lieu of taxes, i'm just paying what i feel like paying, that would cause problems. the taxpayer in question would probably end up in prison. in any event, it wonk end well for the -- it wouldn't end well for the taxpayer. yet we've allowed the federal government to get away with this over and over and over again be, often to the detain striment of vulnerable -- to the detriment of vulnerable communities, poor communities, communities that rely on the federal government's unsteady stream of revenue is now being threatened toasmgh aln a sense, the problem that we face with the federal government owning all this land is not new. it's a problem that's been around for a long time. in many respects, it was a problem envisioned by some of the founding fathers. in fact, we could go all the way back to the constitutional convention of 1787 and see that

it was on the minds of some of the founding fathers. on september 5, 1787, at the constitutional convention, they were discussing the public land related authorities in the constitution, including the authority that has now been included in what's often referred to as the enclave clause, article 1, 78 clause 17. wufl delegates to the -- one of the delegates, elbridge garrett, a delegate from massachusetts stood before the convention and made an astute observation. there gary said this power, that is the power of congress over federal public lands might be made use of to enslave any particular state by buying up its territory and that the strong holds proposed would be a means of aweing the state into

undue obedience into the general government. close quote. then as now wise observes often came from the state of massachusetts. then as now, we have a grave risk associated with the fact that when the federal government owns this much land, the federal government has this much power and it was on the minds of the delegates to the convention of 1787 that one of the things they needed to protect against was the concentration of too much power in the hands of the fewer, especially the concentration of too much power within the federal government much. they understood and each of them had a mission to protect the sovereignty of their respective states and they understood that if congress had too much power to simply buy up too much land in any one state, disproportionately in some states, the federal government would have too much influence within that state. now, i would ask you, when you look at this map, does that look

equitable? does that look like an equitable distribution of federal landownership? we have to keep in mind that just as there are benefits associated with some of our public lands, there are also burdens attached to those benefits. and when you look at those burdens, it's difficult to say anything other than that they are disproportionately allocated into a certain region of the united states. they're overwhelmingly located within the rocky mountains and areas west of the rocky mountains. and so to the extent that these benefits benefit everyone in the united states, then the burdens ought to be shared by everyone in the united states as well. and yet, they are not. pilt, again, is woefully inadequate as it is, but now congress is trying to withdraw funding for pilt. and even though some may say we'll fund it later this year, we have no guarantee of that, and we should be funding it

right now. as an interesting side note in response to elbridge's concern on september 5, 1787, the founding fathers put a qualifying clause into article 1, section 8, clause 17. they said that congress's plenary legislative jurisdiction over federal public land lying within a sovereign state's boundaries would exist and could be exercised only if that land, the land in question, was acquired by the consent of the host state's legislature. some have suggested that this may well mean that when the federal government owns land, when it acquires land within a sovereign state's territorial boundaries, that it owns that land just as any other proprietor would own it. that is, subject to the authority of the state and its political subdivisions to tax and regulate that land unless or

until such time as the host state's legislative body parts with that bundle of sovereign rights relative to that land. in other words, the state retains its taxing power over that land unless or until it voluntarily relinquishes it, gives it up, hands it over to the federal government. and yet, in nearly all instances where you see red on this map, that has not occurred. now many of these states have been content with the fact that they have been receiving pilt funds. however inadequate those pilt funds may be. but now even those are going away. and even if there is a promise that they might restored later, later this year, there -- they're still inadequate. there's still a lot of uncertainty in a lot of parts of the country, places like piute county, utah and elsewhere within my state and elsewhere within the western united states. in order to protect against this

kind of concern, the kind of concern that the delegate from massachusetts described on september 5, 1787, congress adopted a practice when admitting new states into the union of incorporating language into the enabling act for each new state describing what would happen to public land within the new state's boundaries after statehood. they adopted this practice and set of language each time a new state was admitted into the union. that language was included in utah's statehood enabling legislation, legislation that was adopted about 18 months before utah finally came into the union in january of 1896.

section 9 of utah's enabling legislation says that public land located within the state, lying within the state of utah -- quote -- "shall be sold by the united states subsequent to the admission of said state into the union." adding to that, section 9 of utah's enabling legislation said that 5% of the proceeds from the sale of that land would be given to the state and would be held in a trust fund by that state for the benefit of the state's public education system. so, as i mentioned, utah was not the first state to have that kind of language in its enabling legislation. many of the states that were admitted into the union much, much earlier than utah had similar language in their enabling acts.

missouri had such language. north dakota had such language. we can name state after state after state that had language like that. and when you look at missouri, and when you look at north dakota, and when you look at most of the other states that had language like that in their enabling acts, you see very little federal public land. you see, because congress and the federal government honored the promises made to those states. congress followed through with that commitment. congress did what it was supposed to do. it sold that land subsequent to statehood, holding on perhaps to a few parcels here or there that it deemed necessary for one reason or another. it made good on that promise. those states benefited. the federal treasury benefited. the american people benefited.

now, it's important to remember that what we're talking about here when you see all of this red land representing federal landownership, we're not talking about national parks. national parks represent a very tiny percentage of federal landownership. we're not talking about national monuments which also represent a very tiny, tiny percentage of federal landownership. what we're talking about in the context of the pilt program are lands that are managed by the united states bureau of land management, an agency that's considered obscure, almost unheard of throughout most of the united states, but an agency that operates with a particularly dominant force in states like mine, where you see a lot of red. i remember the first time that i showed this map to my children.

my daughter aliza who was about eight years old at the time was just barely old enough to understand what i was explaining to her. i told her that the red indicated ownership of land by our national government, and eight-year-old aliza looked at that portion of the map that represented our state and she said look dad, they own utah. i said you're right, aliza, they own utah. they certainly own the over whepblg majority of it -- own the overwhelming majority of it. some of us have not forgotten this promise made in the enabling act by most of the states admitted into the union, and yet congress seems to be determined to overlook it. i'm determined not to let that happen. some of my friends back in utah are likewise determined not to let that happen. a good friend of mine, representative ken ivory who serves in the utah state legislature has done an amazing

job educating people throughout utah, in fact across america on this very subject, on what happened with these statehood enabling acts and why it is that the states in the western united states got left behind when it came to promises made long ago by the federal government. i commend representative ivory for his work on this and pledge to continue working with him on this important project. you see, this is about much, much more than land. this is about the ability of local communities not only to thrive, but to survive. this is about communities where it's very, very difficult for people to get jobs. it's very difficult for people, in some instances even to access their own property, even to access their own farms because it's impossible to get anywhere without crossing federal public land. and in some instances federal land managers will block access to the only roads that they can use to access their own

property. this has to stop. in the meantime, it's vitally important that we focus on the issues at hand, that we focus at a bare minimum on promises that the federal government has extended in lieu of the other promises. that is not to say that we're going to forget about the promises made in the statehood enabling acts. we're not. but for the moment my attention remains focused on making sure that we fund the pilt program. it's got to be funded. and in fact, it's got to be funded even more than it has been in the past. it ought to reflect at least a rough equivalent of the amount of money that the taxing jurisdiction could collect if it were taxing that land at its lowest rate. and at a bare minimum, even below that, we've got to make

sure that the program continues to exist. we've got to make sure that the program is funded at least at its current levels. this is not asking much, but it is necessary that we do this. the broken pilt program is, one could argue, just another example of government applying significant and unnecessary weight to the shoulders of hardworking americans, many of whom are struggling just to get by, many of whom are barely able to keep food on the table for their families, others of whom are able to provide for the day-to-day needs of their families but they're worried about what happens next. they find that whenever they find a little bit of additional income, no sooner have they earned it than they find that it's been swallowed up, swallowed up by increasing

taxes, swallowed up by higher prices for goods and for services, and they don't know how to get out of this rut in which they find themselves somewhat trapped. these are the kinds of people who suffer the most as a result of the federal government's failed policies relative to its federal public land. and we have to remember that lifting these weights is not only within the government's power, it is the affirmative obligation of government to lift those weights. in an 1861 address to congress, president abraham lincoln said that the leading object of american government was -- quote -- "to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered

start and a fair chance in the race of life." close quote. current pilt policy imposes government weights that make it more difficult for communities to provide important services like schools, police, and fire departments. it -- it hampers states' abilities to budget and plan and provide for infrastructure improvements. make needed reforms to their tax systems and attract new businesses and new jobs. this policy and the federal land management policies that accompany the pilt policy more generally is broken, and it's imposing a heavy burden on our communities, particularly in rural areas where the federal government owns much or most or in some cases nearly all of the land and where the needs are at

their very greatest. the program is already broken. the program is already causing millions and millions of americans to suffer. the program is already severely impeding economic opportunity for americans. deepening the existing crisis of opportunity that we have in this country, which manifests itself on three different levels. immobility among the poor, insecurity among the middle class and privilege at the top. you see, if you live in one of these states, it might be great if you were one of those people who owns the few parcels of land that's not owned by the federal government. it's not so great if you live in one of those areas where the federal government owns basically everything, where you can do very, very little anywhere around you without permission from the federal government and where your local government is barely able to survive because it lacks a

property tax base and the federal government fails adequately to fund pilt and threatens in this circumstance to withdraw funding from pilt altogether. madam president, i respectfully implore all of my colleagues to consider the inequities inherent in this map, the inequities inherent in the pilt program and for present purposes to remember that we need to fund pilt. it's got to be reformed? absolutely. and we've got to examine our federal landownership and management policies more broadly. today, we need to focus on making sure that pilt is funded. thank you, madam president. i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, madam president. i come to the floor this early evening --. the presiding officer: excuse

me. the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. feinstein: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: i come to the floor to discuss an issue of national security, and that is how to prevent a nuclear armed iran. i was thinking about our troubled history with iran, and whether more sanctions at this time make sense for our national security interests. and i asked these questions of myself: can, in fact, a country like iran change? is it possible for an isolated regime to rejoin the community of nations and change its behavior after several decades? must a country and its people be held captive because of the behavior of previous leaders in earlier times? so i thought back on history. i was a young girl during world war ii. i remember when imperial japan killed millions in southeast asia and particularly china

during its brutal wars of expansion. today, japan is a peaceful democracy and one of this nation's strongest allies in asia. i remember when hitler and the german third reich committed unspeakable atrocities across europe including the murder of six million jewish citizens. germany is now a close ally, a leader in the european union, an institution created to ensure a war never again occurs in europe. i remember general franco of spain which was so diplomatically and economically isolated that it was actually barred from the united nations until 1955. spain is now a close partner of the united states and a fully democratic member of the european union. the former yugoslavia,

vietnam, and south africa have all experienced tremendous change in recent decades. independent states have emerge from the painful dissolution of yugoslavia. vietnam has opened itself to the international community but still has much progress to make. and south africa has shed apart tied and has emerged -- apartheid and emerged as a stable nation on a much-divided continent. so i believe change -- countries can change. this capacity to change also applies to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. at one time, sweden, south korea, and argentina each pursued nuclear weapons. following world war ii, sweden pursued nuclear weapons to deter foreign attack. it mastered nuclear technology and built and tested components

for a nuclear weapon. it may have even obtained enough nuclear material to build a bomb. but in 1970, it signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and it ended its nuclear weapon program. in the early 1970's, south korea actively sought a nuclear device. the united states heavily pressured south korea not to go nuclear, and in april of 1975, south korea signed the nonproliferation treaty and halted its nuclear weapons activity. throughout the 1980's, when it was ruled by a military junta with an egregious human rights record, argentina had a covert nuclear weapons program. it built uranium production enrichment and reprocessing

facilities, and it attempted to develop nuclear capable ballistic missiles before abandoning its nuclear weapons program and ratifying the m.p.t. in 1995. so the question comes, is iran willing to change its past behavior and abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon? it may well be. and it's the job of diplomacy to push for that change. i believe there are positive signs that iran is interested in such a change, and i'd like to explain my reasons. the election of hasan rouhani was a surprise to many long-term observers of iran because he campaigned in support of repairing iran's relationship with the west. and since his inauguration, he

has tried to do exactly that. for the first time since the iranian revolution, the leaders of our countries have been in direct communication with each other. where once direct contact even between senior officials were rare, now secretary of state john kerry and under secretary of state wendy sherman are in near-constant contact with their iranian counterparts. those conversations produce the historic geneva agreement, which goes into effect in six days on january the 20th. candidate rouhani also promised to increase nuclear transparency, and he has delivered on that as well. even before the geneva interim agreement was reached, iran slowed uranium enrichment and

construction for the iraq heavy-water reactor. maybe for technical reasons, maybe not, but it slowed. iran has also reengaged with the iaea to resolve questions surrounding its nuclear activities. so what has been achieved in geneva? the interim six-month agreement reached between the p-5-plus-1 countries -- those are big countries: the united states, china, russia, the u.k., france, germany -- this agreement freezes iran's nuclear program in place while a comprehensive agreement is negotiated in the next six months. this agreement caps iran's stockpile of enriched uranium at 5%. it stops the production of 20%

enriched uranium. it requires the neutralization of iran's stockpile of 20% uranium. it prevents iran from installing additional centestallingaaaddit. it prohibits it from stockpiling excess centrifuges. a understand it halts all work at the iraq heavy-water reactor and prevents iran from construct ago plew to enupreprocessing facility. most importantly, the interim agreement imposes the most intrusive international inspection regime ever. international inspectors will independently verify whether or not iran is complying with the interim agreement. so for the first time, the international atomic energy agency inspectors will have

uninterrupted access to iran's enrichment facilities at denans and fordo, centrifuge assembly facilities, and iran's uranium mines and mills. and finally, iran is required to declare all planned new nuclear facilities. in exchange, the p-5-plus-one negotiators offered sanctions relief limited to 7 billion. an aspect of the interim agreement that's been criticized. here are the facts on that sanctions relief, which in this view does not materially alter the biting sanctions that have devastated iran's economy. the vast majority of sanctions relief comes in the form of iranian repatriation of $4.2

billion of its own money. iran will continue to lose $4 billion to $5 billion a month in lost oil revenue from existing sanctions. iran will not have access to about $100 billion of its own reserve trapped by sanctions abroad. for perspective, the total estimated sanctions relief is valued at approximately only 1% of the iranian economy, hardly a significanamount. i would like to take a moment to detail what's not in the agreement. first, it does not enable iran to a right to enrich. the united states does not recognize such a right for the five nonnuclear weapons states that currently have enrichment programs, and we will make no

exception for iran. but iran does have a rate to peaceful nuclear energy if it fully abidebides by the thames f its safeguards -- by the terms of its safeguards agreement under the ntp. the agreement does not in any way unravel our core oil and financial sanctions. others have argued the suspension of any sanctions against iran will unratify l the entire sanctions relief and that's false. the obama administration has taken action to ensure that does not happen. two days after the interim agreement was reached, the united states settled with the swiss oil services company over sanctions violations. t settlementhe settlement was mk $250 million. it was the learchlt against a foreign firm -- it was the largest against a foreign firm

outside the banking industry. the administration announced the expansion of iranian entities subject to sanctions. these entities either helped iran evade sanctions or provided support to iran's nuclear program. on january 7, the administration halted the transfer of two boeing airplane engines from turkey to iran. through these actions, the obama administration has made it abundantly clear the united states will continue to enforce our sanctions against iran. third, the agreement does not codify the violation of u.n. security resolutions. critics have attacked the interim agreement for its failure to completely halt all of iran's nuclear enrichment by

noting that six united nations security resolutions have called on tehran to do so, and it has not done so. the purpose of the u.n. resolutions was not to suspend nuclear enrichment indefinitely. instead, these resolutions were designed to freeze iran's nuclear activities until the iaea could determine whether or not iran's activities were for exclusively peaceful purposes. now, this is an important point. the interim agreement achieves what the united nations' six resolutions could not. it freezes iran's nuclear progress while a comprehensive, verifiable agreement is being negotiated over the next six months. the interim agreement was only possible because a strong

international sanctions regime has worked to convince rank-and-file iranians. candidly, enough is enough. according to the state department, as a result of these sanctions, iran's crude oil exports have plummeted from approximately 2.5 million barrels a day in 2011 to around 1 million barrels per day in recent months. and this decline alone costs iran $3 billion to $5 billion per month in lost revenue. in total, 23 importers of iranian oil have eliminated or significantly reduced purchases from iran. iran, in fact, currently has only six customers for its oil: china, india, turkey, south korea, japan, and taiwan. in the last year, iran's gross

domestic product shrunk by 5.8%. it's g.d.p. shrunk in a year by 5.8% while inflation is estimated to be 50% or more. prices for food and consumer goods are doubling and tripling on an annual basis. and estimates put unemployment as high as 35% while underemployment is pervasive. this is why iran says, enough is enough. the sanctions are biting, and they are biting deeply. and there's no need to put additional sanctions on the table at this time. this body may soon consider the nuclear weapon-free iran act. and that's a bill to do exactly the opposite: to impose

additional sanctions against iran, do it now, and hold it in abeyance. before casting a vote, senators should ask themselves, what would happen if the bill passes and a promised veto by the president is not sustained? i'd like to give you my view. i sincerely believe that the p5-plus-1 negotiations with iran were end and the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in iranian behavior would go, too. a change that would not only open all kinds of economic opportunities for the iranian people but help change the course of a nation. its destiny, in fact, could be changed. passing additional sanctions now would only play into the hands of those in iran who are most

eager to see diplomacy fail. iranian conservatives, hard-liners, will attack president rouhani and foreign minister zarai for seeking a nuclear compromise. they argue that iran exchanged a freeze of its nuclear promise for additional and harsh punitive sanctions. tbhi that. -- think about that. you didn't achieve anything with this agreement. all you got is more sanctions. they're held in abeyance, but the body has already passed them. secondly, if the united states cannot honor an interim agreement negotiated in geneva by russia, china, france, germany, the u.k., and ourselves, we're not alone in this. it will never lift sanctions after a final agreement.

above all, they will argue the united states is not interested in nuclear diplomacy. we are interested in regime change. the bottom line: if this body passes s. 1881, diplomatic negotiations will collapse and there will be no final agreement. some might want that result, but i do not. iran's nuclear program would once again be unrestrained, and the only remaining option to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon would be a military action. i do not want that unless it's absolutely necessary. to date, the prospect of just considering this bill has prompted iranian legislators to continue -- to consider retaliation. there's talk that the

legislative branch, called the majus, may move to increase nuclear enrichment far beyond the 5% limit in the interim agreement and much closer to if not achieving weapons-grade uranium. so the authors of additional sanctions in this body and iranian hard-liners in the other body would actually combine to blow up the diplomatic effort of six major powers. the bill's sponsors have argued that sanctions would strengthen the united nations' hand in negotiations. they argue that sanctions brought iran to the negotiating table in the first place. they contend that additional sanctions would force iran to abandon its nuclear program. i could not disagree more. let me give you the views of a few other people who are knowledgeable in the arena.

dr. paul pilov, the former senior u.s. intelligence official and current professor at georgetown university, recently wrote, and i quote, "it's the prospect of having u.s.-led sanctions removed that will convince iran to accept severe restrictions on its nuclear program. threatening iran with additional sanctions now, after it has agreed to the interim agreement, and the interim agreement is about to go into effect, will not convince tehran to complete a final agreement." i couldn't agree more. if this bill would help our negotiators, as its authors contend, the they would say soat this bill is an egregious imposition on the executive's authority to conduct foreign affairs. in fact, our secretary of state has formally asked this congress

to give our negotiators and our experts the time and space to do their jobs, including no new sanctions. and what does this body say, sitting here? we're not going to do that? this is a secretary of state that's of this body, chairman of the foreign relations committee, who has been absolutely prodigious in his efforts to get this interim agreement, has gotten it, and we're going to run the risk that it's going to break apart the next six months when a final agreement might well be negotiated. so if the senate imposes its will, if we override the president's veto and it blows up this very fragile process, some would say too bad, what a tragedy, and we know what the

iranian reaction will be. the iranian foreign minister who i happen to have known for a long period of time has clearly stated what the result will be in five words, and it's this -- the entire deal is dead. that's his direct quote. why wouldn't we take him at his word? so far, he has been good for his word. the ambassador of our staunchest ally, the u.k., warned this body not to pass more sanctions. sir peter wesmacott recently wrote, and i quote -- "further sanctions now would only hurt negotiations and risk erodeing international support for the sanctions that have brought us this far. the time for additional measures will come in iran reneges on the deal or negotiations fail. now is not that time.

-- that time." end quote. so i deeply believe that a vote for this legislation will cause for this legislation will cause >> so i deeply believe that avoca that legislation will cost negotiations to collapse. the united states and not iran then becomes the party that risks fracturing the international coalition that has enabled our sanctions to succeed in the first place china, russi, france and germany that our country cannot be trusted to stand behind our diplomatic commitments, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a very big statement. these allies will question whether their compliance with sanctions and the economic survives they have made are for naught. should these negotiations fall apart, the choices are few and the most likely result, in my

view, is the eventual and inevitable use of military force. and so i ask this body is that the choice we want to make? in six days, the tentative agreement will go into place. we want to pass this. we don't even want to wait and see what happens? we don't want to wait and see what the iaea finds when they are in there 24/7, 365 days a year? i think what we ought to do is concentrate on iranian compliance with the interim agreement. on january 20, 2014, this agreement comes into effect, six days from now. and over the next six months, the international community will be able to verify whether or not iran is keeping its commitments to freeze its nuclear process.

-- progress. if iran fails to abide by the terms of the interim agreement or if a final agreement cannot be negotiated, congress can immediately consider additional sanctions. and i deeply believe that additional sanctions should only be considered once our diplomatic track has been given the opportunity to forge a final comprehensive and binding agreement, and this is what is most distressing. if we hadn't reached an agreement in this six-month period with the cooperation and leadership of the big powers of this world, that would be one thing, but the fact of the matter is we have reached agreement, and that action is just about to take place, and we're going to jaundice it, we're going to hurt it. we're likely to collapse it.

by passing additional sanctions now, which a president of the united states will veto with the aim of overriding that veto. how does that make any kind of common sense? it defies logic, it threatens instant reverse, and it ends what has been unprecedented diplomacy. do we want to really take that on our shoulders and candidly, in my view, it's a march to war. as chairman of the senate intelligence committee, i know the challenges iran poses to u.s. interests around the world. i see the majority leader on the floor. would you like me to cease and desist for the moment? just this.

okay. i said as chairman of the intelligence committee, i know the challenges iran poses to the united states interests around the world. its patronage of the terrorist group hezbollah, its support for syria's bashar assad through the revolutionary guard corps are two of the most troubling, and i would hope that as a follow-through of diplomacy, we might be able to quell some of these activities. and let me acknowledge israel's real well-founded concerns, that a nuclear-armed iran would threaten its very existence. i don't disagree with that. i agree with it, but we're not there yet. while i recognize and share israel's concern, we cannot let israel determine when and where the united states goes to war. by stating that the united states should provide military

support to israel in a former resolution should it attack iran, i fear that's how this bill is going to be interpreted. let me conclude, the interim agreement with iran is strong, it is tough and it is realistic. it represents the first significant opportunity to change a three-decade course in iran and an opening to improve one of our most poisonous bilateral relationships. it could open the door to a new future, which not only considers israel's national security but protects our own. so to preserve diplomacy, i strongly oppose the nuclear weapons-free act. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. reid: i express my appreciation to the courtesy of the senator from california. she is courteous in everything she does in life. she is a pleasure to serve with. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 12:00 noon on wednesday, january 15, the senate proceed to the consideration of h.j. res. 106 which was received from the house and is at the desk, that there be no amendments, motions or points of order in order to the joint resolution, that there be up to 15 minutes of debate equally divided on the joint resolution. finally, that upon use or yielding back of that time, the joint resolution be read a third time, senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask now we, the senate, proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that now we as a senate proceed to h.r. 3527. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3527, an act to

amend the public health service act to reauthorize the poison center national toll-free number, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, that there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask consent the veterans affairs committee be discharged from further action on s. 1434 and that we now proceed to that matter. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1434, a bill to designate the junction city community-based outpatient clinic located at 715 southland drive, junction city, kansas, as a lieutenant general richard j.sytes community-based outpatient clinic. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to

reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i am told there are two bills at the desk. i ask for their first reading. separately. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 1970, a bill to provide for additional enhancements of the sexual assault prevention and response activities of the armed forces, s. 1926, a bill to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters flood insurance reform act of 2012, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i ask for a second reading on both of these matters and object to both. the presiding officer: objection having been heard. the bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning, january 15, at 10:00 a.m. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be

deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the time until 12:00 noon be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. finally, at noon tomorrow, the senate proceed to the consideration of h.j. res. 106 as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so at about 12:15 tomorrow, there will be a roll call vote on passing the short-term continuing resolution. tomorrow we'll continue to work on the agreement to consider the flood insurance bill and begin consideration on the appropriation bill once it's received from the house. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

. >> i admire her and i appreciate that the conversation will continue this afternoon.

and we will present to the senate. i will make sure that she has a chance to go over this what the republicans and basically go over all the detail and there will be five amendments on each side. but there is going to have to be a few other things and i will lay that out in the senate agreement. but i think that the really good news is that we are going to start having more amendments. as you know, and you may not know, but the caucus understands totally that when people start talking endlessly about process and the right offense about process, and on the other side you have 1.4 million people who are desperate for some help, those that are trying to help the 1.4 million people

understand. so we are going to continue our conversation this afternoon. we need to remember the urgency of this matter. we have lots of people who are desperate for help. i have gone over a number of those on the floor today and in days past. and it has become so stark. you understand that out of the 300 richest people in the world we have 67 in america and last year those 67 made an average of $2 billion to add to their wealth. and we are doing everything we can to help them with all the times past and we have done this on an emergency basis which we should do.

because in the future we will show the amendments and we are going to do that in my caucus supports that. we want to have relevant amendments and i think that that is only fair. and we hope to get an up or down vote for final passage on something that should be fair. and i think that this will include that. it is not about amendments or complaints but it is about 1.4 million americans, desperate americans, who through no fault of their own need help that the federal government level. and i would just note that we really need to get longer than three months. and i don't know if any of you remember that. but to do the proposed new bill

that we have suggested, it would take them the better part of three months just to get this in order. other questions? dennis? >> body while longer than three months now and the initial building tried to get going was over three months? >> the first question and answer. because our three months was unpaid for to give us time to try to come up with something that would satisfy the republicans. >> are you confident that republicans will agree to the up or down vote for a final vote? >> they should. but angus king can tell you that's on the way out of the meeting. he said that i haven't been in the senate for a long time. he said that i was on the budget committee and there was amendment after amendment and i raise the question and does that

mean that you are going to vote for the bill? now. >> senator reid, you have talked about this. >> there is a lot of controversy on ninth and i'm going to see how that plays out the caucus and the senate. >> the president has asked you to love him concerning iran sanctions. and am i'm wondering giving the recent news about the agreement with this ideal, you have the president saying that the west has surrendered. what are your plans as of right now for bringing a bill to the floor? >> the one message that the iranians should have if they don't have it by now is that we are not going to allow them to have nuclear weapons. while this process is playing out, negotiations going on, they keep changing it.

but all of the legislative process, we are working here and i'm going to do the best i can. >> with unemployment insurance, the agreement that you mention. mentioned. does that include other tenants of what the republican party includes? >> i do know that the ones that i am familiar with would be to change drastically the child tax credit. the other one is offered by senator portman is to do significant damage to people that are handicapped. and we tried to modify that the best that we could, lowering it from $5.6 billion to a billion dollars. that we can't get back past what we have here and all over the

country, people that are really working for money. so at this stage in my opinion both amendments were really bad. >> as this process plays out, can you give us some idea of your metric in your thinking? >> i think that at this stage we are where we should be. we have 10 senators here and we have now -- i don't know how many senators, but more than 55 are cosponsoring this and so we will check to see how this plays out. and i'm tired of this fight.

>> i'm tired of your. [laughter] >> on the amendments. >> yes, that will be our offer. because quoting my friend, the republican leader, that is what we do around here. >> are you concerned about any republican amendments? >> we will have our own amendment and if you're going to have an amendments you're going to have to take a chance. [inaudible question] >> i'm sorry, please go ahead. >> i was just wondering if there is any movement at all. anything that anyone can point

to that you might bring up or be able to do anything about it? >> if someone can show me anything at all that the republicans in the senate and the house, but especially here in the senate agree with the american people on these issues, not the least of which is having a background check done. 90% of the american people believe that that is the right thing to do. but until the republicans say they beat the american people are right and maybe the 10% are wrong and the 90% are right. they are now siding with them until there is some movement. and i have to suggest it is futility. >> or do you think about the midterm election? director of a been a lot of effort that have been made.

if there's anything that i can weigh in to show how foolish it is, that the republicans here in the senate don't agree with 90% of the american people, and pick any state that you want. it is really unfortunate. i hope it has some bearing the midterm elections. and i thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell spoke to reporters explaining his disagreement with the unemployment benefits bill. he was joined by senator cornyn and senator barrasso spoke about the omnibus in the health care law. this is 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone.

the majority is going forward on a very important issue, a matter of great seriousness and concern to the american people, particularly in the obama economy. it strikes me as fundamentally unfair. what he is offering to us is that every one of our amendments would have to get 60 votes. and then the final passage would be 51. and then there would be no budget point of order allowed. so the perception that we have made towards getting back to normal here at the end of the year has been wiped out by the reality of what the offer is. and i would be very surprised if my membership thought that was fair. and a number of you have been around here long enough to remember when we called this bill and we had a serious

amendment process and the majority prevailed. i had hoped after the discussion of all this last week that we would be able to move back in that direction. i have a number of members who feel that the unemployment insurance issue is a serious matter that ought to be addressed in a fair and bipartisan way with the majority deciding what kind of bill passes. this is a procedure that obviously cannot get us to that place. loving all also to say that we know that there is a bipartisan majority for a new iran sanctions bill by chairman menendez and a majority that quite possibly could overturn a veto and that we believe we ought to have that vote and we're going to continue to press the majority leader to allow those votes on issues that enjoy the support on a very large

bipartisan majority here in the senate. yesterday brought more bad news on the obamacare exchanges with a paltry number of young and healthy people signing up for obamacare, and most of the people who did sign-up were older and more ill, skewing the exchange arrangement that likely would be even more obamacare price shock in the future. and the congressmen congressman and the house has a very good proposal that the house is going to vote on shortly to provide for regular and weekly reports on the number of people who sign-up for the exchanges successfully and for medicaid as well. ..

after the bill that they championed, obamacare, past and now that people are starting to feel its effects, you can see, the democrats lack white. what you're looking at right now is canceled policies, higher costs, fewer jobs, fewer choices. and that think it is a function of really the broader obama economic agenda which has been

higher taxes, more regulation, fewer jobs for the american people and more to come play. the jobs numbers bear that out as the month of december was the worst jobs performance the chilean three years. the labour participation rate is at the los level since jimmy carter's a ministration 36 years ago. and the depth of what -- 347,000 people get discouraged is less month that they quit looking for work of entirely. and so we think it is time that the democrats worked with us tech quit trying to treat the symptoms of the problem and try and fix the problem. that is, these policies that are doing great harm to the american economy and costing american workers' jobs and a lower standard of living. tomorrow president obama is having to know carolina to -- north carolina state university to talk with a number of students.

he was there in 2011 in the big coliseum. they're moving into a smaller visit -- smaller venue for his visit tomorrow. the democratic senator who is running for reelection in north carolina, senator hayden, conveniently will not deal to be there to stand with the president of her own party who she has continued to flow with. the president, i think, needs to give the students there an explanation. their patients is running thin. at the get tired of excuses. we saw the jobs numbers that come out on friday. we are heading toward a part-time economy. the numbers just to the on the health care law where fewer and fewer young people, the white house has said there were expecting to sign up fewer and have signed up. explain to the students what went wrong with the policies.

they want to have jobs, careers, affordable health care. they're tired of excuses. >> well, on the health care front, i think that the interesting thing watching this debate for those of us who have that concerns about this bill and did not think that it would work from the very start is now what happens as each new fact comes forward. just a few days ago the white house spokesman said, well, when asked about one more people are not signing a piece said, well, it's not really have many people sign up. that is not as important as the mix of people. and, of course, that is right if insurance is going to work you have to have the proper balance, but the balance is just not there. people under 35, the ones that really need to sign up, not. the rates that they're looking at, the requirements of a lot higher than the rates of people in that age you have ever looked

at before comparing to everybody else that has insurance. and secondly, you told that same group of people to me if you ever get sick you can get insurance with the basic facts. in our state is not the 40% at the white house said was the number that was sort of the number needed of young, healthy people. about 25% of a much smaller number of people signing a generally, we are seeing that happen everywhere. interestingly, no matter what the supporters have said, the fact sheets time when we come to the moment to lay the cards on the table have been different than the fact that they said would be the fact we would be looking at. >> none of the funds appropriated by this act may be obligated or expended provisions in the omnibus spending bill. in time and time again we have

told this administration we have told this president that he should not negotiate, he should not agree to, and he should not expect the senate to ratify an arms trade treaty negotiated at the united nations. one might expect a president to pay little or no attention to republican senators, but a significant number of republican and democrat, more than 50 senators, numerous occasions by letter and by a vote have told the president not to negotiate an arms trade treaty and not to expect the senate to ratify. the sad fact is, we have little faith that this demonstration will not try to employment an arms trade treaty in the absence of ratification. and so this legislation takes the issue one step further, indicating that no can be spent to implement the arms trade treaty until it is ratified by the united states said. and.

>> congress ratified million dollars, voted against. use a portion of that to run ads. the thing that was inappropriate use of funds? >> i'm having a hard time hearing you. did he say that again? [inaudible question] to do ads. senator press has criticized this perry's to you think it was inappropriate use of funds? >> i have not follow that very closely. i think you have to ask those that have. >> you all are rejecting centuries latest offer. then what. what does that mean? >> i hope you all are beginning to get the picture here of who is responsible for dysfunction in the senate. we have supposedly been on unemployment insurance come a very important and significant issue for the country at a time of very high employment for one

week. there has not been a single amendment voted on. we have been on it for a week. the majority leader "work with rob zero pillars of the curve by the -- here we are one week later with a dominant ended modestly reducing its why a ridiculous offer that he knows we could not possibly advocate come here at -- he expects you all to buy every we are the problem. this is utterly absurd vote. what is wrong with having votes?

the system majority leader used to say -- legacy is not saying it much anymore, if you don't want to fight fires, don't become a firefighter. if you don't want to cast tough votes, don't come to the senate. well, that only are we not casting tough votes, we're not casting any votes. for republican roll-call votes since last july. four. so about the way the place has been operated, it appears that it will not change in the next 24 hours. [inaudible question] >> we were perfectly prepared to suggest to our site even though it would have required a number of members to stand down. i was prepared to recommend that we take five amendments on the side with fairly short-term agreements which would have

accommodated the majority leader's desire to of this is bill. i am not going to -- i could not sell, even if i thought it was appropriate. craft like this we have no real friends. it has not been too far in the past when the call about. we had votes in the minutes. whoever got the most votes one. i don't know what is wrong with that procedure. the practical effect of it is to disenfranchise the people that i and my members represent and more significantly, a significant number of the people , his members represent. his voice is a simply not heard here in the senate.

>> de think he's making a good-faith effort to pass this bill? >> of course not. >> is obamacare an amended off-limits, would that be something you would like to have an amendment on? >> we would like to pick our own amendments, and i can tell you from talking to my members of most of the amendments are certainly related to the subject matter. generally speaking the minority prefers to have a wide-open amendment process, but we understand that this is an important issue, we have both the short-term see our and an omnibus coming over. i thought five amendments on the side with a short time agreements was something that i could probably sell to my members and say that those who would not give in the five, let's do it another day. but i could not recommended. i know my members would not accept something like this. it is guaranteed to fail.

>> on the omnibus which was just mentioned, will that come in and out of here smoothly? do you anticipate any procedural hurdles on your side jack. >> my assumption is it will be passed. i think it will come over as a message which means it will be one cloture votes. i am competent the majority leader will not have it open for amendment and he would have to talk with members of the appropriations committee. my understanding is a number of them intend to vote for the bill. >> and get out friday, not saturday. >> well, that will depend on other people get it out from there saturday and that depends. thanks a lot. >> as congress begins consideration of the this the year 2014 omnibus spending bill we're joined by eric swanson of the hill. what are some of the top line

details we should know? >> about a trillion dollars in total. it flushes out the details of the budget pact that passed congress in december. a true bipartisan compromise. negotiations until sunday evening to hash out the route the federal government's budget and includes compromises of 1304 policy limitations on everything from preventing the post office from discontinuing to preventing the export import bank from blocking funds from coal plants overseas which was an important priority for appropriations committee chairman in the bill. the other things that were not in the bill, there is no provision blocking all funding for obamacare. that is the issue that shut down the government for 16 days in october. however, conservatives complain to the fact that the billion dollars has been taken out of the obamacare pension fund which

they often derided as a slush fund. health and human services secretary can dip into it. that oppose sequestration level. >> 2014 an important year for u.s. efforts in afghanistan. how does the omnibus in the war funding? >> $92 billion on the high end. that is what the house was seeking. this will upheld. base funding reduction from what the house has sought. so it was a pretty extraordinary number. the afghan government has admitted that there policy provisions which would require a bilateral security agreements in order for full funding for the afghan government and initially doing limitations fund the aid to egypt as well, the crew and

its funding limited by the administration. they will have to a make certain democracy objectives. >> and you reported on some language in the bill changing or reverting back to some of the benefits that were taken away, the military benefits. tell us more about that. >> that's right. the ryan murray budget deal cut $85 billion in spending in order to boost spending in the near term on the discretionary side. how they got to that overall cost involved a cuts and military pensions. this is a cost of moving adjustment for military cherries and has proven quite controversial, even among deficit hawks and the republican side, democrats and republicans. this does not completely reverse. instead it addresses disabled veterans and survivors of the members of the military who have

been killed. this would exempt them from the cut. that was part of the deal. >> after the politics of getting this to the house and senate to offers the house, he treated earlier about republican leaders saying that there are starting to sell $1 trillion on the bus to the rank-and-file. how were they going about doing that? >> that's right. we talked about it in this morning's conference meeting among house republicans. pointing out that this is discretionary funding done to the last year of the bush and administration before the obama stimulus. a lower number than the paul ryan budget. in emphasizing that there are a lot of conservative principles including obamacare, as i mentioned, that are in here and are worth going for. a lot of the members have just started to review the bill, 1,582 pages. it dropped at 8:00 p.m. last night. their still reviewing it.

they have local concerns. true conservatives. learning to make sense. concerned about land provision. what they're worried about and talking to leaders about. there will be a vote during today early in the afternoon. >> on that the democratic side you report supporting the omnibus spending measure, does that make it easy for house democrats to favor the bill? >> i think so. there will be as strong house democratic votes. oppose the budget deal. a grand bargain. i think there is going to be a strong vote.

talking to members and saying that they have concerns, the conventions of health funding and certain programs, especially in the education department and may deter some special note to five liberal members from voting for it. >> more from eric was in at the hill and follow him on twitter. thanks for the update. >> thank you so much for having me. >> by 1895 or so nine different railroads terminated in chattanooga. that was quite an economic thing. every railroad had a switching yard or repair shop -- repair shop. there was a terminal on the southeast. so all of that employment, all that money turning over by the workers just provided an economic stimulus to the growing

city of chattanooga. and even today, railroads still moved an amazing amount of tonnage through chattanooga. train after train after train loaded with grain. a lot of commodities the move by rail. and the terrain, they have to come through chattanooga. >> this we cannot book tv and american history tv, a look at the history and literary life of chattanooga, tennessee saturday at noon on c-span2 and sunday and then on c-span three. >> as the president first dated and reemphasized another goal of the united states and that can send and pakistan is to disrupt,

dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies and to prevent its return to both countries. the international military effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to achieve this overarching goal. >> robert gates served two presidents as defense secretary from 2006-2011. cia director in the early 90's . friday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2 a live book tv event. secretary gates talks about his management of the wars in afghanistan and iraq in his relationship at the white house and congress. a few weeks look for women's history author to take your questions and comments live on in-depth said yuri second at noon eastern. and on line for the rest of january join our book tv book club discussion on the liberty amendment. go to booktv.org and click on club to enter chat. >> i think i just had little

antennas that went up and tell me when someone and there are agenda. , it just worked out. >> watch our program on first lady nancy reagan in our website or see it saturday on c-span. our series continues live monday as we look at first lady barbara bush. >> the following tuesday house armed services committee hearing in afghanistan republicans and the committees but to reporters about opposition to withdraw troops from the country. here's a look. >> hi. mr. thorne very, our vice chair,

myself, we have just had a classified briefing that we are having an afghanistan. we are very concerned of a what is going on in afghanistan. the -- there was some talk about a zeroth option which would mean pulling all of our troops out of afghanistan might happen to come and we see what happens now, a terrorism, the deaths that are being caused because of a lack of our presence. and i know we have been to afghanistan. we talked to the general. the concern was that we negotiate a bilateral security agreement. that is finished. president karzai still remains, even though it passed overwhelmingly, he is holding off signing the agreement.

that puts the senate in a precarious position as we move to the end of the year because time is running now. one thing that we are very concerned about is the lack of leaders, our president, commander in chief. he has not, for months, talks to the american people about the situation. he has not given any support or help to our troops that are serving. he has not with their mission and the things they have been asked to do. they're over there every day putting their life on the line and they don't hear from the commander-in-chief. i, again, have been there. talk with the troops, sometimes they have questions about what the mission this and why they're there. it is incumbent.

you know, the last time i was there before we went into afghanistan a million children probably no gross. no 8 million children are attending school. when i was in march of the first, we could not go. the last summer when we were in charge. that had been a talent and capital. we opened a school that day. 500 children were going to start going to school, and over one-third of the more gross. we made some major achievements in afghanistan. the president does not tell the american people or the troops this. now, mr. thornburgh. >> one of the issues the committee has been concerned about for a while is the potential relief of detainee's that were in american custody and are now in afghani cassidy.

the potential, obviously, is for some folks to be released to have not only been responsible for violence against coalition forces in the past but could help lead to further violence in the future. and that think this is just one example of folks in afghanistan who are going to hedge their bets. they're not sure whether rare going to be there. they're not sure if we are committed to being there and what their result then is, folks , playing both sides of the fence which increases the danger to our troops well we are there and increases the dangers to our country's long-term. and just to emphasize a point that the chairman made, it is absolutely wrong with the president to expect our military to perform a mission that he is now willing to publicly support, publicly explained, publicly defend.

that sort of on a major national security issue is needed in afghanistan more than ever. this is obvious. turn and look at what has happened. we cannot afford to have that sort of vacuum happen in afghanistan because it presents a real danger to us. >> u.s. for the detainees. >> no, i just sent the letter yesterday. they were not a will to give us -- there were not a will to give us the names said. >> i think that that will have to come from the secretary. >> i have said that at least seven are responsible for insider attacks against our troops. is that the information you have? >> we are not sure. i think is the one terry asked

in the hearing the question was that at least one senator has said that these detainees are responsible for the deaths of 60 members. they could not verify that. they could not get as that information. >> mr. chairman, you want to you from the president. something you want to hear from them and how should that happen? >> there are any number of things to could say. he could talk about the achievements that we have achieved. he could talk about something i just mentioned. he could tell the troops will we are doing is important, saving lives, bringing freedom to that part of the world. remember, the planning, setting a for the execution was done from afghanistan.

they are not able to do that now there are very few hot al qaeda at this time in afghanistan. there are a number of things he could say. he knows what he could say. [inaudible question] >> the zero option. >> i don't think anybody is hoping for it, planning for it, or in any other way looking toward. what i see more is what happened is the symbol our way and fell into it baby that is the biggest danger as i see it. >> might be mentioned in the beginning of the zero option by the witnesses. >> we did not dwell on that. they have come out with the classified study that gives different options that they have looked at. and that is about as much as i can say.

>> actively planning for something like that. more than you knew before this session this morning? >> you get clarification, the latest information. >> to you get the impression that anyone in the administration favors the zero option? >> i don't think anybody favors the zero option. at think the point is the president needs to take the lead in telling the american people how we have a lot at stake and why zero option would be very detrimental to our national security. that is what we are not hearing. and i think anyone wants it. the danger is you stumble toward it, but now one way to prevent those symbols is to stand up and say this is why our troops are there, this is what they're sacrificing for in this is why it is important to act now. maybe he has to extend political capital to do that.

>> you all think that the president should go on national television to deliver this message and assess the importance of afghanistan or appear before a joint session of congress? >> i think either of those options. the american people will tune in if he went on national television to give an update on one of the most pressing issues facing our nation right now. i think they would tune in and pay attention to that. i think, yes. >> anything that congress can do? >> i don't know. we are hoping that does not happen. i think we have this data of the union coming up. we have not of -- we would like to see afghanistan be a wonderful, free, democratic nation, but it is really where we are looking at this hour

national-security interests. if we can have a 2-4, that is good. what we need to really remember is that the whole reason we had there is our national security. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> as the president for stated in march and reemphasized, the goal of the united states in afghanistan pakistan is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies and to prevent its return to both countries. international military efforts have stabilized as necessary to achieve this overarching goal. ..

>> click on the book club icon to enter the chat. >> the new jersey governor gives his state of the state address. then house hearing on copy write and protecting property on the internet. and later, legal arguments about the internet companies in the case of verizon versus the fcc. in his annual state of the state address, new jersey