on the sunday shows on september 16 where she said on the shows to talk about what happened that day. and she is directly asked by chris wallace in an interview, he says, "terror cells in benghazi had carried out five attacks since april, including a bombing at the same consulate in june. should u.s. security have been tighter on that consulate given the history of terror activity in ben gas dismi" what's her response? "well, we obviously did have a strong security presence." but not only that. on other interviews she gave that day -- she was on several shows. abc with george stephanopoulos. she was on "face the nation" with bob schieffer. she was asked about the security at the consolate and she also

described it as substantial, security at the consolate that day. what was the basis for that? did anybody give her information that the consolate that day, security was significant, substantial and strong? because there was absolutely no evidence of that. in fact, everything found in this investigation has shown that security was absolutely lax at that consolate, unacceptably so given the prior history of intelligence at the consolate, given the prior attacks that had been made not only on the british, on the red cross. and this really was unfortunately a death trap. and so why is she then, in the context of an election not only pushing the video story -- the president as well -- but also saying the consulate security is

strong, it was significant when there is no evidence of that. in fact, it all goes to the contrary. finally, you know, there's been a lot of discussion about the fact that the -- about the video. ambassador rice went on the sunday shows. she talks about the video. she talks about the causal effect of the video in terms of of the attacks on the consulate. in fact, what she says essentially is this was the direct result of a heinous video that was widely disseminate and which the u.s. government had nothing to do with which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting and made clear in saying there is no excuse for violence and condemned it in the strongest possible terms. this direct result of a heinous video which she said on all the sunday shows, which the

president then also talked about in the interviews that i have just referenced, the interview a week later on david letterman, the interview nine days after the attack on univision, the interview two weeks later on "the view" where they're still talking about the video. i thought it was fascinating from the beginning the talking points. the talking points were created fordice sepl nation. in fact -- for dissemination. ambassador rice was given these talking points, said she relied upon them and there was serious deficiencies with these talking points. even so, i challenge people to find any reference to a video in these talking points. i looked and i looked and i looked, and i couldn't see the word "video" in these talking points anywhere. yet we have ambassador susan rice on behalf of the

administration on september 16, every sunday show talking about the video, the president of the united states on david letterman a week later talking about the video, the president nine days later after the attack on univision talking about a video, almost two weeks later, 13 days later on "the view" talking about a video. and yet there isn't a reference to a video in these talking points. i've never understood where did the video story come from. do you think we'll ever get the answer to that? because i think we deserve an answer to that, especially now that because of the recent intel report, we know that the deputy director of the c.i.a., the day before ambassador rice first appeared on those sunday shows to tell the story, that he received this e-mail that reported that the attacks were not -- not an escalation of

protests. so if it's not an escalation of protests, let's look at these talking points again. these talking points don't refer to a video. we're not sure how that story got told. but then why is it that the talking points that did go out say that available current information suggests that demonstrations in benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the u.s. embassy in cairo and evolved into a direct assault against our u.s. diplomatic post in benghazi and subsequently its annex and that they were participating in violent demonstrations. so how come what he learned the day before wasn't taken into account in terms of what was represented to the american people? and i think a bigger question is how is it that the deputy director of the c.i.a. can receive relevant and important information, and that information never gets to the president of the united states

as late as nine days later? because on september 24 on "the view" he's still talking about this video. yet, it turns out that the video never had anything to do with this. you know, it just -- it really raises so many questions in terms of the tangled web of this whole situation. and i have yet to talk about what was an incredible change in these talking points which was the removal of the reference to al qaeda. the original set of talking points, before they went through various modifications talked about al qaeda or the potential of al qaeda affiliated groups being involved in these attacks. of course that now has been confirmed by the bipartisan senate intelligence committee

report recently revealed. but at the time the reference to al qaeda was removed from these talking points. and it was removed from these talking points, and ambassador rice was free to go on the sunday shows september 16, and she said al qaeda had been decimated. imagine if the talking points had referred, kept the reference to al qaeda. do you think that she would have gone on every sunday show and said al qaeda had been decimated? i would hope not because it was not true that al qaeda had been decimated, as evidenced by the attacks on our consulate. we still don't know how, why that, who removed the reference and what happened with these talking points. but what really troubles me also is that the deputy director of the c.i.a. who is senate

intelligence committee report says received this e-mail on september 15 that said the attacks were not an escalation of protest, he worked on these talking points. he was part of the group that actually had feedback on the talking points that went out the door. and yet, somehow this wasn't included. the al qaeda reference was removed. and apparently no one, even after receiving the actual eyewitness interviews of what happened on the scene, ever thought to go to the administration, what the president of the united states -- and correct him, by the way, we're not sure this video really, this pans out, that it's a demonstration, this is a protest in response to a video. yet somehow that doesn't get up the chain of command? we got big problems if that kind of information is not getting up the chain of command. and that's never been answered as to why that would happen and

why those representations were made when there was intel that contradicted it. finally, most of all, the president said that he was going to bring the individuals that committed these attacks to justice. no one has been brought to justice. and for the families who lost loved ones because of the terrorist attack on our consulate, they deserve to have these terrorists brought to justice. and in fact, you know, what we've seen in some of the reports, the intel committee itself essentially identifies that more than a year after the benghazi attacks the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks have still not been brought to

justice. the intelligence community has identified several individuals responsible for the attack. the attacks, i should say, because these were more than one attack. and so the intelligence community has identified those responsible for these attacks. and, in fact, some of these individuals have been identified with a strong level of confidence. so why hasn't anyone been brought to justice? why haven't we pursued this to pick the people who committed these terrorist attacks up to get them to hold them accountable? the victims deserve justice, and they have not seen justice. and i hope that we will get those individuals, these terrorists that murdered our ambassador and three other brave

americans on september 11 of 2012 and bring them to justice, because it is totally unacceptable that that has not happened right now. and in fact, what really bothers me is we have seen press reports of people like abu khattala who has been associated, reported to have established ansar al sharia, an al qaeda afell educated group -- affiliated group, that they identify him as a prior commander of the group. that witnesses at the attack identify this man as being there that night during the attacks on our consulate. and yet, we haven't picked him up or anyone else. in fact, he's giving press interviews, sitting at cafes and press in the united states are able to find him, interview him,

talk to him. and yet, we haven't brought anyone in. we haven't brought him in. there's been reports that there may be a secret warrant for him in some of the news reports. yet, he hasn't been brought in. so where is the attention to this? i've talked about this tangled web that has been weaved that is really troubling in terms of the misimpressions and misleading nature of how this has been misrepresented to the american people. but i would hope that we would all focus on bringing the people who committed these terrorist attacks to justice, because the victims of these terrorist attacks deserve justice. and by the way, the terrorists that committed these acts against our consulate, they need to know that we're coming after them, that we're going to hold them accountable. you commit a terrorist attack

against our country, and you should not be in a position to be out drinking coffee in a cafe. you need to be held accountable so that we can send a message to other terrorists, don't mess with the united states of america. and right now they're getting the opposite message, with no one being held accountable for the attacks, the terrorist attacks on our consulate on september 11 of 2012. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i'd like to commend the senator from new hampshire for her stirring remarks on the terror attacks in benghazi and urge we pay heed to the words she just said. it is striking the senator from new hampshire has said more about that terrorist attack that our commander in chief has ever said. mr. president, we're at a time where the classic "the hobbitt" is one of the best selling, most popular movies in the country. the hobbitt is a fantasy story, and in washington we were visited with fantasy last week in the president's state of the union address. i'd like to talk today about the contrast concerning foreign policy between the fantasy that was presented to the american

people and the cold hard realities of the dangerous world in which we live which is only getting more and more dangerous. in his state of the union address last week, president obama gave some revealing clues as to how he believes the united states should interact with the rest of the world. on the whole, his remarks encouraged americans not to worry too much about international challenges. as he suggested the situations in syria and iran are being deftly managed by american diplomats, that al qaeda is now a regional suesance that can be outsourced to surrogates, that our relationship with israel is defined by the palestinian peace process, which will also be resolved in short order through american diplomacy, that our interest in ukraine is to express support for the abstract principle that all people should

peacefully participate in their own governments. in this rosy scenario, difficult challenges such as the deadly terrorist attacks on benghazi on september 11, 2012, or the long and painful ordeal of pastor sayed abidini in an iranian prison simply do not exist. i wish we all lived in the utopian world that president obama painted last week, but in just a week, picking up the newspaper, numerous news reports have come out to suggest that that picture belongs far more in the world of fantasy than reality. in the interest of being honest with the american people, which i wish our commander in chief had done, i would like to contrast reality with what we were told last week. on syria, in the state of the union, the president claimed -- quote -- "american diplomacy

backed by the threat of force is why syria's chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the syrian people deserve, a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear." truly a rosy scenario, and yet what is the reality? on sunday, just four days after the president delivered the state of the union address, secretary of state john kerry reportedly told a congressional delegation that the administration's syria policy is on the brink of collapse. syria's chemical weapons are purportedly being destroyed through the intervention of vladimir putin in what was a major diplomatic victory for the russian strongman, but we have learned in recent days that this process has not proceeded as

promised. the syrians have ignored their deadlines, and only 4% of the stockpiles have been eliminated. undoubtedly because assad knows that there is no compelling reason for him to comply. as for what the syrian people deserve, after three years of rutterless u.s. policy, over 130,000 are dead. millions are refugees displaced across the region. and the oldest christian communities on the planet are threatened with extinction. assad is entrenched and al qaeda is in control of the opposition. sadly, as a result of the president's mismanagement, today we have no good options in syria, and yet not a word of that made it into his state of the union address. on iran, the president claimed -- quote -- "it is american

diplomacy backed by pressure that has halted the progress of iran's nuclear program. the reality, mr. president, is quite different. no enriched uranium has been destroyed, not a pound, and no centrifuges have been dismantled. the iranians quickly refuted the president's claim in the state of the union, announcing quite publicly that they have not halted their progress in the slightest. america's closest ally in the region, the nation of israel, has called this a -- quote -- "very, very bad deal. indeed, prime minister netanyahu has referred to it as an historic mistake. and yet the president proceeds on and the united states senate refuses even to allow a vote on

rei am posing sanctions to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. there has been no renunciation of iran's state sponsorship of terrorism that killed americans in lebanon and saudi arabia and afghanistan and iraq, and the muscle las -- mullahs have gone on a hanging spree, executing some 40 people in the first two weeks of january alone. meanwhile, billions of dollars are flowing into the country, both through relaxed sanctions and iran's re-emergence as a legitimate business partner because of this administration's misguided deal. indeed, iranian president rouhani might almost be forgiven for publicly gloating that -- quote -- "the geneva deal means the surrender of the big powers in front of the great nation of

iran." mr. president, i wish he were not speaking the truth, but that reality did not emerge on the house floor last week. on the house floor, the president claimed -- quote -- "if john f. kennedy and ronald reagan could negotiate with the soviet union, then surely a strong and confident america can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today. the reality is that the claim that we are negotiating with iran from a position of strength and confidence is a blinkered view of reality because it isn't even clear our president is negotiating towards actual victory. capitulation is not victory. president obama announced in the state of the union that in order to keep negotiations going, he would veto any additional sanctions congress might pass to pressure iran to actually stop

pursuing nuclear weapons, a position that is supported not only by his current administration but expressly by his former secretary of state hillary clinton. iranian foreign minister jabad zariff has good reason to announce publicly that he has -- quote -- no fear of congress. when ronald reagan negotiated with the soviets, deit from a clear strategic perspective of we win, they lose. standing for u.s. national interests, he was facing an existential threat that he defined as an evil empire. there was no danger of misunderstanding what the goal was or who was going to be doing the surrendering, and as a result of his leadership, the cold war was won without firing a shot. today, mr. president, on iran,

we are tragically repeating the mistakes of the past. in particular, the mistakes of the clinton administration in relaxing sanctions on north korea for the same empty promises that they would cease developing nuclear weapons only to have north korea use the billions of dollars we sent to them or allowed to go to them to develop nuclear weapons. the difference is the north korean leader is motivated by staying in power, which means some form of rational deterrence is hopefully possible. in iran, the supreme leader has made clear his desire to destroy the nation of israel, and as a result of the billions of dollars going to iran right now, the risk is unacceptably high that we discover the same thing

that happened in north korea happened in iran, except that we discover it because iran in pursuit of jihad detonates a nuclear device over tel aviv or new york or los angeles. not a word of that was acknowledged in the president's speech. on al qaeda, president obama claimed -- quote -- "we have put al qaeda's core leadership on a path to defeat. the threat is involved as al qaeda affiliates and other extremists take root in different parts of the world. in yemen, somalia, iraq and mali, we have to keep working with partners to disrupt and disable those networks. the reality, mr. president, whatever path al qaeda is on, it does not currently appear to be toward defeat. the recent assertion by a state department spokeswoman that

zawahiri zawahiri is the -- ayman al-zawahiri is the only corpsman left is false. for starters, zawahiri is no mere abstract threat. he specifically calls for attacks on the united states on september 10, 2012, the day before the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of four americans in benghazi, including the first u.s. ambassador killed on duty since 1979. and zawahiri is actively involved in directing al qaeda groups that are active in syria. but core or noncore, whatever that means, the reality is that al qaeda has been at war with the united states for more than two decades, and the attacks of september 11, 2001, are only the most spectacular of a series of attacks and attempted attacks

launched at us. trying to parse this threat to make it seem less deadly to make it seem like less of a threat to americans will not make it so. we need to confront what attacked us in 2001. you cannot defeat radical islamic terrorism when the president seems unwilling to utter the terms radical islamic terrorism. and indeed, the recent senate select committee on intelligence documented that what attacked us in libya in 2012 is the very same thing that attacked us on september 11, 2001. we should not aim simply to disrupt or to disable al qaeda terrorists. we should aim to defeat them. on israel, mr. president, the

state of the union, the president had one mention of israel in that speech. he said -- quote -- "american diplomacy is supporting israelis and palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there, to achieve dignity and an independent state for palestinians and a lasting peace and security for the state of israel, a jewish state that knows america will always be at their side. the reality, mr. president, is sadly much different. over the weekend, we saw a diplomatic spat play out in the press over allegations that secretary of state kerry is actively working behind the scenes to encourage european countries to threaten israel with boycotts if the israelis don't agree to whatever framework mr. kerry will propose

in two weeks. rather than threats from the u.s. secretary of state and rather than tweets from national security advisor susan rice criticizing israel, instead the united states should stand unequivocally with our friend and ally, the nation of israel. we should reaffirm israel's unique status as a strong democratic ally in the middle east, a uniquely jewish state, and that the united states appreciates the excruciatingly difficult security situation in which israel finds itself with the threat of a nuclear iran, and that the united states will vigorously defend israel from attacks from international institutions, from legal onslaughts and from attempts to undermine israel's economy through punitive boycotts.

and that the united states is unshakeably committed to preserving israel's security, regardless of the status of the peace process. mr. president, i would commend to you the recent remarks canadian prime minister steven harper gave in israel. those are the remarks of an ally standing strong with israel and appreciating the incredible value that israel provides to our national security and to peace in the world. i wish that our president could speak with a fraction of the clarity and solidarity with israel that the canadian prime minister recently provided. on ukraine, the president claimed -- quote -- "in ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have a right to express themselves freely and peacefully and to have a say in their country's

future." the reality, mr. president, is the day after the state of the union, ukraine's former president said that the country teeters on the brink of civil war. protesters have been brutally tortured and murdered. indeed, one opposition leader described how he was recently crucified. the ukrainian people's constitutional rights have been trampled. this former soviet republic have been wrenched away from an agreement with the e.u. and a path toward nato membership and thrushed bang intoi bye a corrupt and autocratic leader depriving the united states of an important security partner. we need to tell this story. we need to look for concrete actions we can take right now to

demonstrate real support for the opposition, to demonstrate real support that ukraine is welcomed by the west and that we will not accede to putin's efforts to reassemble the old soviet union and place ukraine under its domination. we can start by immediately offering a free trade agreement to ukraine and partnerships to help them build natural gas infrastructure so that they need not remain dependent on russia which uses natural gas to blackmail them. and we could immediately release exports of liquid natural gas from the united states in conjunction with helping with that infrastructure. surely the people gathering in the frozen snow of maden square crying out for the freedom of the west deserve more from the leader of the free world than mere blandishments about

abstract universal rights. if you're standing in the frozen streets of kiev being beaten, bleeding, naked as one opposition leader was and yet standing proud for freedom, empty generalities from the president do you very little good. on benghazi, the president claimed nothing. we all remember last fall during the debates in the presidential election, just over a year ago. when the president emphatically stated no one cared more about the terrorist attack that happened in benghazi than he did. and yet in the year and a half that has followed, the word "benghazi" seems never to leave his lips. the reality is we have four americans murdered in a preventible attack and that's

what the senate intelligence committee concluded in a bipartisan manner, that this was preventible, by al qaeda terrorists, and more than 16 months later, no one in washington or libya has been held accountable. congress and the american people and particularly the families of the fallen deserve the answers that only a joint select committee of congress could get and yet sadly, mr. president, the majority leader and democrats in this chamber are blocking a joint select committee. what difference does it make, former secretary of state hillary clinton said. it makes all the difference in the world to ascertain the truth. i will note even though he said not a word about benghazi in the state of the union, he was forced to say something this week when he was interviewed by bill o'reilly.

during the halftime of the super bowl, when bill o'reilly asked about benghazi, what is striking, i would urge everyone to go and watch and listen to what the president said. bill o'reilly asked him, did secretary of defense leon panetta tell him that night that the attacks were the works of terrorists? mr. president, o'reilly asked that question, and yet the president over and over again refused to answer a simple yes or no, did leon panetta tell him it was the act of terrorists. he did not want to answer that question and indeed, he did not. for those of us that have spent some of our career in a court of law, the technical term for his answer was nonresponsive and were a judge there, he would have directed the president to answer the question that was put to him. nor did the president say one word about why the talking points were scrubbed to

eradicate any mention of terrorism and the al qaeda affiliates involved. mr. president, we need accountable. we need accountable for those four brave americans who lost their lives to terrorism. and we need to know why no one has been held accountable in the state department, nor that any of the terrorists who committed that attack have been brought to justice. and, mr. president, said be a adeany, the american pastor brutally imprisoned in iran, president obama in the state of the union address said nothing. the reality is an american citizen has been wrongfully imprisoned in iran for more than a year simply for professing his christian faith. all of us are blessed to live in a land where the constitution

guarantees us religious liberty yet a christian pastor going to iran professing his faith was thrown in a pit of a jail. there is no more compelling evidence that the supreme leader in tehran represents the very same repressive islamist regime today that he has for so many years. and that his goal is not peaceful reproachment with the west, but the preservation of his own power. the president of the united states should be standing up and demanding pastor said abadini's release, not making his captors into diplomatic partners. indeed, it is notable in the mist of -- midst of our negotiations in geneva, the nation of iran transferred the pastor from one horrible prison to an even worse prison where they keep their death row, where they send people to die,

and he did so on the anniversary of iran's taking americans hostage, what is referred to in iran as "death to america day." mr. president, that was not accidental. that was meant to thumb their nose at our nation and the president instead of standing up for an american wrongfully imprisoned for preaching his christian faith, the president instead chose in the state of the union address to say not a word. the president concluded his speech on foreign policy by saying -- quote -- "finally, let us remember that our leadership is defined not just by our defense against threats but by the enormous opportunities to do good and promote understanding around the globe to forge greater cooperation, to expand new markets, to free people from fear and want. and no one is better positioned

to take advantage of those opportunities than america." mr. president, the reality is if this past week has proven anything, it is that american leadership is not defined by global opportunities to do good and promote understanding. american leadership is defined by defending and promoting the values that have made our nation great. we don't do this by ignoring unpleasant realities, refusing to acknowledge the terrorist attack in benghazi, sending administration officials out to claim it is not a terrorist attack but the result of an internet video, or refusing to stand for an american wrongfully imprisoned in iran for preaching his christian faith. and we don't do this by refusing to admit failure but by standing up and facing our challenges,

accepting responsibility for our actions, and speaking out with a clarion voice for the freedoms we enjoy. freedoms that should be the aspiration of every man and woman on the planet. leading from behind does not work. as a result of this administration's misguided foreign policy, the world has become a much more dangerous place in the last five years. u.s. national security interests have been endangered dramatically. we see nations like russia increasing their sphere of influence while the threats to the security of men and women throughout america grow and multiply. standing strongly with like-minded allies, and encouraging others to seek freedom is not disinterested do-gooding. it is vital work that will promote the security and

prosperity of the united states of america. something that i believe is ultimately in the interest of all mankind. i wish when the president of the united states stood on the floor of the house of representatives to address the nation and address the world, that when he spoke of foreign policy that he had not embraced a foreign policy fantasy that disregards the cold, hard reality of the dangerous world we live in and the consequences of receding u.s. leadership. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to address two

issues, the first before us, the emergency unemployment compensation extension act, and the second is something that should be before pus, and that is the confirmation of the u.s. attorney from minnesota, this will be the third time in a few days that i have spoken on this which i will continue to do until this gets done. i rise today in support of the emergency unemployment compensation act. i know we're making progress on a proposal that extends federal support for emergency unemployment compensation for three months and is fully offset. i've spoken about the need to extend federal unemployment insurance and i thank senator jack reed and dean heller for their bipartisan leadership on this issue. unemployment insurance provides a critical life line. workers pay into the program so it will be there when they are looking for work. unemployment insurance helps families pay the mortgage or rent and put gas in the 257bg. federal support for unemployment

insurance is crucial for those americans who exhaust their state funded benefits and are still looking for work. throughout my time as the senate chair of the joint coming committee, i've focused on the continuing problem of long-term unemployment. last month i issued a joint economic committee report that makes the clear economic case for extending federal support for unemployment insurance which keeps those americans afloat, those americans who are continuing to search for work. the long-term unemployment rate now stands at 2.5%, nearly twice as high as when these benefits expired during the last recession. we already know the consequences of allowing the federal benefits to expire are not good. at tend of last year 1.3 million workers lost all unemployment benefits and another 3.6 million jobless workers could lose their benefits this year. in my home state, roughly 9,200 people lost benefits at the end of last year and about 65,000

workers could lose their unemployment insurance by the end of this year. now is not the time for congress to cut off extended unemployment insurance for those heem who have been actively looking for work for more than 26 weeks. these are not the people, mr. president, as you know who benefited from the uptick in the stock market over the last few years. they don't have stock portfolios. they're not checking the stock rates. they haven't noticed it's gone down a little bit recently, haven't notice it went -- noticed it went up last year. they're trying to put food on their tables and keep a roof over their head. they are people who live in our states who are our neighbors. i've heard from countless minnesotans who are sharing their stories with me about how unemployment insurance is a life line for their families and that ending federal support for the unemployed would be devastating. i'm sharing some of these letters because they tell the stories of hardworking americans

who are doing their best to look for work and support their families. linda from little falls, she wrote, she said dear amy, please, please, please fight to extend the emergency unemployment past the end of the year. my husband and i are both still unemployed through no fault of our own and are both over 55. we're having a very difficult time finding unemployment and to stop this program would be devastating for us and many others that we know. my husband was at his job for 37 years, and they closed the doors. and i made more than some of the more junior people in my office, so i was let go first. think of that. a couple. the man working at his job for 37 years. the woman more senior, saying she was let go because she made more money than others in the office. she ends by saying please help to get this extended. i feel like the people who are still left jobless are being forgotten. thank you.

second letter, donna from pryor lake says this, having worked for over 30 plus years of my life, i am currently unemployed. i have applied for over 300 positions during the last six months. i do not expect a handout but i was really disappointed when i found out you could no longer receive unemployment insurance after the 28th of december. it is not that i am not trying to work or that i am not looking for a position but i am 55 years old and my full-time job right now is to find a job. i'm looking for temporary full-time, part-time, contract work, i like to know that my congresspeople are doing the same for me. donna, 30-plus years of working. she's 55 years old. she is applied for over 300 positions. that's who we're talking about here, mr. president. these are the people that we're talking about when we talk about this kind of long-term extension of unemployment. and i think it's something that

i hope my colleagues will keep in mind as we move forward and get this done and get this passed. now, i'd like to turn to another matter -- and the only thing these two things have in common are they both are kind of victims of stalled-out situations of gridlock. the sieged on second one is aboe person, but it is really about a system of justice and it is really about a decision on the part of the united states, part of our founding fathers, part of our congresses going way, way back that we would have a u.s. attorney in most parts of this country, that we would have a u.s. attorney that would be charged with enforcing the federal larks that ththefederals would have a role in deciding who that u.s. attorney would be, that the president would recommend -- would appoint someone and then the congress has the job of simple displiedindecidingif that persor the job.

but it is not eelly abou reallye person. it is also about the people that work in the u.s. attorney's office, over 50 people working as prosecutors in the office who decide to have a full-time leader in the u.s. attorney's job. for two and a half year, mr. president, 888 days -- i count each day -- minnesota has not had a full-time u.s. attorney. it's a modern-day record. during those years from august 2011 to 2013, b. todd jones had two jobs, the minnesota u.s. attorney, as those of you involved in the long vote that lasted over eight hours, he was also the acting director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. they hadn't had a full-time confirmed director for seven years, so he went in after the mess with "fast and furious" and was willing to be the acting director while at the same time he was a u.s. attorney for minnesota. well, as you can imagine, there

was a lot of work and cleanup to do at the a.t.f. so that was where he was focused. that was where he was focused for most of his time. meanwhile, the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota kept going. but at some point, after two and a half years, you can't keep going on your own. over the summer, the senate finally confirmed todd jones as director of the a.t.f., leaving the minnesota u.s. attorney's position finally open for good. even before the confirmation of todd jones, senator franken and i, upon the recommendation of our bipartisan u.s. attorney advisory committee, had already recommended andy lugar, a respected litigator and former u.s. assistant attorney. in november president obama nominated andy lugar to become the new u.s. attorney and the judiciary committee approved his nomination unanimously on january 9. our colleague from texas, senator cruz, had no objections

to this nomination. we had no objections on the committee, which is saying a lot because we have a lot of different people from different backgrounds and different political views on the come. usually when people speak on nominations on this floor, it is because they're fighting to get someone through because there is objections. this is not at all the case in the case of andy lugar, who's trying to be the district attorney of minnesota. what has happened in the past cases with u.s. attorneys? well, over the past 20 years, four of minnesota nominees to be u.s. attorney's a pointed by republican and democratic presidents alike were confirmed within a day of when they passed out of the committee and during this timeframe, all of the nominees were confirmed within an average of 9 1/2 days of being voted out of committee. it has been 26 days since mr. lugar was approved by the committee. it is time we do the right thing bhaiking sure that minnesota has its highest law enforcement officer?

place. i want to thank senator grassley for his help on this. he actually also has a u.s. attorney that's pending for the district of iowa. so why is a u.s. attorney important? i thought our pages would be interested in this fact, because we're going to be talking a lot about a u.s. attorney over the next week, if this keeps going on. the position of u.s. attorney is a law enforcement post that the founders regarded as so vital that they created it during the very first congress during the judiciary of 1789. this is the same act that created the attorney general and the structure of the supreme court and the lower courts. according to the act, each judicial district would be provided with -- quote -- "a person learned in the law to act as attorney for the united states whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses, cognizable under the

authority of the united states and all civil actions in which the united states shall be concerned." the u.s. attorney is a position so necessary that president zachary taylor appointed henry moss -- there was a name you may not have heard of before -- zachary taylor appointed mr. moss to the post within two days of minnesota become ago state. so back then somehow they were able to get it done in two days. i don't know. we've been waiting 888 days. but in two days they were able to get a u.s. attorney in the job when minnesota first became a state. since 1849, the district of minnesota's 31 u.s. attorneys have upheld the rule of law, the constitution, and the rights of our state's citizens and tirelessly pursued justice on their behalf. this quick action by presidente lore and the spheed wit speed wh the senate has confirmed the past attorneys for minnesota shows how much our government has historically valued this

position. these people have not been used as pawns in a fight over other issues. they have suml simply been conf. and i think we can all grearks given what we've seen with the cases we've seen on the rise all over the country in just the last few months this has certainly come to our attention. in hennepin county, 60 heroin-related cases in just six months of the year. so i think we can all agree that the importance of this position is no less important than it was in 1789, when this job was created. since the founding of the country, we have recognized a great authority placed in the hand of u.s. attorneys to uphold the rule of law, to protect our freedoms, and to exercise their power responsibly and only for justice ends. a 1935 supreme court decision

called burger v. united states has gained iconic status for the description of a prosecutor's duties to follow the rule of law, serve justice, and play by the rules. justice southerland so applicantly wrote, "the united states attorney is the representative of not an ordinary party but of a sovereign 2eu whose obstacles to govern impartially is as compelling as its obstacles to govern at all. his interest therefore in a criminal progression is not that it shall win case but that justice shall be done. as such, he is in a peculiar and definite sense a servant of the law. the twofold aim of which guilt shall not escaped or innocence suffer." he may prosecute with earnestness and vigor. while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. it is as much his duty to

refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a justice one." that's a timeless statement that rings as true today as it did nearly 80 years ago. the men and women, mr. president, in the minnesota u.s. attorneys office emblemlyify the professionalism, high ethical standards and unwavering commitment to the rule of law and public safety that we expect of prosecutors. they work to protect public safety by focusing on offenders who harm our communities, terrorists, the worst of the worst, violenc violent criminald major financial fraudsters. they also work closely with local law enforcement to ensure that local and federal resources are used efficient lid and effectively to prevent crime and lock up criminals. for example, the office won a conviction in a $3.65 billion ponzi scheme case. the second-biggest upo ponzi sce

in u.s. hoamplet this was originated when they had a full-time u.s. attorney and most of the prosecutions did take place when they had a full-time u.s. attorney in the office. of course with a major case like this, you would want a full-time u.s. attorney there to make critical decisions. also the office has a nonterrorism investigation that has led to charges against 18 people for aiding a terrorist organization al shah about a, eight of whom have been convicted, some receiving sentences of up to 20 years in prison. so as some point as this investigation continues, one huangders whhuangderswonders whs would want to have an office open without have a full-time u.s. to en. i do wonder if this would ever happen in new york city or the city of chicago, and i hope people keep this in mind as they look at the situation.

other major accomplishments of the office include operation highlight, a major drug trafficking investigation involving more than 100 local, state, and federal law enforcement officers that resulted in 26 indictments, 25 guilty pleas, and sentences up to 200 months in prison. operation brothers' keeper, a successful investigation in prosecution of a rico case involving a regional 200-member gang which took 22 dangerous criminals off the street. this doesn't sound like a case that should be handled by an office that doesn't deserve a full-time u.s. attorney. that would be the prosecution of a rico case involving a regional 200-member gang. or how about operation molvarde, which received national attention and was the prosecution of 27 defendants associated with a mexican drug cartel including the apprehension of the cartel's regional leader and sentences as high as 20 years in prison.

the office also recently played a key role in shutting down a major synthetic drug seller in did he luge. this was a major problem. they went after this head shop, prosecuted the orientation the owner was -- his house was found plastics bags and they won the case. these are few of the major cases that the office has worked on this recent years. and i will be telling you more in the days to come. after 888 days without a full-time boss, these hardworking people deserve a leader and mr. lugar is the right person for the job. again, i am not up here speaking about this because ning in the senate -- anyone in the senate objects to mr. lugar for the job. it is time we vote on mr. lugar's nomination. in the past, as we know, these u.s. attorneys' nominations have simply gone through on voice vote, without much hue hurrah,

within a few days after they go through the committee. mr. lugar is a dedicated public servant and has th breadth of commitment and commitment to justice that makes him a well-qualified candidate to serve as minnesota's next u.s. to en. i have no doubt that he will uphold the principles justice southerland astronaut that opinion in sought in that opinion. i urge his confirmation and finally give the u.s. minnesota attorney's office the full-time u.s. attorney that they deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: i would ask that any quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. franken: mr. president, i'm very pleased that we're able to vote on and pass a badly needed and long overdue five-year farm bill today and that we are finally on the verge of enacting the legislation into law with the president's signature. with one in five jobs in minnesota connected to agriculture, passing this bill has been a top priority of mine. i've been working on it for over two and a half years along with a large number of my colleagues, and i've gone all around minnesota talking to farmers and businesses, and they tell me not only did they want a five-year farm bill, but they needed a five-year farm bill so that they could plan for the future. well, we finally have gotten it

done. there are so many important pieces to this bill, madam president, and i want to speak about a few of them today. when i meet with leaders and visit farmers across minnesota, i hear about the importance of providing farmers with a strong safety net. there is a lot of uncertainty when it comes to farming. once a farmer puts his crop into the ground, crops are vulnerable to drought, to too much rain, to disease and different kinds of pests and to other natural disasters. in 2012, for example, we witnessed a terrible drought that devastated the nation's corn and soybean crops and forced ranchers to call -- cull

their livestock. all these safety net programs in the bill are important because they protect our farmers and ranchers, and they also protect american consumers by making sure families have a reliable domestically produced supply of food. the bill provides disaster assurances for livestock producers. it contains a dairy program so that our dairy producers have the certainty that they need. this contains a sugar program to help protect our sugar growers, american sugar growers. minnesota is home to a large number of beet sugar growers, and the sugar industry provides thousands of good-paying jobs, american jobs, and billions of dollars to the economy of our region. i fought to make sure that we kept this vital program in place.

this bill also includes crop insurance so farmers have the certainty with respect to their planting decisions. and one of the things the farm bill does which is real important to me and to so many people is to link the crop insurance program to conservation. minnesota farmers are good stewards of the land and understand how critical conservation is. so do our hunters and our anglers. with this provision in the farm bill, when our farmers receive crop insurance benefits, they also agree to implement conservation practices that are good for our land and for our water. in addition to a strong safety net and the conservation provisions, the bill contains many other programs that are real important to minnesota agriculture. for example, i pushed to include provisions to support beginning farmers with the average age of

farmers in minnesota approaching 60, we need to invest in a new generation of farmers and ranchers, and that's why the beginning farmer and ranchers program has been a priority of mine. this important program will support training and education for beginning farmers and will help new farmers overcome the steep financial hurdles that they often face when just starting out. i'm also really proud of the comprehensive energy title of the bill which i helped to author. the energy sector in agriculture produces jobs and supports rural communities in minnesota and across the country. the energy title includes programs like the rural energy for america program, or reap, which provides farmers and rural businesses with loans and grants

so they can invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce their energy bills. it also includes programs to help rural america develop advanced biofuels that will help wean the nation off of foreign oil. it also includes programs to help move the nation away from a petroleum-based economy to one where products are increasingly made out of homegrown renewable biomass. those are just some of the important things that i fought for in the bill, and the bill does all these critically important things. while also reducing the deficit by billions of dollars. like all bipartisan compromises, the bill is not perfect. in particular, i am not happy with the cuts to the nutrition program in which so many low-income families rely. i am somewhat relieved that in the end these cuts were closer

to what was in the original senate bill than the draconian cuts that the house of representatives had called for in the past in their bill. i appreciate the tough job, though, that my colleagues had on their hands to arrive at a final compromise. at the end of the day, this is an incredibly important piece of legislation that i and many colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been working to get over the finish line. i'm pleased that we have finally come together to pass a bipartisan five-year farm bill that will make needed reforms and give farmers the certainty they need to plan for the future. the bill we have passed will not only support rural america, but our entire nation. thank you, madam president, and i would suggest, unless the senator from wyoming would like to pick up right now.

would you, senator? mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, last week president obama came to congress and delivered his state of the union address. he admitted that under the obama economy, too many americans are still out of work. now the president didn't admit that his policies were to blame, but he did promise to act. he said wherever and whenever i can take steps without legislation to expand the opportunity for more american families, he said that's what i'm going to do. that's what the president promised all of us, promised the country last week. i believe, madam president, the president could start by coming clean about how his health care law is hurting jobs and harming middle-class americans. just this morning the congressional budget office put out their estimate that the president's health care law will reduce the number of full-time

workers by 2.3 million people through the year 2021. that includes people who will lose their jobs, people who will have their hours cut and mostly people who will just decide not to work. this is one of the perverse incentives in this terrible law. it actually encourages able-bodied people to not work. we're already faced with the lowest labor force participation rate we've seen in 35 years, and this number that they've come out with, over two million fewer jobs in our economy, you know, when we were debating the health care law here in the senate and the c.b.o. came out with their estimate based on the way they read the law before it went into effect, they said, well, this could negatively impact jobs and the economy to the tune of 800,000. now we're at two and a half times that many, over two

million fewer jobs. and as a result, specifically of the health care law. we should be doing all that we can to increase labor force participation. the health care law actually pushes it in the opposite direction. the congressional budget office also said this morning that the health care law will provide health insurance to two million fewer people this year than previously estimates had expected. and one of the main reasons democrats insisted that they needed to pass this law in the first place was to cover uninsured people. now the congressional budget office doesn't even expect it to do the job that the democrats intended it to do very well. the law is raising costs. it is hurting middle-class americans and not even helping the people that the democrats told us it was going to help in the first place. president obama promised last week to act and to do something to create jobs. so what we see is his health

care law is actually reducing jobs and reducing the number of people working. there are other things that the president could do to help create jobs. the first thing, though, would be to work with republicans to repeal the health care law and come up with reforms that will actually work. he could also look at a number of the options on the energy front that would help the private sector create jobs. no government money needed. the president says he wants to do things that don't require legislation. well, without any legislation at all, the president could approve the keystone x.l. pipeline and expand opportunity for thousands of american families. over the past five years a small number of lawyers, consultants, bureaucrats and environmental activists have made a living over haggling about the pipeline. meanwhile, the president has turned his back on middle-class people who are in need of jobs, desperate need of jobs, people

living in montana, south dakota, kansas, other states. trans-canada submitted its application for a permit to build the keystone x.l. pipeline more than five years ago. ever since, president obama has wasted america's time and money grasping for excuses in order for him to be able to reject it. his state department's latest environmental review confirms yet again that the pipeline will no longer -- shows no significant environmental impact and it will support more than 42,000 jobs. last summer the president sneered at those jobs. he said they were -- quote -- "just a blip relative to the need." for out-of-work americans, those jobs are more than a blip. for them, this is more than a pipeline. it's a lifeline. it is way past time for president obama to quit stalling and to finally do the right thing for those americans.

they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. yet, the obama administration has been doing the same thing over and over and over and over again. we've had a draft environmental impact statement. we've had a supplemental environmental impact statement and we've had a final environmental impact statement. then we had a draft supplemental environmental impact statement. and friday we have the final supplemental environmental impact statement. madam president, people at home listening to this would say why would it take two years -- and it did, it took two years to go from the supplemental draft environmental impact statement to the draft supplemental environmental impact statement. it makes no sense at all. this is the fifth report by the state department, and the conclusion is always the same. they could do this report another 5 times or another 50 times. the result is still going to be

the same. it is a simple cost-benefit analysis. the cost is no significant environmental impact. the benefits, at least 42,000 jobs and a chance to reduce our dependence on overseas oil. so now that the complaints from the far left environmental extremists have been debunked, what do they say? well, according to the news reports, some will have protests and some are planning lawsuits. "the washington post" had a story this sunday titled "for pipeline, the gut check moment." it talks about some of the fan national cal antienergy -- fanat ical antiprotesters. here a quote from the global development environmental institute at tufts university

who contributed to senator kerry's past campaigns. the article quotes her as saying i'm working with an informal network of political donors that will be pushing kerry to do the right thing. political donors and activists on the left are committed to killing this pipeline, regardless of the science, regardless of the middle-class jobs and regardless of what's in the best interest of the country. i find it astonishing that former energy secretary steven chu said yesterday on this very point about -- what about the science, what about the cost-benefit analysis. president obama's former secretary of energy said yesterday -- quote -- "the decision on whether the construction should happen was a political one, not a scientific one." so much for the president of the united states saying the decision would be based on science.

the president's activist base will be mobilizing and fighting against good american jobs. so what does the administration itself say? it says it wants to wait for some more opinions. the white house chief of staff said sunday that the president wants officials from the environmental protection agency, the energy department and other agencies to tell what they think. well, i know what the former secretary of energy thought. he said the decision on whether to -- the construction should happen was a political decision, not a scientific one. you don't need to look any further. look at the history of the project. transcanada applied to build this pipeline more than five years ago. the obama administration has set deadlines and said that it would make a decision. first it was the end of 2011. then it was after the election in 2012. then it was at the end of 2013. so president obama promised republican senators when he met with us last march. the administration has missed every deadline, broken every

promise, and it's interesting because the last time the senate voted on the subject, 17 democrats joined every republican to support the pipeline. the obama administration is still trying to find a way to evade and to avoid having to make a decision. you know, this really ought to be embarrassing to an administration. president obama was elected to make decisions. the science is settled. the president should be embarrassed when his former secretary of energy says the decision on whether the construction should happen was a political one and not a scientific one. any objections have been heard, they have been answered. there are no more excuses. it's time for the president to make up his mind, is he going to follow the science or just the politics. he should approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. he should do it now. he should do the job that he was elected to do so middle-class americans can do the jobs that they desperately want to do.

thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, what is the parliament situation? the presiding officer: the motion to proceed to s. 1963. mr. leahy: madam president, i would ask consent that i be allowed to speak up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, last week, attorney general eric holder appeared before the senate judiciary committee. he reminded us of something that sometimes we have to be reminded, that we should support our nation's law enforcement officers and first responders. now, there is one vital program that provides, supports the families of fallen law enforcement officers and other first responders. that's the public safety

officers' benefits program, the psob. i am proud to have authored legislation that has expanded and improved the psob, like the hometown heroes survivors benefits act, and the the dale long public safety officers benefits improvement act. we honor the service of these dedicated first responders. we exercise considerable oversight to make sure the program was administered fairly and efficiently. we wished that we didn't need the psob program because it's a reminder to americans about the dangers law enforcement officers face every day, but because they do face those dangers, we need the program. in 2013, the national law

enforcement officers memorial fund reported that 111 law enforcement officers in the united states were killed in the line of duty. every single line of duty death represents enormous tragedy for the families but also for the communities of these officers. for decades, congress has been steadfast in its support of law enforcement officers. as one who had the privilege to serve in law enforcement for eight years, i am so proud of what we have done in the past. but now for some reason, there are some in congress who do not believe the support of law enforcement officers and first responders can be a federal responsibility. i disagree. i remain committed to fighting for all of our state and local law enforcement officials. last fall, the senate judiciary committee reported two important

bills to support our nation's law enforcement officers. both bills would help protect the lives of law enforcement officers. both have been improved in -- approved in this body for immediate passage by every democratic senator. unfortunately, there are some republican senators who continue to obstruct passage of both bills in the senate. i worry that some are putting ideology ahead of the safety of our law enforcement officers. more than a decade ago, republican senator from colorado, senator ben nighthorse campbell and i joined forces -- again, because both of us had the law enforcement background, we authored the bulletproof vest partnership grant act. we worked across the aisle, got both republicans and democrats to support us. we created a grant program that has assisted state and local law enforcement agencies in purchasing more than one million

protective vests. in fact, madam president, i remember a police officer that testified before the judiciary committee telling us how much he loved law enforcement and what he loved even more was his family, his parents, his wife, his children, and when he talked, he said i came within a second of never being there with them again. he said this is what saved me, and he pulled up from under the desk a bulletproof vest. you could see the slugs stuck in it. he said i was ambushed, i had a cracked rib, but later that day i saw my family. without this vest, with this bulletproof partnership act, i would have never seen my family again.

between 2000 and 2010, the bulletproof vest partnership hasn't even required controversy. it's been reauthorized three times by unanimous consent. the bulletproof vest has saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers. these are officers who put their own lives on the line. they don't stop and say wait a minute, how did people vote on the bulletproof vest act? they respond when they are called. but unfortunately, since 2012, a few republican senators have blocked passage of this bill. i'm disappointed we can't all come together to promote the safety of our nation's law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day to ensure our safety. madam president, i remember walking down the street in a town in colorado. a police officer in uniform walked up to me and said are you senator leahy? i said i am. he tapped his chest. you could hear the thunk of the

bulletproof vest. he said i want to thank you and i want to thank senator campbell. that's all he said. i choked up listening to this. the judiciary committee also reported the national blue alert act. this is a bipartisan bill that passed the house of representatives by an overwhelming majority of republicans and democrats. the national blue alert act would create a national alert system to notify all state and federal law enforcement agencies with critical information when an officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. i'm a proud cosponsor of it. it is sponsored by senator cardin and senator graham. key democrats and republicans. in recent weeks, some senators have expressed concern for the safety of law enforcement officers in the context of a different set of confirmation

process. i do not question that these senators are as concerned as i am about the safety of law enforcement officers, but i invite those who express concern before the cameras for the well-being of law enforcement officers to come here and support the two bills i have discussed today and the needless obstruction on this proven commonsense legislation. do your press conferences if you want, say you're in favor of law enforcement, who is going to be against law enforcement with improvement. let's get this passed. i'm proud that every member, every democratic member supported it. most republicans do. those few who are opposed, let us vote. in coming weeks as the senate moves closer to recognizing our nation's fallen law enforcement officers during national police week in may, tell them to come to the floor. i want to seek unanimous consent to pass these long-stalled

bills. if senators want to oppose it, fine. vote against it. but they ought to be willing to join me on the floor to explain to the thousands of law enforcement officers and families that soon gather in washington to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their fellow citizens why they oppose these pieces of legislation that have always been so noncontroversial. our law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep us safe. they deserve a congress that does more than just talk about their service. they deserve protection. one of the saddest days i ever spent as state's attorney was going to the funeral of a police officer killed in the line of duty. a snowy day in vermont. snow was falling gently from the sky, and for several miles of

police cars and blue lights reflected against the white snow. such a peaceful scene, but not for the family of that police officer. i said to myself i will do everything i can to protect them. and i appreciate those republicans and democrats who join me on this. so let's -- i call on my friends from across the aisle. join all the rest of us and your fellow republicans who have already joined to protect law enforcement officers, and let's immediately reauthorize the bulletproof vest partnership program, and let's pass senator cardin and senator graham's national blue alert bill. it is a good way to help those of us who -- who keep us safe. we have -- we have many, i know,

in my office who work on this. i mentioned one whose background was at the vermont law school that some in this body are well aware of, like our distinguished senate parliamentarian. but i also appreciate all those police officers -- and i have no idea what their politics are -- who come and said thank you to those of us who supported this. it's such an easy thing to do. it should be noncontroversial. let's go back to the days when we have something noncontroversial. let's just pass it. let's make these officers safe again. madam president, i yield the floor and -- oh, i yield to my dear friend, so i will not suggest the absence of a quorum. i yield the floor and i yield

back whatever time i have. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i returned to the senate in 2011 to tackle what i believed to be the greatest challenge facing our country, and i have devoted much of my first three years in this return term working to achieve a debt reduction agreement that would put our nation on a path to fiscal health and fiscal responsibility. i have been involved with discussions for endless hours and days and months with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, with the administration, with outside groups. we're trying to put together a long-term debt reduction plan, deficit and debt reduction plan that will put us on the path to fiscal health, to find a way

forward to deal with our ever-mounting debt. i'm committed to working with my colleagues and the administration on this issue because i believe ultimately the most important thing we can do for the future of our country, for future generations, the most important legacy we can leave during our term of service here is to solve our nation's fiscal crisis. now, recently we've heard relatively little about this, despite efforts that have been ongoing for the last four to six years, we not have come to a resolution. we've not come to an agreement, which puts us at the beginning of a path to resolve this problem. and yet each year it mounts, it dramatically increases, our debt increases, we continue on deficit spending, and even

though we've made a few efforts to reduce that deficit spending, to half of what it's been at least for this coming year, based on the sequester and the implication of that, it's also clear that this is temporary and it's also clear that whether we reduced it in half or not, the other half still amounts to more than half a trillion dollars of excess spending, driving our debt higher and higher. now, i'm privileged to serve as the senior republican senator on the joint economic committee, and so we spend a fair amount of time looking at what the projections are for the future and how it ought to shape our actions here in the congress as well as how we should work with the administration in terms of dealing with this issue. i was anxiously awaiting the

congressional budget office, nonpartisan group, deals with numbers, not with politics, at least it's supposed to. they bring about their annual budget and economic outlook. that was released today, and looking at that is shocking. never has my conviction been stronger than today when i read this outlook that was just released. it addresses issues that are important for all of us. when i read this report i was stunned at the results and i'm just going to talk about the top ten here. but if this does not -- if this is not a siren call to us to refocus our efforts on this issue, we're going to regret to

the end of our lives not having taken action to begin the process of getting this country's fiscal responsibility and health back in order. let me share these findings. again, this is the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan group established by this body to deal with numbers and give us facts and projections from economists, who give us the opportunity then to look at how we shape policies. the presiding officer: would the senator pick up another microphone, please. mr. coats: my apologies. the presiding officer: just want to make sure we've got this. mr. coats: thank you very much. i'm glad you weren't about to shut me down. the presiding officer: not at all. thank you. mr. coats: let me go back just a little bit. as i sauce saying i was stunned by the c.b.o. report and i'd like to share the shocking

findings and i hope every member of this congress will look at this, i'm going to distribute it on behalf of the joint economic committee so we have access to this. but it ought to send a shock wave through all of us and it ought to provide us with the courage and the will to step up and do what i think we all need -- know we need to do. finding number one, the national debt has exploded over the last several years. gross federal debt in 2014 is projected to reach $17.7 trillion, which is a figure larger than our entire economy and an increase of over $7 trillion in just the last five years under this president. and point number two, an additional trillion dollars in deficit spending will occur,

and while c.b.o. has lowered this year's deficit projection slightly, it expects a cumulative deficit of -- to be $1 trillion larger than last year's projections. last year was startling enough. now we learn after a year of sequestration holding down spending, speeches on this floor saying we're getting control of this, c.b.o. comes along and says the cumulative deficits over the next -- from 2014 to 2023 will be a trillion dollars larger than they thought just last year. so while we're congratulating ourselves for holding down spending, we're told that we're adding a trillion dollars more than was even projected, anticipated last year. now, we're dealing with the affordable care act, or so-called affordable care act,

yet to be proven to be affordable. c.b.o. says that obamacare will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.3 million people through 2021, at a time when this was sold as a plan to put americans back to work, as something that would reduce our deficit because we would get control of out-of-control health care spending, we are told by the c.b.o., congressional budget office, that the number of full-time workers will decrease by 2.3 million, and this, again, is a significant increase from the last estimate of 800,000 during the same time period. so we've gone from 800,000 projection, not that long ago, to 2.3 million. point number four. mandatory spending, particularly our health and retirement security programs, are crowding out all other

priorities. the congressional budget office once again has said that as we look at our total budget, the mandatory spending continues to crowd out all other spending priorities. this figure stood out and stunned me because it's the first time i've seen such an extraordinary jump in the mandatory spending percentage of our total spending. mandatory spending, c.b.o. says, and interest on the debt is projected to consume 94% of all federal revenues ten years from now, squeezing out funding for all other priorities. squeezing out? eliminating. we're entering the season here when interest groups from our state come, many with creative and innovative ideas, as to how they could better spend or spend more money on their particular

program. and i have to tell them when they come in and say, you know, we need -- we're here to encourage you to increase funding for the n.i.h., the national institutes of health, or we're here to have you understand how important the scholarship grants, the plings and others -- pell grants and others are necessary for enrollment of students in our states. we're here to talk about the need to improve our infrastructure, to safe or roads and fill potholes and repair bridges and establish new infrastructure for the movement of water and sewage treatment and on and on it goes. and you can go right down the list of literally hundreds of requests as to how tax dollars ought to be spent to better improve our states, to better improve our health, to better improve our education, to better improve a whole number -- a whole range of things including support for

national security. and i have to look them in the eye and say, you know, every year we have a smaller pot of money percentagewise of our budget to apply to all these discretionary spending programs that congress has to aproof every -- approve every year. i said i'm really not here to argue about whether money to the national institutes of health is more important than money to education grants or money for infrastructure development or any other endeavor that the federal government is involved in. i said because all of these are going to be -- every year faced with less money to fund these programs. now, some of these ought to receive less and some of them ought to be closed, and the waste and fraud ought to be eliminated but nevertheless there are essential functions that need to be funded. and they won't be able to be

funded adequately and will continue to shrink as the mandatory spending runs out of control. but to think that of all the revenue, all the tax dollars that come into the treasury, ten years from now will accumulate and be spent 94% of which will be spent on programs that we have no control over, and won't be available for any of the things i mentioned and dozens if not hundreds of more programs, is simply unsustainable. 94%. 6% left to provide for our national security and national defense, our institutes of health, education, infrastructure development, manufacturing innovation, research and development, you name it. c.b.o. also said social security is in jeopardy.

they project that social security will continue, i'm quoting, to run cash flow deficits every year during the next decade and the disability insurance trufers will be in-- trust fund will be insolvent they said by 2017. that's three years away. let me repeat that. the congressional budget office said at the current rate, social security disability insurance trust fund will be insolvent in three years. they also said mandatory spending on health care programs is exploding. we've heard it said on this floor and we've seen it mentioned in the state of the union address and by the administration numerous times that we're getting control of our exploding health care costs through the affordable care act. in 2013, the federal government spent $861 billion on medicare, medicaid and other major health care programs. this year, the collective cost

is expected to reach $933 billion. and then nearly double by the year 2024 to $1.8 trillion. i don't call that getting control of our health care costs. but yet this mandatory spending part of our budget will continue to grow to the point where we simply have no money left for any other function of government. all this is based, of course, on interest rates and the assumption as to what they will be. c.b.o. says our sphw interest on our debt is set to double, annual interest payments are set to double from 1.3% of our gross domestic product in 2014 to 3.3% of g.d.p. in 2024. and we know that in the past,

estimates of what will happen with interest rates will drive that rate higher, particularly as our fiscal crisis gets more desperate. point number eight. again, the congressional budget office said we've got a spending program and not a taxing program, projected revenues will exceed, they say, the 40-year historical average of gross domestic product, will exceed that this year and outpace growth in our economy over the next ten years. so the problem isn't too little revenue, that's going to continue to pour in here as we continue to raise taxes. but you can't raise taxes fast enough or adequate enough without, one, destroying our economy or limiting our economy but secondly, to keep pace with the spending. which will hit its projected average of 20.5% this year and over the next ten years outpace

economic growth to a greater degree. c.b.o. notes that after 2024, the long-term paratrajectory of spending will drive up debt to nearly unprecedented levels. let me repeat that, this is a quote from the congressional budget office, that after 2024, the long-term trajectory of spending will drive up debt to nearly unprecedented levels. c.b.o. states that, and i quote, such an upward path would ultimately be unsustainable. point number fine nine out of the ten, labor force participation will continue to decline over the next several years. c.b.o. is projecting that labor participation will drop to 62.5% by the end of 2013 sh 2017 fueled in part by the mandates in the affordable care act and negative impact on job creators as a result. here's the toughest thing.

number ten. the congressional budget office says even these dire projections may be overly optimistic. c.b.o. projects real economic growth of 3.1%, which is notably higher than the private sector has projected, they projected 2.4% or the international mont taxpayer fund projects 2.8%. so, as c.b.o. say, it would probably trim its projection of growth in 2013 based on 2013 data. so the numbers we are dealing with today may be overly optimistic. as dire as this report is, it may be that we're underestimating the damage that will come from our ability -- inability to control spending and put us on a path to fiscal

health. now, this just isn't another siren alerting washington to the stark reality of our country desperately needing a real debt-reduction agreement. this is a 5-alarm fire. our fiscal house is engulfed in flames, and the question is, when are we, who've been given the responsibility that the -- e responsibility of the people we represent, when are we going to stand up and have the ccurrenc o something about this, to put out the fire? we cannot overlook the fact that our country is facing record deficits as far as the eye can see. we are careening on an unsustainable fiscal path. we need all hands on deck to address this not tomming, not -t tomorrow, not after the next election -- how many times have we heard, after this next

election? we need to take on this challenge. we need do this now because the threat is now. the credible long-term plan to reduce or debt and put our country back on the path to fiscal health and economic growth and opportunity really is the only way that we can preserve the america that we enjoy today -- or have enjoyed in the past. the only way to preserve that for future generations. so i think we have a generational responsibility here that is as important as any debt that we have faced before. many say that our legacy rests 0on what we do here -- many say that our legacy rests on what we do here. whether that's true, we'll be measured by what we do or don't do. this is not a republican conservative standing up and

saying, this is how i see things. i'm simply reciting how the body which we turn to, the congressional budget office, a neutral body which just does the math and then draws conclusions from it -- actually, we draw the conclusions, they put the numbers down. this is what the congressional budget office has told us. these are stunning numbers, much more than any of us anticipated. i think we'v we've been in a lie lull here, thinking we've done sceforts. now we're -- thinking we've done sceforts. thousand we're back to regular order. regular order is continuing to spend half a trillion more than we bring in revenue. raising taxes according to c.b.o., that's not going to solve the problem. that just hinders economic growth. and so those of us both -- on

both sides of this body here that have worked to address these issues -- now, not later -- those of us that have worked with the administration -- and ifers part oiwas part after sm working over a small period of time with the president and his top advisors to try to put something in place, as modest as it was -- or as it ended up being -- and not even being able to complete that. that burden, that responsibility, that legacy rests on our shoulders, that duty rests on our shoulders to acknowledge these facts, acknowledge these numbers, and to understand what impact it's going to have on the future of this country, our children, grandchildren, everybody's children and grandchildren, and perhaps even our generation. and so i will be distributing this report from the joint

economic committee, which is a bipartisan committee. i happen to be the senior republican senator. but it's equally staffed and equally led by those from the other party. so i'm hoping we can work together. i'm hoping this sends out yet another alarm and we just won't simply rest on the fact that we made a baby step here in terms of getting some control over our spending. but as we turn around, like a little grass fire over here that we put out across the street, while the 5-alarmer is burning away, blazing away, and we're saying, we'll deal with it later. we can't deal with it later. we must deal with it now. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent that i be able to engage in a quoll quey with the senator from -- in a colloquy with the senator from hawaii for up to 20 minutes. officer 123er without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, i am down here with my colleague, senator schatz from hawaii, the college affordable care act and innovation act, which we introduced along with senator murray of washington and senator sanders of vermont. and by way of framing the conversation that we'll have today, madam president, i want to talk about one particular college that maybe paints a picture of the crisis that we are in today with respect to the mounting cost that confronts kids and families when they want to get a college education and the variety of outcomes, the frankly surprising outcomes that

students are getting when they show up at the doors of institutions of public -- excuse me, institutions of education, particularly institutions of for-profit education. corinthian college is a pretty big college, about 100 campuses on 25 different states. let me give you some statistics about corinthian college. after about a year, over half of the students who enroll drop o out. when they're finished with their education, whether it be to a degree or not, about one-third of all students who go to corinthian default on their student loans. if 56% isn't a bad enough number in terms of one-year dropout rates, after four years, only 6% of all the kids that walk in the

doors of corinthian college get a degree. foormaffordability is an argument in favor of this school year. down the street you could get the same degree for $2,,500. 35% default rate, 6% four-year graduation rate, degrees that can cost 14 times as much as comparable local schools. the and guess what? the federal government rewards this school with $1.6 billion in federal aid every year and $500,000 -- $500 million, excuse me, in pell grant money every year. the and so this example -- which frankly can be repeated over and over again, especially in the for-profit world -- speaks to the challenge that we have. we have done a really credible job over the course of the last few years in keeping down the interest rate that we charge

students who want to take out loans to go to school. no one has worked harder on this issue inside this body and outside this body than the presiding officer. but we also have to have a concurrent conversation about the sticker price of college, because it can't be enough that we are facilitating student borrowing. we also have to try to engage in a real effort using federal levers, for the first time perhaps in our history of federal higher education policy, to push the cost of tuition down in the first place. and that's what the college affordability and innovation act seeks to do. as senator schatz will talk about, there aren't a lot of issues that are much more important to the middle class thank the cost of a higher education. we both know that, we barne pard on this piece of legislation i n part is not only are we not that faraway from the time of our

lives when we were in college, we're savin paying for our savi' education as well as paying for ours u i'l. we think it is time for a little bit more innovation when it comes to the way college is structured. there is no magic to the fact that today you have to sit? a classroom for four years, taking a requits amount of credit -- a requisite amount of credits in order to get a degree. there are a small subset of schools say, wait a minute. maybe there is a different way to do it. the maybe we should award a degree based on the competences you get, regardless of whether you need two, three, ou or four years to get the degree. or maybe we should reward students who show up at their freshman year of school with

prior learning with credit for that, whether you got that studying at a high school or in the workforce or in the military. some students don't have to start as a freshman. some can start as a sophomore or junior. or maybe it's a renewed effort to consolidate graduate programs with undergraduate programs. i think president obama is right. you don't need seven years to become a lawyer in this country. doesn't make a lot of sense that you have to spend 10 to 15 years in education and training to become a doctor. we can consolidate graduate and undergraduate programs. but whatever we do, we have to admit that one of the easiest ways to reduce the cost of a degree is to real estate duce the time -- reduce the time that it takes to get a degree. the first part of our bill focuses on giving some grants it a small number of schools to build out the right way to do competency-based degree programming or initiatives to give greater credit for prior

learning or consolidations of graduate and undergraduate degrees. we introduced this piece of legislation because we think it's time to start having a real conversation about what the federal government can do to control and lower the price of college education. it is breaking the bank for families. and we can do something about it. if we didn't have any tools at our disposal, maybe this wouldn't be a worthwhile conversation. but we give out millions of dollars in federal aid every year and it is about time we started demanding accountability for that money, whether for cost or for quality. it doesn't make sense for taxpayers to be sending $1.6 billion a year to a school with a 6% graduation rate, a 38% loan default rate, and prices that are simply not competitive in the landscape of college education. so i'm pleased to be down here on the floor with with my coll, senator schatz, and i am happy to turn the floor over to him.

shatt-al-aramr. schatz: i thanke senator for his leadership. we are happen happy to have the support of senator murray and senator sanders. but this really is the middle-class issue of our time. and it doesn't just belong to college-aged students. it belongs to all of us. senator murphy talked about how important it is for those of us who have young children and are beginning the process of trying to save up for our children's college education. but it also belongs to the grandparents' generation. so many people are thinking about whether they can help their kids to ameliorate their existing student loans or their grandkids to be able to afford college. as senator murphy mentioned, we spend almost $150 billion in some form or fashion on federal financial aid for institutions of higher learning. that's a good thing. that is a matter of national strategy. that is about the american dream.

there is that is about the premt if you work hard and play by the riewcialtion you can move up the economic -- and play by the rules, you can move up the economic ladder. higher education is one of the best ways to do that. it always to be in the use of america. here's the problem. and the senator from connecticut talked about an individual example. but let me give you the aggregate data. over the last ten years we have spent 20% more and we have gotten 25% less. we are spending 20% more and we are getting 25% less. that means that although our investment in higher education and theoretically in college affordability, the net cost for students has gown by 25% -- has gone up by 25%. we now have more than $1 trillion in student loan debt, the second to mortgage debt. this is a real crisis not just on the consumer level but as a

matter of economic strategy for our nation because to the degree and extent that young people or people who want retraining or people who want to get a culinary degree or become a master carpenter or become an architect or doctor start to evaluate higher education and decide it is not a good value anymore, that doesn't just impact their individual family or their individual community, but it impacts our national economic strategy. college is no longer affordable. for many, many people and that is despite the fact we are spending more in raw dollars and in inflation-adjusted dollars than ever before. senator murphy talked about the innovation portion of this legislation. we also have an accountability portion of this legislation. here's the basic premise. as an institution of higher education, if you're a for-profit, if you're a not-for-profit or even if you're a public institution, i