  People are working together, and they are working very hard, and I am 
very pleased about where we are. I thank my colleague from Missouri.

[[Page S3311]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the chairwoman for her work.
  As this bill progresses, I will remind my friends on the floor that 
one of the major bills we passed last year was the highway bill in the 
last Congress that she and Senator Inhofe worked on. Now she and 
Senator Vitter are bringing another important bill to the floor that is 
significant.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I recently had a great conversation with 
an individual, August Busch, III, the longtime president and CEO of 
Anheuser-Busch. We talked about the state of the economy. We talked 
about the desire to get jobs created and the country back on solid 
fiscal footing.
  That conversation reminded me of the opportunities we have here in 
the Senate and the Congress to work together to see that we enact 
policies here in the Nation's Capital that would make a real difference 
in the everyday lives of Americans by creating jobs, by making certain 
our business climate is beneficial to large and small businesses. In 
that climate, they then would have the opportunity to add additional 
employment opportunities for all Americans.
  In this overly partisan climate of Washington, DC, it is easy to lose 
sight of the fact that we should all be working toward that same goal 
of getting our economy back on track.
  I think the No. 1 issue standing in the way of robust economic growth 
is the uncertainty that continues to be there--as described, in part, 
by my colleague from Missouri in regard to the Affordable Care Act--
with Americans in general and people making family as well as business 
and investment decisions about where we are headed with our national 
debt and our deficit spending.
  As elected officials, Americans expect us to confront our Nation's 
fiscal challenges and not push them off into the future. But last 
year's budget shortfall--just to remind us of the facts--reached $1.1 
trillion, the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. This 
out-of-control too much spending we have in our government has 
increased our national debt to a record $16 trillion, which is more 
than the entire U.S. economy produced in goods and services in 2012.
  The fact is our current fiscal state is the responsibility of many 
Congresses and several Presidents from both political parties. It is 
not always the opportunity we sometimes take to point fingers, but it 
is that over a long period of time we have allowed ourselves to live 
way beyond our means, and it has gone on far too long.
  When I was elected to the Senate, just about 3 years ago, I was 
invited to the White House to have a conversation with my colleagues 
and President Obama. The conversation was all about deficit spending, 
the national debt, and the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling. 
Unfortunately, since that time, it has been pretty much business as 
usual in Washington, DC, and almost no progress has been made. It is 
time for us to get beyond the conversations and the rhetoric that too 
often is pretty empty around here and get down to the business of 
making real changes in the way we conduct our business.
  First and foremost, we must reduce the government drag on the private 
sector. Startups in small businesses--the real job creators in this 
country--are being held down under the weight of a 74,000-page 
convoluted Tax Code and $1.75 trillion worth of redtape.
  Every single job creator I meet, whether it is at a townhall meeting 
back home in Kansas or here in Washington, DC, tells me their story and 
asks for our help. What they tell me is we have to reduce the massive 
regulatory burden. The overwhelming cost of compliance prevents many 
small business owners and entrepreneurs from hiring new employees, 
expanding their facilities, and growing the economy.
  Second, in addition to the regulatory environment, we have to say no 
to spending and yes to projob measures. This will help reduce the 
uncertainty in the marketplace, encourage business investment, help us 
become more competitive in the global economy and, most important, 
create jobs.
  The President's solution is to raise revenues to balance the budget. 
But the President's tax increase proposals would only cover the deficit 
for just a few weeks. I would be pleased to be convinced that if we 
increase taxes, the money would be used to pay down the debt. I don't 
think I am overly cynical, but my view of history, my review of the 
facts suggests that every time there is more revenue--more money sent 
to Washington, DC--more money is spent. History shows money raised in 
Washington, DC, only results in more spending in Washington, DC.
  The revenues we need to balance our books are not from increasing 
taxes but revenues that come from a strong and growing economy. We are 
not immune from the laws of economics that face every nation. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that government spending on 
health care entitlements, Social Security, and interest on the national 
debt will consume 100 percent of the total revenues by 2025. What that 
means is that money the government spends on national defense, 
transportation, veterans, health care, and other government programs 
will have to be borrowed money. That drives us further and further into 
debt.
  So regulations, getting the deficit under control and on the right 
path toward a more balanced budget, and then, third, we must take 
serious action to address the $48 trillion in unfunded obligations 
found in Social Security and Medicare.
  These programs represent promises that were made to Americans and, in 
my view, are promises that must be kept. Because of my family's 
circumstance--my parents--I pretty much know what life is like for 
people who utilize Social Security and Medicare and the benefits they 
provide for their lives at that stage in life we all aspire to reach. 
When Social Security was signed into law by President Franklin 
Roosevelt, the average life expectancy was 64 years of age and the 
earliest retirement age to collect the benefits was 65. Today, 
Americans live 14 years longer, retire 3 years earlier, and spend two 
decades in retirement.
  So we have gone from a time in which Social Security was envisioned 
to be used for a short period of one's remaining life expectancy to a 
Social Security System that now is a source of income and support for 
people through a couple decades of retirement. That means we have to 
change the way we support Social Security in order to fit today's 
demographics: more people retiring, more people living longer with 
insufficient revenues to meet those programmed needs.
  When this year's kindergarten class enters college, spending on 
Social Security and Medicare, plus Medicaid and interest on the debt 
will devour all tax revenues. Congress can and should begin today--and 
should have started a long time ago--to address these questions 
concerning the sustainability of these very important programs.
  Lastly, to get our country's fiscal house back in order, Congress 
should consider adopting many of the bipartisan recommendations put 
forth by the President's own deficit reduction commission. The cochairs 
of the Commission have warned--this is the Simpson-Bowles Commission--
if we fail to take swift action and serious action, the United States 
faces ``the most predictable economic crisis in history.''

  In other words, we know it is coming. One would expect that people 
who know something bad is on its way--an economic crisis is coming--
would take evasive action to avoid the consequences. Yet the President 
and Senate leadership have ignored the recommendations contained in the 
Simpson-Bowles report and generally continue to spend borrowed money 
without regard for those consequences--without regard for what we know 
is coming.
  I don't want Americans to experience the day when our creditors 
decide we are no longer creditworthy and we have to suffer the same 
consequences as those countries that ignored their financial crisis. 
One needs to look no further than places in Europe--Greece, Italy, 
Spain--to see what high levels of national debt will do to a country's 
economy. Out-of-control spending is slowing America's economic growth

[[Page S3312]]

and threatening the prosperity of future generations that will have to 
pay for our irresponsibility.
  Thousands and thousands of young Americans will be graduating this 
month. Typically, I would guess many of my colleagues will be giving 
graduation addresses and encouraging our graduates to go forth and 
pursue a great life. We ought to also be telling ourselves that for our 
college graduates to go forth and pursue that wonderful life, we need 
to make changes in the way we do business and get our country's 
economic condition and fiscal state to a place where the American dream 
can be expected to be pursued and, in many cases, achieved.
  I am fearful that while my parents' generation handed off a country 
where the expectations were high--we all felt we could live the 
American dream--my generation is failing to do the same for the 
generation that follows ours. We must not fail to take action now and 
leave it for another Congress, another year, another session, another 
election. If we fail to take the action we need to take today because 
we believe it is too difficult; that we can't afford the political 
consequences of making what some people describe as very difficult 
decisions, we clearly will reduce the opportunity of the next 
generation to experience the country we know and love, and we will 
diminish the chances they can pursue and achieve the American dream.
  I had someone in my office recently who travels the globe, and he 
indicated to me that every place he goes, people around the world know 
what the phrase ``the American dream'' means, and they all want to 
pursue the American dream. But the reminder was that more and more the 
American dream is pursued outside of America because of the inability 
of this Congress, the failure of past Congresses and Presidents to come 
together and do the things that are responsible for today but, more 
important, responsible for the well-being of Americans in the future.
  Not one of us was elected to ignore problems. People tell us, each 
one of us, all the time of some circumstance or condition that is a 
challenge to them. I have no doubt that each one of us in the Senate 
tries to figure out how we can help. The American people are 
experiencing a problem. Our country faces a challenge, and we ought to 
respond in the same way we respond individually to our own constituents 
when we say: How can we help? What can we do? We know the answer to 
those questions. We just need to have the will, the courage, and the 
desire to work together to address the issues and make certain America 
is a place we are proud to pass on to the next generation and that no 
American, because of our inability to act, is unable to pursue that 
beautiful American dream.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, may I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Water 
Resources Development Act. I congratulate Senator Boxer and Senator 
Vitter for showing how two Senators of opposite parties can work 
together, which is something that is sorely needed around here. I thank 
them for clearing the amendment Senator Blunt and I offered on 
resilient construction, to study the need to improve our infrastructure 
in order to withstand extreme weather conditions and events such as 
hurricanes.
  The last time we passed a water bill was back in 2007. The gridlock 
the American people are seeing so much of now is part of what has 
delayed us passing a new water bill--and the controversy over earmarks. 
But all of this inaction since 2007 puts our ports, beaches, and 
environmental restoration projects such as the Everglades restoration 
in jeopardy.
  This water bill is going to authorize new flood protection, 
navigation, and specific restoration projects which are so important to 
our State of Florida, such as Everglades restoration. Also this bill is 
going to authorize important updates to our Nation's ports. Our ports 
obviously are a main part of the economic engine of this country. All 
of these projects are now in this bill and will be able to proceed.
  This Senate water bill means good news for Florida's beaches, 
waterways, ports, and the Everglades. Rather than talk about the 
specific projects, I want to say Congress made a promise 13 years ago 
to restore the Everglades and this bill puts us on the path to finally 
fulfilling that promise and restoring as much of that extraordinary 
ecosystem known as the Everglades as it could be in the way Mother 
Nature designed it.
  I also want to talk about another part of this bill that is extremely 
important to the State of Florida. People think California has the 
biggest coastline. Not so; Florida's coastline is much larger. 
Actually, Alaska's coastline is the longest, but when it comes to a 
coastline with beaches, almost all of Florida's coastline is beaches. 
So beach renourishment is exceptionally important to us. It is 
important to our economy, with all of our tourism that comes to 
Florida. It is important to our environment. Beach restoration saves 
lives, mitigates property damage, and it keeps the recovery costs down.
  Beach renourishment is one of the reasons I support the bill. I come 
from a State that has more beaches than any other State, so naturally 
our beaches are of critical importance to us. It is important not only 
from an environmental standpoint but also from an economic and tourism 
standpoint.
  There is something known as the lateral drift, which is from north to 
south. It takes sand off the beach and pushes it south. When we have a 
cut in the beach--such as an inlet--that goes into a port, it all the 
more aggravates beach erosion. When the storm comes, watch out, because 
the beach can completely disappear.
  So I strongly oppose any efforts to cut the funding of beach 
renourishment. This is about protecting our communities from natural 
disasters. These investments save lives, mitigate property damage, and 
keep recovery costs down.
  For every $1 that is spent on shoreline protection, we see a return 
of $4. In Florida, we have several coastal communities anxiously 
waiting for the reauthorization of beach renourishment programs because 
they are so vulnerable to erosion caused by hurricanes and the rise of 
the sea level. This is pretty simple for us. We have to protect coastal 
communities from flooding and storms by adding sand to the beach.
  I will continue to try to prevent any kind of cut that we seek. As a 
matter of fact, we are going to see a Coburn amendment that is going to 
try to take money out of the beach renourishment. I will urge my 
colleagues to vote no on that Coburn amendment.


                           Suspicious Arrests

  Before I conclude, I wish to talk about a very disturbing 
circumstance which occurred about a week ago in the Turks and Caicos.
  There was an arrest and jailing of two older American tourists on 
ammunition charges at the Turks and Caicos Islands Airport. These two 
Americans were arrested on back-to-back days.
  The first person arrested was a 60-year-old businesswoman from Texas, 
and that was on April 25. The second person arrested was an 80-year-old 
retired neurosurgeon from Florida, and that was the next day. Both were 
on vacation in the Turks and Caicos and arrested at the airport. The 
reason they spent days in jail is because after their luggage was 
checked--and supposedly examined by the authorities--they found a 
single bullet in the luggage.
  Does that sound suspicious? I found it to be even more suspicious 
when I heard that both of the American tourists--who were on vacation--
have said adamantly that they had no ammunition and, therefore, had no 
way of putting a bullet in their luggage.
  It sounded even more suspicious when I was told that after they were 
arrested and hauled off to jail, they had to pay $4,000 cash for bail 
in order to get out of jail and to return home.
  The Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, and I sent a letter to the Charge 
d'Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in the Bahamas--which includes the Turks 
and Caicos--to ask them to investigate this

[[Page S3313]]

matter. We want to know if there have been similar cases this year to 
make American tourists a target under a similar kind of scheme. We are 
asking him to examine this so he knows we are very concerned on behalf 
of our constituents.
  In essence, we want to know whether this was a shakedown operation or 
legitimate. The fact that this happened on two successive days with a 
single bullet found in the luggage of American tourists gets to be 
awfully suspicious.
  I ask unanimous consent that our letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                      May 9, 2013.
     John Dinkelman, Charge d'Affaires,
     American Embassy
     Nassau, The Bahamas.
       Dear Mr. Dinkelman: We are very concerned over the recent 
     arrests of two older U.S. tourists at Providenciales 
     International Airport in the Turks and Caicos Islands, both 
     on charges of carrying ammunition a single bullet.
       These two Americans are our constituents. One of them is 
     80-year-old Horace Norrell of Sarasota, Florida, a retired 
     neurosurgeon who was forced to spend three nights in jail, 
     and then pay $4,000 cash bail to return home.
       The other is a Texas businesswoman, Cathy Sulledge Davis, 
     who also had to post $4,000 cash bail.
       We understand appropriate local officials have begun an 
     investigation stemming from these arrests.
       While we do not seek to interfere in the judicial matter, 
     we ask that you convey to the proper authorities that the 
     investigation needs to be expeditious, thorough, transparent 
     and independent.
       We also want to know whether any other Americans have been 
     arrested there on similar charges since January.
       Your immediate attention to this matter is greatly 
     appreciated, as is keeping our offices fully apprised of any 
     developments as they occur.


              Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Session

  Mr. REID. Madam President, this is important. I have a unanimous 
consent request that we have been working on for a long time.
  I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me, in 
consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed to executive 
session to consider Calendar No. 92; that there be 1 hour of debate 
equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back 
of that time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that 
no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements 
related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that President 
Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate 
then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I am reserving my right to 
object.
  I say to the leader, through the Chair, I am on the floor, as is 
Senator Nelson, to speak to the WRDA bill and to offer two amendments. 
I ask that I be allowed to do that before we move to executive session 
so the amendments can be offered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, through the Chair to my friend from New 
Mexico, I am not managing the bill. However, it is my understanding 
that there have been objections raised to offering more amendments.
  We could get the chair back here or somebody to manage this bill, but 
that is where we are.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I totally respect the 
leader and the discussion he has had with the chairman. I have tried 
today to contact the chairman. I have called her. I wanted to talk to 
her about this issue, and I want to get these amendments in.
  I know Leader Reid has been encouraging us throughout this debate to 
wrap this up and try to get amendments in. So I am here to offer my 
amendments, and I would like to do that.
  Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the UC? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, as you may have noticed a 
minute or so ago, I had a discussion with the leader, and he was moving 
to executive session. I have been down here--along with Senator Nelson 
and other Senators--to try to move the WRDA bill forward. Leader Reid 
said that was the business of the day. We are trying to move this 
forward, and we are trying to get our amendments in. I hope we can do 
that and do it in an efficient order.
  I am going to speak to both of my amendments. Senator Bennet is here, 
and I know he has a statement he wants to make on immigration. I ask 
that the Presiding Officer give me notice when I am in the 5-minute 
range so I can wrap up and get everything in at that point.
  My message is simple on the NEPA and WRDA process. Despite what we 
hear, environmental reviews protect people, taxpayers, and the 
environment.
  On average, it takes the corps just 2 to 3 years to complete a 
feasibility study once funding is available. Studies of complex and 
highly controversial projects may take longer, but these are exactly 
the projects that require more indepth review.
  The administration has warned that the streamlining provisions in S. 
601 ``may actually slow project development and do not adequately 
protect communities, taxpayers, or the environment.''
  The real causes of project delays are, No. 1, limited funding; No. 2, 
poor project planning that does not focus on national priorities or 
identifying the least possible damaging solution to a water resource 
problem.
  Project studies take the longest when the project developers insist 
on pushing outdated, damaging, and extremely costly projects instead of 
adopting low-impact modern solutions that could quickly gain broad-
based support.
  I have two amendments that go to the heart of making sure we have a 
good WRDA bill. The first is Udall amendment No. 581. Streamlining is 
an empty promise if the backlog is not addressed. The corps currently 
has an estimated backlog of more than 1,000 authorized activities, 
costing an estimated $60 billion to construct. WRDA 2013 will add to 
this backlog. It authorizes more than 20 new projects and increases 
costs by $3.4 billion over the next 5 years.
  The plate is full. Cutting corners on environmental reviews will not 
change that. It will just hurt communities. The plate has been full for 
over 25 years. Project authorizations far exceed the money to pay for 
them.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1986 and 
2010 Congress authorized new corps projects at a rate that 
significantly exceeded appropriations. In 2010 dollars, the annual rate 
of authorizations was roughly $3.0 billion and the rate of 
appropriations for new construction was roughly $1.8 billion.
  Completing project studies is not the problem. A newly authorized 
project will still have to wait. It has to compete for funding with 
1,000 other projects already on the books.
  This amendment would go directly to that process and solve it.
  Udall amendment No. 853 talks about the value of a pilot project. The 
current environmental review process has been used successfully for 
decades resulting in better and less damaging projects. It saves 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  There is no evidence that the process proposed in S. 601 would 
actually speed up project planning, there is no evidence that the 
process will speed up project construction, and there is absolutely no 
evidence that the process would produce better projects. It is quite 
the opposite.
  The evidence shows that the streamlining provision will lead to more 
damaging and more costly projects and will hurt communities, taxpayers, 
and the environment. The corps does not want Congress to enact these 
changes. The resource agencies don't want these changes, the 
environmental community does not want these changes, the legal 
community does not want these changes, and the public does not want 
these changes.

[[Page S3314]]

  Once again, I wish the floor managers were here on this bill. I am 
here, as Leader Reid has requested us to be, to put in amendments. As 
soon as we get back, I want to bring up these amendments, make them 
pending, and continue with this procession. I am very discouraged that 
we can't move forward as our leader has said. This is a bill that is on 
the floor. The managers need to be here to manage this process. I am 
here to meet with the leaders and try to move this along.
  Thank you.
  I will yield to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet, but I want to 
say one thing. He has done such great work on immigration. He has been 
a marvelous Senator ever since he has been here. This Gang of 8 has 
contributed something that is very important to this country. So I hope 
everybody listens very carefully to his words because he is giving us 
very wise advise as to how to proceed.
  I yield for the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. I wish to thank, through the Chair, the Senator from New 
Mexico for his kind remarks and for keeping it brief today. I know it 
is an issue of great importance to him and to his State.
  This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee began working on the 
Border Security Economic Opportunity and Modernization Act, otherwise 
known as a bill to fix our broken immigration system. As we are here 
today, they are continuing to work on that bill and I think will work 
into the night.
  Working with this group of 8--I call it a group of 8, not a gang, 
because Senator McCain doesn't like the term ``Gang of 8,'' so in 
deference to him I call it the group of 8--has been one of the most 
rewarding experiences during my time in the Senate. My Senate 
colleagues in this group include Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, 
Graham, Menendez, Rubio, and Flake. I come to the floor today first to 
thank them for their leadership and courage to move past the talking 
points on this issue and to produce this bipartisan product the 
committee is now considering today.
  This is a bill that has been applauded by editorial boards from the 
Wall Street Journal to the New York Times--two editorial pages that 
seldom agree on anything. In Colorado, editorial boards from across the 
State, including the Denver Post, the Colorado Springs Gazette, and 
Durango Herald, have all praised this bill. It has the support of a 
wide-ranging and extremely diverse coalition from the left and the 
right, from business and from labor, rural and urban all across the 
United States.
  All of this is to say the pieces are in place today to actually get 
something done in this town, in Washington, DC, and in Congress. That 
is not a small feat for a place where stalemate has become standard 
operating procedure. I would say we have a golden opportunity to rise 
above politics as usual, to do something big and something real--
something that lasts and endures. We have the chance to pass 
commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will strengthen our economy 
and our families, better protect our borders and our communities, and 
offer a tough but fair path to citizenship for those currently here 
without any legal status at all. In this way we have the chance to act 
together to do something great for our Nation and for its future.
  It is a cliche--uttered many times in this Chamber, including by me--
that America is a Nation of immigrants, and, of course, that is true. 
But we are so used to saying and hearing that phrase we rarely take the 
time to act or to think: What does that even mean? There is literally 
no other country in the world, on this planet, for which immigration is 
so central to its history and to its identity as the United States of 
America. All of us in this Chamber--and, more importantly, every family 
back home we are privileged to represent--can tell us when and how 
their family came to this country. Did they come in a boat in the 17th 
century? Did they come by plane in the 20th century? Did they come by 
foot or by bus, with papers or without? Every one of us has a story.
  My family has one of its own that won't surprise my colleagues to 
know I find pretty interesting. It is also utterly ordinary for this 
country. When I was in the second grade, my class was given an 
assignment. We were asked to research whose family had been in America 
the shortest time and the longest time. So we interviewed our parents 
and grandparents, we traced our genealogies, and we came up with our 
answer as a class. The answer was me. My family was the answer to both 
of these questions--the longest time and the shortest time.
  My father's family came over on one of those 17th century boats. For 
nearly 400 years, the Bennets, in nearly one form or another, have 
lived in this country. Then there is my mother. She was born in Poland 
in 1928, while Nazi tanks were massing on the border. She and her 
parents endured that war in and around Warsaw. They and an aunt were 
the only members of their family to survive. Everybody else in their 
family perished at the hands of the Nazis.
  They lived in Poland for a couple of years after that, but then by 
way of Stockholm and Mexico City, my mother and her grandparents 
arrived in New York City in 1950. She was 12 years old in 1950. As is 
the case with so many children of immigrants, she was the only one in 
the family who could speak any English at all. But the three of them 
were alive, they were free, and they had made it to America.
  My mother and grandparents were able to rebuild their lives and 
succeed here because America welcomed them. It greeted them not with 
prejudice but with opportunity. They worked hard--extremely hard--to be 
worthy of that great gift. It was a gift my grandmother, Halina 
Klejman, who loved this country as deeply as anyone I have ever known, 
taught me and my brother and my sister never to take for granted.
  So my family's history happens to run through both Plymouth and 
Poland, but it is not so different from the ones millions of Americans 
tell. Stories such as the town of San Luis, CO. San Luis is Colorado's 
oldest town, founded in 1851. The town was established by Latino 
settlers from New Mexico who migrated under a land grant issued by the 
Mexican Governor in Santa Fe. These immigrants were the pioneers of the 
Colorado settlement 25 years--25 years--before Colorado officially 
became a State.
  The narratives of how we come here matter because they tell us who we 
are and where we have been. But they matter just as much for where we 
are going as a Nation. The future of this country will be determined 
not just by those of us who are in this Chamber or in this city, or 
even in this country today. It is going to be written by people who 
have yet to step foot in the United States of America. Because over our 
history, it is the refugees fleeing persecution--the parents seeking 
opportunity for their children--who make America the America we love. 
They are the ones who keep us fresh and free-thinking and free. 
They are all of us. They are every single one of us--a nation of 
immigrants.

  Unfortunately, today's immigration policies do not reflect the 
history or the values that shaped it. Neither do they reflect our 21st 
century economic needs. Instead, our system is a hodgepodge of 
outdated, impractical, and convoluted laws. It is a mess of unintended 
consequences that hurts our businesses and families and keeps America 
at a competitive disadvantage in an ever-shrinking world.
  There is an old Visa slogan--I mean capital V, Visa slogan--that says 
something like ``Life Takes Visa.'' Well, in the United States, work 
takes a visa--and our visa system is working against us today. It is 
stifling growth and making us less competitive. Travel around my home 
State of Colorado, as I do, and people will see what that looks like. 
People will meet vegetable growers in Brighton and peach farmers such 
as Bruce Talbott from Palisade who fear they will not have enough labor 
to harvest their crops season after season. They are part of Colorado's 
$40 billion agricultural industry--the lifeblood of our State and so 
vital to our Nation--yet they have no confidence--and for good reason--
that a legal, reliable, and competent workforce will be available for 
their farms and ranches.

[[Page S3315]]

  Fifty-seven million tourists visited Colorado in 2011. I don't know 
whether the Presiding Officer was among them, but we would love to have 
her back. If people were to talk to our ski resort operators and 
restaurant owners, they will hear loudly and clearly that we need a 
program for low-skill workers to come into this country and fill jobs 
Americans don't want. In cities such as Denver and Boulder a person 
will find high-skilled immigrants with graduate degrees in science and 
engineering--the kind who are 3 times more likely to file patents and 
30 percent more likely to create new businesses.
  In fact, more than 40 percent of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies were 
founded by immigrants and their children. Forty percent of the largest 
companies in the United States of America, which once were small 
companies and grew to become large companies, were created by 
immigrants. These companies employ more than 3.6 million people in this 
country and generate more than $4.2 trillion in revenue every single 
year.
  You will also see thousands of foreign students with these highly 
technical advanced degrees who are being turned away. You will hear 
them say they have no choice but to go back to India, go back to China, 
and use whatever they have learned at American universities to compete 
down the line with American workers.
  Students such as Wolfgang Pauli, a German psychology and neurocience 
Ph.D. student who had attended the University of Colorado-Boulder--
Wolfgang was studying under a temporary visa sponsored by his adviser 
at the University of Colorado, but because of the inflexible nature of 
our visa system, his adviser wasn't able to keep him for an advanced 
research project despite his advanced skills and unique experience. The 
position went unfilled. It is a loss for the project, for innovation, 
and for Wolfgang.
  I have been to India. I have been to Hyderabad. I have seen people 
sitting in front of computer screens in a room with a clock on the wall 
that said underneath it ``East Hartford, CT.'' I said to the guy who 
ran the show there: Why does that clock say East Hartford, CT, on it? 
He said: Because they are redesigning the engines for Pratt & Whitney 
in East Hartford. Two shifts a day, by the way, 24 hours a day. They 
are up when people in East Hartford, CT, are up. I asked: Where were 
the people sitting at those computers educated? He said: Half were 
educated in my country, in India, and half were educated in your 
country. What we know is if they were given the opportunity to stay 
here and contribute, to build their business, to apply their intellect 
here, many of them would, but today we are sending them away. This is 
crazy.
  It doesn't end there. Go into our schools all across America, as I 
did when I was superintendent of the Denver public schools, and you 
will see kids, meet kids--great kids, hard-working students--enter 
their junior and senior years, their peers making college visits and 
considering careers, and you will see what it looks like when those 
students fully realize, in the starkest and most heart-breaking terms 
imaginable, what it means to live in a country without legal status; 
what it means to live in a place they got to through no fault of their 
own, without legal status.
  Many of these young people--inspiring young people such as Octavio 
Morgan, who graduated third in his class from Bruce Randolph High 
School in 2011--managed to carve out a future against all odds. But I 
don't know how we as a Nation can continue to look them in the eye and 
preach opportunity and social mobility without dealing with their legal 
status.
  You will hear about dangerous border crossings. You will hear about 
separated families and disrupted dreams. Yes, if we are being honest, 
you will also hear about jobs that went to new neighbors, and gang 
violence, and overcrowded schools. You will see, as we study this, and 
hear and feel a system that hardly qualifies as one. But that is the 
system we are living in unless we do something about it.
  For years, even though Congress has done nothing, immigration has 
become a poster child for the kind of dysfunctional politics the 
American people have rejected, but we keep on practicing it. We keep on 
practicing this dysfunctional set of policies. That is the way it has 
been in Congress. I hope it is now changing. But thankfully, for a lot 
of us who are here, that is not what we see back home--not even close.

  (Mr. COONS assumed the chair.)
  A few years ago, a small group of us in Colorado began working on a 
set of principles to begin a more pragmatic and productive immigration 
discussion. Utah launched a similar effort in 2010, so I would like to 
recognize the leadership of our friends to the west for paving the way.
  I was very pleased to take part in my State's effort, along with 
former Senator Hank Brown--no stranger to some of the people in this 
Chamber. Senator Brown, a Republican, is one of Colorado's greatest 
statesmen, with a long record of working across the aisle to get things 
done.
  Over the course of 18 months, we traveled over 6,300 miles in 
Colorado--which is, by the way, not a hardship; a lot of people fly 
over oceans to get there to have their vacations, but still, 6,300 
miles--and held about 230 meetings in the State. We talked to farmers 
and business owners, law enforcement officials and educators, faith 
leaders and Latino leaders, and all are struggling with different 
broken pieces of our immigration system. But we found far more 
agreement on what immigration reform should mean and what it ought to 
look like than you would ever think was possible if you listened to the 
politicians here in Washington or the pundits on TV.
  Together, we developed a commonsense blueprint called the Colorado 
Compact. It puts its emphasis on a strong economy and strong national 
security; it cares for families while keeping our citizens safe. I am 
glad we developed these principles, and I am glad it was done in such a 
bipartisan way, in rural parts of the State as well as urban and 
suburban parts of the State, and that we had such a broad coalition of 
people, including my former opponent for this very seat, whom we 
assembled in support of it.
  One of the things we all agreed on was that, as promising as efforts 
like this are--the effort in Colorado, the effort in Utah--this issue 
needs more than piecemeal reforms. No State's effort can be a 
substitute for a smart, sensible, national strategy to overhaul our 
immigration system, and with this new Senate proposal, that is exactly 
what we have.
  The bipartisan Senate bill we have introduced addresses each of the 
issues we mentioned in the compact, and it does so in a way that is 
reasonable, that is compassionate and respects the rule of law. It 
recognizes that we must take concrete steps to further secure our 
borders.
  We are building on steps already taken. Since 2004, the United States 
has doubled the border patrol. We have tripled the number of 
intelligence analysts working at the border. We are seizing a higher 
volume of contraband weapons, currency, and drugs, and net migration 
from Mexico is at its lowest level in decades.
  Our bill would make substantial further investments at the border, 
including new fencing and technologies--motion sensors, virtual 
monitoring systems, inexpensive surveillance, and other innovative 
approaches--that enable us to secure the border more cheaply, more 
effectively, and with a smaller footprint.
  However, there is still more we can do. With 40 percent of illegal 
immigration due to visa overstays, we need to ensure a better system 
for tracking people who come to our shores, who enter and exit our 
borders, which is why our bill provides for a stronger and more 
comprehensive entry/exit system.
  This is a very interesting point that a lot of people do not know. 
Forty percent of the 11 million people who are here who are 
undocumented entered the country lawfully on a visa. We have a system 
to check them on the way in, but we do not have a system today to check 
whether they ever left. This is one of the ways, by the way, that the 
bill will prevent our finding ourselves back where we are today to 
begin with.
  We need to secure opportunity, also, for those who are already in 
this country. Our bill provides a fair but tough pathway for many of 
the Nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, especially young 
people whose parents brought them here as children, just like my mother 
was, in search of a better life. Those here without status

[[Page S3316]]

today would be required to undergo a background check, pay a $2,000 
fine, pay all of their back taxes. They would have to go to the back of 
the line, which is what both parties have said for years, behind those 
who have gone through the proper process to immigrate. That is only 
fair and it is only right.
  This is not just a humane thing to do, but it is sound economic 
policy. Conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin estimates that 
immigration reform will generate $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction and 
help grow the economy. Some estimates have said this bill would grow 
the economy by more than a percentage point of GDP. It is $1 trillion 
or so over a 10-year period. A path to citizenship would lead to higher 
wages in this country, more consumption of goods, and increased 
revenue.
  Our bill proposes a more coordinated effort across Federal, State, 
and local governments, in partnership with private organizations, to 
help new immigrants and refugees integrate into their communities. Our 
immigration title, which was influenced by cities such as Littleton and 
Greeley, CO, would help provide immigrants with greater access to 
English language classes and civics education and help us cultivate 
stronger citizens with a greater appreciation for our Nation and her 
history.
  With a broken immigration system hurting our businesses and workers 
as well, we propose an efficient, sensible, and flexible visa system 
that would be more aligned with our changing 21st-century economy.
  As I mentioned earlier, roughly 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies 
were founded by immigrants. We want an immigration system that 
harnesses the world's innovation and talent here in the United States 
of America.
  There is no place where this is truer than the State of Colorado, 
where 1 in 10 entrepreneurs is an immigrant. Colorado has a high-tech 
sector that includes more than 10,000 companies and 150,000 workers who 
produce almost $3 billion worth of exports each year--$3 billion worth 
of exports each year--as well as a new patent office opening soon.
  We want the next Facebook or iPhone or clean energy technology and 
breakthrough medical device to be built in our State or at least in 
America. That is why we create a new INVEST visa for foreign 
entrepreneurs who want to start new businesses here in the United 
States. A new category of visas proposed in our bill provides this 
investment opportunity. Immigrant entrepreneurs who have launched 
successful startups could stay or come and continue to create jobs and 
fuel our economy if they can show they have been backed financially.

  We make it easier for foreign students who graduate with advanced 
degrees in STEM fields to get a green card--I know this has been of 
great interest to the Presiding Officer--and increase the number of H-
1B visas. This will help us attract and retain highly skilled and 
educated talent to fill labor shortages in some of our fastest growing 
industries, including bioscience and computer engineering.
  Our bill also creates a new--this is a lot to take in, I know, Mr. 
President, and I hope people will have the chance to study this. This 
is why I am so glad we took the time we did to negotiate this bill with 
the eight of us, but now it is going through the committee on which the 
Presiding Officer serves, the Judiciary Committee, to have hearings, to 
have a markup, to have everybody have their chance to offer--I think 
when I last heard, there were more than 300 amendments to the bill--to 
offer those amendments and then to get it to the floor where we can 
debate it. There is going to be time to do all this work, and this 
requires time to understand it.
  Our bill creates a new W visa, a program for lesser skilled workers 
to come into the country. This, in addition to several other reforms 
that are made throughout our bill, will ensure that we can continue to 
fill our labor needs in sectors such as hospitality and our vibrant ski 
industry, which hosts 56.5 million visitors every year.
  There was complete agreement among Democrats and Republicans who were 
meeting in this group that our visa system must protect American 
workers and prevent exploitation, such as requiring efforts, first, to 
recruit American workers. It also must be paired with a reliable, cost-
effective employment verification system that prevents identity fraud, 
protects our civil liberties, and is critical to stopping future 
illegal immigration.
  That is one of the key objectives of this legislation. We do not want 
to end up right where we are today, with 11 million undocumented 
people, and we have put the systems in place--including, very 
importantly, this employment verification system--to deal with that. We 
have had broad bipartisan support on this part for many years in this 
Congress, and it is now part of our legislation.
  This all has to come with a determination to crack down on employers 
who knowingly hire illegal workers. Simply put, if we want to reduce 
illegal immigration, we need to make legal immigration a much more 
straightforward process in this country. That is one of the reasons I 
was glad to take part in the agriculture negotiations around this bill 
under the leadership of Senator Feinstein and with Senator Rubio and 
Senator Hatch. This bill alone is going to stabilize our agricultural 
workforce for years to come and is critical to protecting and growing 
our agricultural economy, which has a $40 billion economic impact in 
Colorado.
  This bill provides a faster path to citizenship for agricultural 
workers to be able to do the important work of producing our Nation's 
food and fiber and, increasingly, our energy. It also creates a new 
streamlined program for agricultural guest workers that is more usable 
for employers while maintaining critical worker protections.
  It is the first time we have had an ag jobs title of this bill that 
is endorsed by both the farm workers and the Farm Bureau. I thank them 
for taking part in these negotiations and for the willingness of both 
sides to give a little up for the greater good. Their example is one we 
should embrace as we go forward on this bill.
  As I said earlier, I feel the same way about the bipartisan 
colleagues who worked on this bill. In crafting this bill, we all had 
to give a little--just a little--to get a lot. Each of us had to come 
to the table with our diverse perspective, representing different 
constituencies. We each would have written certain pieces differently 
were we left to our own devices, but this type of compromise needs to 
happen if you are crafting a bipartisan and complex bill to fix the 
immigration system in a country of 300 million people.
  Every single member of the group was committed to working together to 
accomplish that goal. In particular, I wish to again thank Senators 
Schumer and McCain especially for driving this process forward. As the 
committee begins its important work, I would like to acknowledge the 
work and leadership of Chairman Leahy to see it through.
  In the spirit of our partnership, I think it is important to remind 
ourselves, on an issue where emotions can run so high and so hot, that 
all of us are trying to do right by the American people, as each one of 
us sees it.
  Every proposed path to citizenship is not amnesty, and this proposed 
path to citizenship is not amnesty. And every opponent of these reforms 
is not anti-immigrant. We need to do more to secure our borders, but we 
do not need to treat people trapped in a failed system as criminals.
  These changes will be difficult. It is understandable that people 
worry about what this is going to mean for their jobs, their schools, 
their businesses. But if we just apply a very basic test--is it smart 
and it is right--then I am confident we can find common ground and move 
forward.
  I would like to close with one last reflection on my own 
grandparents' experience. On my first birthday, which was November 28, 
1965, my grandparents gave me a birthday card and sent me a gift. In 
that card, they wrote:

       The ancient Greeks gave the world the high ideals of 
     democracy in search of which your dear Mother and we came--

  They wrote this in English, by the way. Remember, when they came to 
this country, they spoke none.

       The ancient Greeks gave the world the high ideals of 
     democracy in search of which your dear Mother and we came to 
     the hospitable shores of beautiful America in 1950. We have 
     been happy here ever since, beyond

[[Page S3317]]

     our greatest dreams and expectations, with Democracy, Freedom 
     and Love and humanity's greatest treasures.

  They continued:

       We hope that when you grow up, you will [have a chance to 
     help] to develop in other parts of the world a greater 
     understanding of these American values.

  Democracy and freedom and love, in my grandparents' view: humanity's 
greatest treasures, and they called them American values.
  This is a lesson my wife Susan and I are now trying to teach our 
three little girls. Opportunity is indeed a precious gift this country 
will give each generation, asking only that they in turn not squander 
that inheritance but increase it and pass it along to the next. That is 
our responsibility as we consider this piece of legislation, and for 
that matter any other.
  If history is any guide, someone waiting in line for a visa at this 
moment or someone waiting to enter what my grandparents called 
``beautiful America'' will go on to become a brilliant artist or a 
talented surgeon or a path-breaking businessperson. Someone whose 
father picked grapes will grow up to found the next Apple. Someone 
operating a ski lift at Vail is going to be the parent or grandparent 
of a President or, God help us, of a Senator. That person will stand in 
our shoes a generation from now, and they will know whether we had the 
courage to do what was smart and what was right and what was hard.
  Now is not the time to pat each other on the back. We have a long way 
to go, as the Presiding Officer knows. But what we do have is some 
momentum--I think a lot of momentum--and a balanced reasonable piece of 
legislation. There are going to be some difficult discussions and 
challenges ahead. There is no doubt about that. But what I know is if 
we use the efforts and insights of the Colorado Compact as a guide, we 
will arrive at that shared, sensible middle ground. We will pass 
legislation that is worthy of the great hope of my grandparents and the 
future generations in this country.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Postal Reform

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about an 
issue I think does not get enough discussion in the Senate but is of 
great concern to the American people in general; that is, the need for 
Congress to pass comprehensive Postal Service reform as soon as 
possible.
  The Postal Service is of enormous importance to tens of millions of 
people, people in rural States like Maine or Vermont, to businesses all 
over this country, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of 
employees who serve us so well in the Postal Service.
  About 2 years ago, the Postmaster General of the United States came 
up with a plan for the Postal Service that would have--let me just tell 
you and the American people what it would have done. It would have 
eliminated about 220,000 Postal Service jobs, including the jobs of 
many American veterans. It would have closed about 15,000 post offices 
throughout the country, many of them in rural areas like the State of 
Vermont. It would have eliminated half of the mail processing plants in 
this country. It would have substantially slowed down the delivery of 
mail by eliminating overnight delivery for first class mail. It would 
have ended Saturday mail delivery.
  Many of us in the Senate and in the House thought that plan was a 
disaster for our country, for our economy, and for American workers. We 
all organized and fought back against that plan. The goal was to 
convince the Postmaster General to substantially revise the ideas that 
he had brought forth.
  Instead of closing down 15,000 post offices, the Postal Service, in 
fact, came up with a plan to reduce the hours of service at about 
13,000 post offices throughout the country, and many in the State of 
Vermont. Was I happy with that? No, to be frank with you. Was it better 
to see a reduction of 2 hours or 4 hours than seeing the entire rural 
post office shut down? It was.
  Instead of closing down half of the mail processing plants in this 
country, the Postal Service decided they would keep about 100 of the 
mail sorting centers that were originally on the chopping block open. 
In other words, they did shut down some but not nearly as many as they 
had intended to shut down.
  Instead of ending overnight delivery standards, the Postal Service 
has adopted a plan to keep overnight delivery going, although not as 
strong as it previously was. Although it took an act of Congress 
through the appropriations process, the Postal Service, for the time 
being at least, has decided to obey the law of the land and not 
eliminate Saturday mail delivery.
  Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive postal reform bill. That 
did not go as far as I would have liked, but it was certainly a 
substantial improvement over what the Postmaster General had proposed. 
We won that vote with 62 or 63 votes. There was bipartisan support for 
it.
  Unfortunately, the House of Representatives failed to even schedule a 
vote on the floor of the House for any postal reform bill. As a result 
nothing was signed into law last Congress, forcing us to start this 
process all over again.
  What I fear the most is that all of the work the Senate did last 
Congress--and the committee of jurisdiction worked hard on it. Some of 
us put together an ad hoc committee of 15, 16 Members of the Senate who 
worked hard on that issue. But I fear very much that all of that work 
to save the Postal Service will go for naught if Congress does not get 
its act together and pass a comprehensive postal reform bill as soon as 
possible.
  In my view the time has come to send a very loud and clear message to 
the leadership of the House, the leadership of the Senate, the 
Postmaster General of the United States, and the President of the 
United States; that is, in the midst of this terrible recession which 
has significantly impacted the middle class and working families of our 
country, it is imperative that we do not destroy thousands and 
thousands of decent-paying, middle-class jobs, including the jobs of 
many veterans. That is what happens when you make the kinds of cuts the 
Postmaster General has been talking about. In the midst of this 
terrible recession, it is important that we do not harm small 
businesses that depend upon the Postal Service to sell their products.
  Just yesterday I met with some businesses in the State of Vermont for 
whom it is enormously important that they know there is a strong Postal 
Service that can provide rapid delivery of the packages they produce. 
It is terribly important that as we talk about postal reform, we 
understand many senior citizens depend upon the post office for their 
prescription drugs.
  It is also important, again, for the economy, that we not slow down 
the delivery of mail, that we do not close half of the mail processing 
plants in this country.
  Here is the important point: There is no question that the Postal 
Service has financial problems. Nobody disagrees with that. I think 
many people do not understand the basic causes of the Postal Service's 
financial problems; that is, the Postal Service today is in terrible 
financial shape because of a congressional mandate signed into law by 
President Bush in December 2006, forcing the Postal Service to prefund 
75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period.
  Let me repeat that. The Postal Service, as a result of a decision in 
2006, is forced to prefund 75 years--75 years--of future retiree health 
benefits over a 10-year period. Clearly, no other government agency at 
the Federal level, State level, or local level comes anywhere close to 
that kind of onerous burden. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no 
private sector corporation in this country is burdened with a mandate 
anywhere near that extreme.
  This prefunding mandate is responsible for about 80 percent of the 
Postal Service's financial losses since 2007. Let me repeat that. You 
are going to read often, and we read often, the Postal Service is 
facing severe financial problems. Let me repeat: This prefunding 
mandate is responsible for about 80 percent of the Postal Service's 
financial losses since 2007.

[[Page S3318]]

  Before this prefunding mandate was signed into law, the Postal 
Service was making a profit. In fact, from 2003 to 2006, the Postal 
Service made a combined profit of more than $9 billion. That is a 
significant profit.
  I should also note that despite what we read in the media, the Postal 
Service actually made a profit of $100 million during the last quarter 
sorting, processing, and delivering the mail. If we are serious about 
dealing with the financial problems facing the Postal Service, the 
first thing we have to do is end this prefunding mandate once and for 
all and allow the Postal Service to use the $48 billion sitting in that 
future retiree health fund to keep the Postal Service healthy and 
thriving for years to come.
  When we talk about the financial problems facing the Postal Service, 
we have to understand that to a very significant degree some 80 percent 
of the problem was caused by the Congress as a result of a decision 
made in 2006. It is clear to me, and I think to all Americans, that we 
live in the year 2013. The world is changing. We are becoming more and 
more a digital economy, but it is also clear to me that the Postal 
Service does not survive by cutting back on its services to the 
American people and to the business community.
  In order to save and strengthen the Postal Service, I have introduced 
the Postal Service Protection Act, S. 316. I am very proud to say that 
bill now has 23 cosponsors.
  Let me thank all of the Senators who are cosponsoring this bill: 
Senators Baucus, Blumenthal, Brown, Casey, Cowan, Franken, Gillibrand, 
Harkin, Heinrich, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Manchin, Menendez, Merkley, 
Schatz, Stabenow, Tester, Tom Udall, Warren, and Wyden.
  Mr. President, I would ask that Senator Cardin be added as a 
cosponsor to S. 316.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. I am delighted that we are making progress on real 
postal reform not only in the Senate but in the House as well. I thank 
Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon for his leadership efforts in 
cosponsoring the exact same bill in the House as we have in the Senate, 
and that now has 139 cosponsors.
  We have 24 cosponsors now in the Senate, and in the House that bill 
has 139 cosponsors, which tells me the American people and their 
representatives in Washington understand how terribly important it is 
that we pass serious postal reform.
  Let me very briefly talk about what is in that legislation, what the 
legislation, if passed, would accomplish. That bill would reestablish 
strong overnight delivery standards to ensure the timely delivery of 
mail. When people put a letter or a package in a mailbox or go to the 
post office, they want to know that letter or package is going to be 
delivered in a timely manner, and we do that.
  In order to make sure we do have timely mail delivery, this 
legislation would prevent the closure of hundreds of mail processing 
plants throughout this country and save the jobs of tens of thousands 
of workers. This legislation would end, once and for all, as I just 
mentioned, the disastrous prefunding mandate that is the major problem 
facing the Postal Service.
  This legislation would allow the Postal Service to recoup over $50 
billion it has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System. This 
legislation would prevent the Postal Service from ending Saturday mail 
delivery. Further, and significantly, our bill would give the Postal 
Service the tools it needs to compete in the 21st century.
  I understand, we all understand, the world has changed. It is not 
simply a question of finances, it is a question of giving the Postal 
Service the ability to compete in today's market and to allow it to 
sell innovative new products, new services, and, as a result, raise 
more revenue. We need a new vision for the Postal Service. This 
legislation would provide that vision.
  Many Americans don't notice, but right now Federal law is tying the 
hands of the Postal Service in terms of the products and services it 
can provide. We say to the Postal Service that we are upset they are 
not making enough revenue, and yet we tie their hands and prevent them 
from going forth in producing new products and services to raise the 
revenue that would help their bottom line.
  This legislation unties the hands of the Postal Service and would 
develop a process to allow the Postal Service to explore offering the 
best products and services that would raise the most revenue.
  Let me just give an example of some of the absurdities under which 
the Postal Service is now operating.
  If you were to go into a post office in Maine with a document and say 
to the clerk who is waiting on you: Listen, I need you to notarize this 
letter, the clerk would tell you: Sorry, it is against the law for me 
to notarize that letter. Now, that is pretty absurd.
  If you were to walk into a post office, as I am sure everyday people 
do, and say: Listen, I need you to give me 10 copies of this document 
because I have to send it out to 10 different people, they would say: 
Sorry, it is against the law of the United States of America for me to 
make 10 copies, 3 copies, or 1 copy of your document.

  Furthermore, it is against the law for post offices to sell fishing 
or hunting licenses. Well, in my State, we are a rural State. People 
might, in certain parts of the State or other parts of America, like to 
be able to walk into a post office and say: Hey, how do I get a fishing 
license? How do I pick up a hunting license?
  It is against the law right now. If somebody has a check that needs 
to be cashed, it is very difficult to cash that check in a post office.
  What you see, by the way, all over America are payday lenders who are 
charging outrageous rates to low-income people to cash a check, a 
service I suspect the Postal Service could do to make some money and 
also save people a whole lot of money by not having to pay these 
outrageous rates.
  If you were to pick up a case of beer or a case of wine and you 
wanted to send it to a relative in California, it is against the law 
for the Postal Service to deliver wine or beer. Currently, it is 
against the law for the United States Postal Service to engage in e-
commerce activities.
  We say to the Postal Service: We want you to go out and we want you 
to be competitive. By the way, you can't do this and you can't do that. 
On top of that, we are going to cause a massive financial problem for 
you demanding that you prefund 75 years of retiree health care in a 10-
year period. Good luck. Well, that has a lot to do with why the Postal 
Service is facing the serious financial problems it is today.
  We have to give the Postal Service a lot more flexibility, and we 
have to give them the opportunity and the ability to develop a very 
different business model than it currently has. In my view, we need to 
give the Postal Service the authority to do what other countries 
throughout the world are doing to respond to the shift toward 
electronic mail and away from hard copy mail. Fewer and fewer people 
are using first class mail. We understand that. They are using e-mail. 
That is the reality and we have to respond to that.
  Let me give a few of them, really just a few, of what other postal 
services around the world are doing.
  In Sweden, the post office will physically deliver e-mail 
correspondence to people who are not online or don't have access to a 
computer. Could that work here? I don't know. It is an interesting 
idea.
  In Switzerland, people can have their physical mail received, 
scanned, and delivered into their e-mail boxes by the postal service.
  In Germany, the post office will allow customers to communicate 
through secure service.
  I think people are increasingly and legitimately concerned about who 
is going to get into their e-mail. In Germany they provide secure 
services. Could that work here in the United States? I don't know. Is 
it worth exploring, worth looking into? I think it is.
  The point is that the Postal Service must be given the opportunity to 
innovate and implement an expanded business strategy for a changing 
world. We can't keep doing the same old-same old in a world that is 
changing.
  For over 230 years, and enshrined in our Constitution, the Postal 
Service has played an enormously important role for the people of our 
country and, in fact, for our entire economy. A strong Postal Service, 
a Postal Service

[[Page S3319]]

that delivers mail and packages in a timely manner, is extremely 
important for our economy.
  That mission remains as important as it has ever been. Let's stand 
together and fight to save the Postal Service, not destroy it. Let's 
stand together in the midst of this recession to fight and save 
hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  I again want to thank the 23 cosponsors on my legislation. I look 
forward to having more, but let's go forward together to save the 
Postal Service.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this afternoon we have been trying to move 
forward on the WRDA bill--the Water Resources Development Act--and 
significant progress has been made. One of the issues we are trying to 
work out is an issue dealing with Senator Landrieu. She has been, more 
than anyone else in the Senate, concerned about what happens when 
places flood, and she has every reason to feel this way because of what 
happens in Louisiana with flooding. She is concerned about flood 
insurance.
  I have worked with Senator Boxer, Senator Boxer's staff, I have 
worked with the Republicans, and it appears to me this is something 
that has made great progress today. The staff is going to work on this 
over the weekend. We will be here on Monday. I will file cloture in a 
few minutes, but if, in fact, cloture doesn't need to be voted on, we 
can always move forward without doing that. We can vitiate the cloture 
vote.
  So I hope the good work done by Senator Landrieu, her staff, and 
other staff members here--and Senator Landrieu has been here, as she is 
now. I don't mean this in a negative sense, but she is like a bulldog. 
Whenever she gets hold of something, it is hard to get her to loosen 
that jaw. She has been here all afternoon working on this, so I hope 
something can be worked out during the next 48 hours on this matter.


                             Cloture Motion

  I have a cloture motion at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 601, a bill 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.
         Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Tom Udall, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Max Baucus, Bill Nelson, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Harkin, Al 
           Franken, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Brian Schatz, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Jeff Merkley, Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Sherrod 
           Brown, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Ron Wyden.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required 
under rule XXII be waived and that the vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on S. 601 occur at 12 noon on Tuesday, May 14.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________