long-term unemployment benefits because of our failure to extend them. for those 20,000 veterans i don't think it would be sufficient to say you're not going to get your unemployment insurance because we're worried what is going to happen in 2015 to some other veterans. if you want to help veterans today, you can help 20,000 of them by voting for this provision going forward. let's help our unemployed and our veterans, and not use one group against the other for a legislative advantage in terms of any one particular measure. the emergency for unemployment insurance that encompasses at least 20,000 veterans is today, not a year or more from now. we can't turn our back on the 1.7 million americans and it's growing each week. we've got to help them. it's been 40 days since unemployment insurance benefits

expired, mr. president, for millions of americans. that's 40 days too long for those who are downsized due to the recession and find their u.i. benefits downsized again by congress, downsized to practically zero. but i i'd also like to remind my but i i'd also like to remind my >> that but i would also like to remind my colleagues about some of the reforms that we have accomplished in 2012. many of my colleagues have very good ideas and i have talked about up we're going to deal with uninsured for the unemployment come out what's deal with it in this way. in 2012 i was part of the conference committee between the house and senate legislation was formerly considered this body and the other body brought to a conference in regular order and we have had a vigorous debate about the structure of unemployment, and vision. and significant structural reform was made to the program.

so this is not a situation where we have neglected to look at the unemployment compensation program. and it's a provision that was included because we were responding to many members of the house of representatives and this has to be something that the states can do. this is something that they can do. i don't think that most dates have taken out the auction. and these will now help the unemployed help those move from an unemployment check to a paycheck. and it overturned the 1960s

era regulations with those most at risk and so i am always willing to listen to proposals to make changes and that is a provision that has been there since the 60s. when that happened about two years ago. until we have made these changes. but we are willing to work in good faith with additional changes that are necessary and they shouldn't block a three-month extension. much of it is retroactive or but it is pending before the senate today. and one other point is that in the context of this debate there has been a suggestion that we are in some way inappropriate and a moral.

it encourages people to avoid work. and it makes us as americans independent. that is how i feel when i go back home. even recognizing my efforts to try to get this bill passed, that is fine. but what i really want is a job and to work. i want to work for many reasons and one is $350 per week and that deal barely keeps me and my family hold. and it is little help with gasoline and rents and i can't live on that. i have to have a job. by the way, i think most americans want to work because work defines us. he gives us not just a place to go but it gives us a meaning to our lives. just as family does. and this notion is that this is the program that indulges those

who don't want to work it is profoundly wrong and an insult. to millions of americans but definitely want a job. and it is based on work history. it's not a program that you qualify for by showing a but you have to be fired. you are told that we can keep you anymore, we are sorry, you're a good worker, we can keep you. and if you are not a good worker, you don't get these things. and then they actively have to keep looking for work another fed and the 2012 positions, we have given that an ability to be not perfunctory and active

search. because of this we have seen most americans simply eligible for 26 weeks of assistance administered by the state. and it takes an average job seeker about 32 weeks to get hired. in some cases even longer because of high unemployment. and because of the bigger economic conditions there and for the average work in a 32 weeks. and there are 26 weeks but will not cover the unemployment time. and the longer you are unemployed the harder it is to get a job. that's what we know from research and from our own sense of the economy. and so the notion that we have something like a chemical engineer that an out of work for

the first time he or she has ever lost their job should take the first thing available at the lowest cost and lowest wage. and i think it devalues the lifetime effort and two, it denies us of the productivity. and i'd rather see a chemical engineer work in a job related to chemical engineering because the productivity contribution to society is much greater doing the job that we trained for and having a chance to do. and our nation is at its best when everyone has the time to book its talents and skills and we need to get our country back to full point. and this is the emergency provision to a job and helps us to do more.

not only to put people back to work but to make the wages that we see paycheck to paycheck and allow them to live with a sense that they are building up some securities themselves for them and their families. we have the resources to achieve this and we are paying for this position. we're not putting it on the shoulders for the next-generation. we are limiting the to a very short time so that there is an opportunity to look at what we did in 2012 and see if we can do more. and my question is does this have the will to make it happen? it isn't the end of our effort. so the people don't need it.

but it is not 32 weeks to get a new job. it is several days. several days that we hope. and this is a building block that we need to put in place to move forward in this process has an expiration at my home state and i urge my benefit and my colleagues to renew their position and this is one of those issues where it simply comes back to in light of this. this is the right thing to do. i honestly believe that there are many more than 60s my colleagues that believe this is the right way to do it my way to do it and the question is will they vote that way in a few hours. i hope that they do. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

>> the amendment and the underlying bill. shortly after, senator max baucus to be next u.n. ambassador to china. he came to the senate floor shortly thereafter to give his farewell address. >> women begin by thanking the many of my friends here. the urban and senator hatch and many others. i must say to you that your remarks mean a lot to me that i think that you know that it means so much to me and i thank you for what you have read. i would like to begin by thanking the people of montana. they have given me the honor of representing them in the united

states congress for nearly 40 years. and at the end of the year it will be 40 years. on the same thread, we have the opportunity to serve the american people as ambassador to china and i want to recognize one of the best teammates and friends anyone could ask for. senator john patrick. thank you, john. and there is nothing as good in life as the love of family and i have been an incredibly incredibly lucky man. i would like to thank my wife and my son and his wife stephanie and our children's katie and julie. you inspire me daily. i am so grateful for each of you. and i am so blessed to have you in my life. for energy and zest for life the

positive outlook and the love. i am the luckiest guy in the world. katie and joey are inspired by their mother and they are great kids and great achievers and they got all grades that were top-notch. they were inspired by their mother and that is why they do so well. my son is one of the best kids that appear could wish for and i'm so proud of him smart and decent and he is currently assisting the u.s. attorney with his wife stephanie and you may have read about them. he is the prosecutor in that case and it's an indication of how proud i am of him. i learned more about that case in the papers either from him and he keeps the cards close to

his vest and he's such a decent and smart effective guide. stephanie has jumped in to life in montana and we are so lucky to have her. thank you so much for my parents. i wish that they were here today. growing up on a ranch in montana, you learned simple lessons and the measure of life. you learn to cherish the land and it gets in your blood anywhere card and it's humbling. so much you can't control what the at what whether rain or not rain. he gives you a perspective to be philosophical about life. also with nurturing life and lifestyle and protecting a small part of nature's bounty. in the montana way is that we

love the outdoors and we are outdoors people in montana. we hunt and fish and backpack. we hike and we grow crops and raise livestock. we mined coal and cut timber and we are outdoor people. so many montanans are outdoor people more than any other people in the country and we love it. it becomes part of our soul. as bud guthrie said, i am part of this as a mortal partner of eternity. and i grew up this way and we all have a moral obligation to our kids and grandkids to leave this place is as good a shape as we found it. that is also a lasting gift to my appearance left us with their love of the land. my mom is one of the most special people and she had a class of grace kelly and the spunk and grit of catherine hepburn.

she is a combination of them both and intelligent an intelligent classy lady. always nurturing and always positive and so well read. she's an read more books than i did. i would come home at night and ask what she was reading and she would tell me that the book and she would say we think about and she would tell me a good book and he had something to say. and anyway she let me know and he wrote back and they became penpals and it was so very nice. someone asked me last week were my mother would've thought of all this. she would have been incredibly excited and fascinated with this adventure ahead. i miss her every day and i talked to her every day at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon and night time goes by when i always have her in my mind. as with my father. during europe in world war ii

and a product of the great depression, hard work and humility and good faith, working hard on the ranch and he did it for the right reasons and i didn't complain because i knew that he was trying to do is to hope to help me later in life. he was also such a decent person. no one ever spoken ill word of my father. such rocksolid character in the republican party asked us to run for governor and as a college student at stanford, i decided

to take a year off for my studies during my junior and senior year and i grabbed a knapsack and it was june. september of 63. and this is a country that i have only imagined. india and japan and china to name a few. before i departed i had never thought about allies and public service. i realized how people were interconnected and this vision hit me and it was so connected and the natural resources are diminishing and somehow we have to work better together not only for ourselves but for everyone. we are so connected.

the world is getting smaller and our natural resources are diminishing. we have to find a way to work under together. including a career record for my fellow montanans and americans probably the most influential one is and this is something that would never dream of the time to represent that state a few years later. when i first ran for a statewide office in 1973, no one knew me from adam. i had been away from the state for many years and i needed some advice. and that instantly became a man

that i honored and it wasn't just a defining moment and he told me that i should run and go back home to serve just a short distance from here. they could take a lot of hard work and they rolled their luck. so i took his advice literally and i wore out were out as much shoe leather as i knew how. i got to know so many great people at the later put me to work for them in the u.s. house and it was right in the middle of the watergate scandal and the congressional class plan to restored good faith in government. they were just great people in

first class. chris dodd, tom harkin, henry waxman, george miller, just to name a few. and hitchhikers on the globe it is a religion and culture and virtue. we are all together. and we are all in this together. and we all have the same dreams for our family. to put food on the table, to take care of the kids, health care they can afford and a clean environment for the families to explore and enjoy. we are so lucky as americans to have this institution under our constitution written by perceptive forefathers and it offers the opportunity for us to make a difference.

one of the greatest villages that i have had is to have the best staff on the hill. sitting behind me. and we have always been ready with big ideas and dedication to answers if there is a vision and my staff has been in it. i'm very proud of myself for another reason. a woman and a man working in my office didn't know each other until they start working in my office and i got together and i got married. six times. and they have all worked except for one. and over the years and it meant so much to me.

then over half of montanans and americans, each person making a positive difference in the lives of others and we thank you all so very much. and especially those that have a wonderful number of people will stop at nothing. we have the call to serve and in fact more montanans have volunteered for service per capita than nearly any other state in the nation. and my nephew, philip, what went to college was in the marines

and he came back to serve our country. i love him like a son. he has offered support for counsel and advice and leadership and he has made corporal in record timing and then he returned to the family ranch. and they left behind countless individuals as well and we still shudder. president lincoln concluded a second inaugural address to go into battle for his widow's and their sacred duty today. we have made a lot of progress with tax credit and businesses and the g.i. bill in the last 10 years congress has doubled this with what we should be proud of

and we must also talk to those who ponder the service. and especially improve ptsd screenings and prove it nationwide. especially with the montana national guard, we got it through the defense bill and it is now being enacted nationwide. the kids are coming home. and it has resulted in more than 800,000 service members that have received personal attention with trained health care providers before-and-after appointments. and the screenings are saving lives. i'm also proud of another life-saving bill called the

affordable care act. almost four years since president obama signed that act and the law has someone been any other to expand access. he has provided 71 million americans free preventative services to more than 6 million seniors have received discounts on vital prescription drugs. more than 3 million young people are allowed to stay on the parent's health plan and no child can never be denied health care coverage because of a pre-existing position. and this includes a private standoff that is helping go through americans. take julie who has talking about how she can get access to affordable quality health care coverage because of this

including one individual that survived ovarian cancer and she was able to stay on her parents insurance and when her battle against cancer. i'm very proud of the role that we play to help make the health care more affordable to many more americans. there are brilliant men and women and i insist that the most important aspect is that senators are just ordinary people. we are just people. it is always through the extraordinary institution of the senate and the power to make life better for all americans. belonging to an independent situation of something bigger than ourselves. senators actually have lunch together in the dining room in what is called the inner sanctuary. we learned about each other's families and friendships and

have spent time together inside and out and we have talked about kids and families and got to know each other. and it is a backbone of respect as well. those friendships provided a refuge to return to after offering disagreements of the day. now they are political fundraisers and the senate is losing the spirit of friendship and forgiveness. it is a friendship and forgiveness with all human relations which rests upon the contract recognition that actions and attitudes are interpreted by our friends and our foes as well as we interpret them.

friendship and forgiveness. that is the oil of human relations that brings us together. it carries this and we are for it. if there is nothing inevitable about this. the hope of this body lies in the hearts of the individual senators and set upon solutions to win over the hearts of political games. including those that solve some of the nations most difficult problems and i will never forget working together with the public works committee and i worked with him for years before finding out that he was an amazing war hero decorated for service in korea. he did not tell us that. and he was a self-effacing kind of a guy. he didn't brag about the record and he did it for political

gains. he believed in it and we need more like him in the world. since 1989 and 1990 we have gotten together and in a small room just off the senate floor wave after wave of senators until one or two in the morning. i have become chairman of that committee and together we met our colleagues to iron out ozone depletion and scores of other issues. the senator later became the chairman for the committee. .. pass the clean air act of 1990. i'm very proud of that effort. and i was chairman of the committee at that time. it finally passed. it's a small point, but i always respected that he never raised

his voice. always civil, always decent, always positive, upbeat, trying to find a solution here. john never lost his temper. he listened carefully to the other person's point of view. he was a paragon of a united states senator. iowa, another, chuck grassley. chuck and i began our friendship face to face his office, my office, turned out to be 5:30 we bring our staff together. pretty soon they started talking to each other. health care staff after awhile started talking to each other. trade staff started talking to each other, tax staff. heck, we were basically one office. if you were a fly on the wall you would think it was one office. people trying to get together to solve problems. chuck is a republican, i'm a democrat with differences our goal to solve problem. we're find solutions.

culture and respect and honesty on the committee they helped pass an important agreement and other bill to expand trading opportunity with the rest of the world. we are proud of our work together in 2003. they refer to it a short while ago. i look to thank my good friend dave. dave is chairman of the house ways & means committee. we worked together a lot over the last couple of years on tax reform. we bridged the partisan divide to pass the most recent highway bill and the payroll tax cut. dave is a super, super wonderful man. they are lucky to have him. also an honor working with my good friend other orrin hatch. we worked together to introduce legislation to make congress a full partner in trade

negotiations. in trade, as so many areas, working together is the only way to get the job done. madam president, he's a real american over here. other than hatch, he's solid, solid. cares about this country. a wonderful person to work with. i can't thank him enough. thank you, senator hatch. >> in 18961 president elect said, i'm quoting. our government is in every branch and every level national, state, and local must be as a city up on a hill. constructed and have it by -- of the great trust and great responsibilities. sitting on a hill rest firmly on the bridges that senators built when they face even the deepest of divides. imagine my closest friendship across the aisle. those bridges that we lack the most today.

the e. i any i had is even more relevant today. advances in technology, communications, made us more interconnected as ever before. the challenges of globalization bind us together even more. climate change, we're fall in this together. terrorism, economic development, education, can only be addressed with good faith and commitment. i'm committed in my next chapter to meet these challenges. i believe it's one of the most important bilateral relationship in the world. it will shape for generations. we must get it right. 30 years ago he said farewell to the institution by simply declaring, quote, there's a time to stay and a time to go. now as i face my own cross roads i'm humbled to have the opportunity to follow.

for our nation i all tried to do the same. you know i love to run. i've got my eye on the beijing marathon. to be more honest scale down to a half marathon. [laughter] something a little shorter. i think about my next endeavor it reminds something of a professional runner, quote, ask yourself can i give more? the answer is usually yes. end quote. i can give more. we all can. i thank the president for asking me i'm energize to serve americans new rule as we look as this as we sprint to the finish. i trust them to choose wisely as they have the great senator from montana. for the young people chasing

their dream across searching for the river valley or climate future along the rockie mountain front. the -- there is no honor in public service. i disagree. i think the greatest human endeavor is service. service to friends, family, church, synagogue, public service most noble human endeavor is service. encourage young folks to take up that challenge. it's more than honorable. it's an obligation to serve. i, you to follow and serve. choose to serve others. for me it has been an honor of a lifetime. i'm lucky. the respect i say for the last time is full faith and the highest in the senate -- i have to say i'm not going

anywhere. i'm just taking a trip. maybe for a year or two. across the pay passaic. i'll be coming back. different to be taken. and thank all of my colleagues. i yield the floor. >> at the briefing on capitol hill today, house speaker john boehner told reporters that immigration legislation would be difficult to pass by the end of the year. his comments came while discussing a range of legislative eye tempts that could potentially come up on the house floor in the coming months. here is some of what he said. >> well, i would say a couple things. first of all, we remain optimistic about the prospects

for comprehensive immigration reform in 2014. we have seen significant movement among republicans on this issue, and it is heartening to see that republican leaders in congress including speaker of the house and others identify immigration reform as a necessary priority. that's a good thing. when it comes to the president's record on issues encompassed within i think it's important to look at what he's done already in helping build a bipartisan consensus. in helping build the most effective order enforcement that we've ever seen over the five years he's been president. we've seen significant improvement in our border security cpb employs over 21,000 border patrol agents. keeping staffing levels at

all-time high. saver, stronger, more secure boarder. it's an issue of particular concern to republicans as well as democrats. i think it's reflected in the fact that the legislation and the senate the president supports further enhances border security. and when it comes to the president's record on that, i think it speaks for itself. but nothing like this nothing is important, nothing this comprehensive ever comes fast or easy in washington. so this won't be any different. but it remains an absolute fact we have made enormous progress in building the consensus. even the republican party, which its operative policy position not that long ago on the issue

self-deportation has come a significant way toward the middle, if you will, or toward the consensus shared by businesses big and small, labor, law enforcement, religious communities, republicans and democrats across the country response we continue to see positive progress and, you know, we're going to work with congress to get this done. >> in spite of your optimism, the person running the chamber that is holding it up said he doesn't see at likelihood of this happening this year. so i'm wondering if in comes a point or will come a point when the president might get on climate change if congress won't act. ly will and you'll consider what can be done without congress? there there's no alternative to comprehensive immigration reform. passing through congress. it requires legislation.

and the president has made it clear in the past. that continues to be his view. that's why we need to work together to build on the existing. to see it help deliver a bill through the house and then a bill that can ultimately reach the president's desk. i think the challenges within the republican party on this issue are well known. and they certainly don't have anything to do with the president. but as i noted before, the progress has been significant. i think that there is a genuine recognition among leaders in the republican party this is a right thing to do for our economy. it's the right thing to do for our middle class. it's the right thing to do for our businesses. when we talk about expanding growth and opportunity comprehensive immigration reform is a part of achieving that. and achieving it together.

so we're going to work steadily on this issue and we believe that it will get done. in many ways we focus so far on the challenge of protecting credit cards and debit cards. but the real potential exposure we have is people can get in to our bank accounts or online transactions we do more and more online banking and other services nap offers area where few protection at this point and almost unlimit liability for consumers. in the interconnected world personal information is collected from consumers whatever they go. to the workplace for shopping for grocery to the smartphone to browsing the web at home. it involve the collection of information. some very sensitive.

many of these data uses have clear benefits but the recent data breaches a strong reminder they also create risk for consumers. >> it's through proactive investigations we're out sometimes ahead determining and looking at data as it relates to financial industry. it's through partnership we have in the financial industry sector. able sometimes to bring us data to find out where information is leaking to the criminal underground from. so too is the same way i believe some journalists are able to get ahold of the information.

part of the state department briefing was about remarks allegedly made by u.s. diplomat. about the european union and the involvement in solving ukraine's political unrest. the comment phone conversation with the u.s. ambassador to ukraine. this portion of the briefing is 20 minutes. >> we get back to syria. let get to the real fire. what seems to be the real fire in the moment, which is ukraine. and so before we get in to the actual substance of this conversation this call that was reported and released, can you say whether you -- if this call is an authentic recording of an

authentic conversation between assistant secretary and -- >> well, i'm not going to confirm or outline details. i understand there are at lough reports out there. there's a reporting out there. i'm not going confirm a private diplomatic conversation. you're not saying you believe it's -- you think it's not -- it's not an accusation i'm make. i'm not going to confirm the specific. >> reporter: you can't say whether there was a call. you believe the call -- you believe this reporting is a reporting of a real telephone call? >> i didn't say authentic. i think question leave it at that. >> reporter: you're allowing the fact it is authentic. >> yes. >> do you have a question about it? >> reporter: yes. apart from the colorful language used in reference to the european union, the conversation appears -- it doesn't appear to suggest, it does. the conversation shows that the

united states or at least officials within the u.s. government have certain opinion about certain ukraine began opposition leaders and others. i'm wondering how it squares with your repeated insistence that all of this is ukraine began to decide themselves. it's not inscent in the least pint. it's no secret that the assistant secretary have been working with government ukraine with the opposition with business and civil society level to support it their effort. it shouldn't be a surprise at any point there have been discussions about recent events and offers and what is happening on the ground. as you know he's on the ground right now continuing our efforts n that regard. it remains the case it is up to the ukraine yum people themselves to decide their future. it's up to them to determine their path forward. it's a consistent message. >> i two more.

they should be brief. >> on ukraine. >> yeah. as related to the assistant secretary comment about the european union, do -- are the united states and the e.u. on the same page on how to deal with the situation in ukraine? and how best to resolve the crisis? >> well, let me first say obviously we work closely with the e.u. and representatives of the e.u. and assistant secretary does as it relate to ukraine and has been in close contact. let me convey she has been in contact with the e.u. counter part and, of course, has a apologized. for the recorded comments, of course. you're not confirming they're accurate. >> i'm not going to speak to a private diplomatic conversation, but i'm obviously speaking to the content of the report. she's been in touch with them

and clearly we've been working closely on them on what should happen on ukraine, what should happen -- what kind of package as you know we've, discussing here. we can discuss for a government once it is formed. and if we have frustrations, we express those privately as welt. but dc important to know how closely we work with them and aligned with the issue. >> do you know who apologized for. >> i don't have the level of spes specificity. >> your colleague at the white house made mention, pointed out, you know, quite obviously or made a point of noting that an aid to senior russian official was if the the first, one of the first -- was the first. yes. >> draw attention. i believe that if you don't know who posted it. it's a fair point.

that would be the first drawing of attention to it. the video in it. among the first, if no the the first, was the aid to deputy prime minister tweeting about it. do you think -- does the u.s. government believe that russia was behind this mugging and release and if you are not willing to go that far, are you concerned at all that officials in the russian government seem to be wanting to point to draw attention to this? >> well, certainly we think this is a new low and russian trade craft. term of publicizing posting i don't have any other independent detail about the origin of the youtube video. you're right. it clearly happened overnight and relatively new.

>> what do you mean. what do you mean by it's a new low in russian trade craft? the conversation was recorded and broadcast? >> well, certainly if it was recorded and broadcast it would be that. it would be, you know, violating a private conversation. >> you said this is a new low in russian trade craft. you think the russians recorded and made available. >> as stated -- i don't have any independent or new information on that. obviously they promoted this. were the first to tweet about it. >> that's your sis pigs. you said it's a new low in russian trade craft that implies you believe it is their responsibility. >> well, i think i was pretty clear in answering the question. i don't have any independent information on the origin of the youtube video. obviously they were the first

ones to post on twitter about it. which is an indication but again, i don't know -- i don't have any independent -- >> sorry. >> sure. >> the russians have repeatedly accused the united states government of interfering in ukraine's politics. the u.s. government has to some degree made reciprocal claims about russia. does not the fact that u.s. diplomats proportedly are discussing who and should not be in the ukraine government hint at some possible of u.s. interference here? >> absolutely not. it should be no surprise that u.s. officials talk about issues around the world. of course we do. that's what you do. that's what diplomats do. and discuss especially issues where we've been closely engaged. you know, the secretary met with the opposition this weekend.

he stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. it's up to the people of ukraine including officials from both sides to determine the path forward. it shouldn't be a surprise there are discussions about event on the ground. it's more than discussions. it was two top u.s. officials on the ground discussing a plan they have to broker a future government. and bringing officials to sale the deal. it's more than the u.s. trying to it's the u.s. midwifing the process. >> we're talking about the private conversation. they happen all the time. there are discusses what involvement the u.n. can have and engagement should happen on the ground. it shouldn't be a surprise. of course they are being discussed. it doesn't change the fact that it is up to the people on the ground. it is up to the --

>> you're clearly trying to i influence what they decide. one of the quote is, it's attributed to the ambassador. you reaching out to him. help among the three. and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all of this and put it behind it and he explains why he doesn't like it. it's not, you know, let them figure it out. agree, let's try to do this so he won't, you know, decide he doesn't like this plan. >> it's not an secret we're engaged with what is happening in on the ground. they met with the opposition this weekend. he met with the foreign minister as part of the discussions you engage with what is happening. what the recommendations are. they choose to do it or not. that's what you discuss in any meeting or conversation regardless.

you have an opinion about what certain people should you think is best for certain people to play; correct? you have -- that is an opinion. it doesn't mean that you're going to foist that or force it on the people of ukraine. you have an opinion; correct? >> i would caution everybody. one moment. we're talking about a couple of minutes from a recorded call. it doesn't reflect every conversation that happened. every debate that happened, every internal conversation that happened. >> you're right. you do have -- here is the case where an official -- two officials are talking about a preference for what one opposition or several should do. whether they should be in or state stay out of the government. you have an opinion what you think would be best. i'm not sure that's -- >> i'm not we have opinions about a range of issue. it shouldn't be a surprise.

i would just when you get a question about whether you think you would be good or bad for politician x or y to run for office any office, i don't think it is honest for you to say no, we don't have an opinion. and that's completely up to the people. well, there's a difference. i sporvegly mean in this case i'm talking about egypt. >> sure. >> you have -- let me make one comment here. there's a difference between private discussions that happen in the interagency process. until the building, and what we convey publicly as a u.s. government. we have a responsibility to convey what our position is. that's what you do. i'm sorry. if you're saying privately behind the scenes cooking up a deal and saying it's up. those are two totally different things. i understand that diplomatic discussions are sensitive and

you don't want everything to come out. those are two totally different positions. this is talking about a deal the sus cooking up. >> i think i would disagree with you. i think you are overstating and over qualifying a couple of minute the from a privately recorded phone call. >> i'm done. >> i've asked with europe. obviously the language that assistant secretary used suggests fairly high degree of frustration. so what is behind that? what is that you want to be done that the europeans are not falling in line with? >> i think i answered this. obviously we work closely with the e.u. and specifically on this issue in recent weeks as give how much prominence it received but how important it is to priority to us and priority toy the e.u.

so we've been in close discussions with them. we've been working closely with them. these reported discussion is about events that happened days and days ago. just remember that. >> it is days and days ago. >> technically days and days ago. obviously angry. the despite the fact she might be discussing this. what was it that was making her angry? >> i wouldn't over analyze a couple of words that were used on a phone call. there are every moments where you have small frustrations. you agree or disagree you work through the issue. you talk about the best step. that has been the case here.

i know the united states has been talking about preparing another level of sanctions. if thing goes drastically wrong in kiev. is it perhaps a track they are not in agreement with? >> i defer to them on their view on that. it's not an application at all. it wasn't even discussed. you know our position. we're open to considering sanctions. that hasn't obviously moved forward. nothing has changed about our view right now. this isn't an indication of anything more than that. i would like to go back to the russian involvement. you were talking about the state craft and the idea that this russian assistant of the deputy prime minister -- you said that you didn't have any --

you didn't have any solid evidence that the russians were involved. but you did said the fact that the russians were quick to have the video and tweet out it's an indication of their possible involvement? >> i think that is an indication they're promoting it. not just an indication. it's evidence their promoting it. a not promoting it but they had a hand in obtaining it. as i said, it hasn't changed. i don't have any independent information about who posted the youtube video. indication of the possible involvement in obtaining it? i don't have anymore information on it. i will let you draw your own conclusion. i don't have anything in addition about the source of the youtube video. obviously they were the first to post it on twitter. >> go ahead. >> do we have anymore on ukraine? >> you said it's a conversation that happened days ago. when was secretary -- it was an issue being discussed

days and days ago who would and wouldn't join the conversation. refer to the competition. i wonder if you can tell us where it was in the competition. i think it goes back several days. i don't have anymore information on where it took place. sure? how pervasive do you think the sentiment that -- has apologized for? how pervasive within the state department and the administration? i don't think it is at all. is it the new rally cry of the bureau? you may know the story how she

lived on a russian vote for eight months when she was 23 and learned how to perfect perhaps certain words in up kl of languages response perhaps it speaks to that more than a pervasive viewpoint. the fishings vessel? >> are you suggesting -- you're not suggesting that she has a predispositions against russia? >> no i was suggesting she learned russian curse words and curse words on the boat. >> it was in english. >> i was making a joke about her learning curse words on a fishing boat. >> is there any concern in the department if there is a russian hand in this that her -- this is the secretary newland's relationship with the russians, which russia is part of her portfolio now is going to be, you know, hurt. i recall and she was sworn in.

the secretary told a story about how lavrov said that he was glad that he finally got rid of the woman. >> i was there for that. ..

have. >>. [laughter]

>> come to order. of q. people as to come back for breakfast but they did

not take attract route but they should be here shortly. i think what we will do is finish up and i want to thank people for the good work that we have used to take on this challenge is not easy for this legislation we like to work on a bipartisan basis as a tradition in this committee and to thank you to the staff and to give us to this point in time. we have used that 8020 rule also your partners taking

turns leading the prevention committee and he said he would not compromise is on policy but not principal at the end of the day when we pass legislation when we compromise we campbell cat one another in the eye we fixed this problem we have not kick to the can down the road but the postal service is in a position not just continue to twist in the wind to be relevant and five current -- vibrant without being diverted to the taxpayers of the country. i think senator said he

would be willing to leave us off. dealing with nullification requirements for pilots disposal but first in the figure would like to add? thanks very much. you are recognized as. >> there has been a real effort to see if we cannot have a more expeditious disposal of excess property. i had questions why it is in the bill but that is where the majority is i just want to make sure the pilot program is utilized that local governments are notified of any proposed disposal of property inside a local government

jurisdiction and so this amendment that has been expected would require local governments be notified of any properties in their jurisdiction made part of the expedited disposal of private program. >> i think this is good i have been able to come to an agreement the pilot program was established and inc. into this proposal office of british men and budget will be disposed of through the pilot project taqiyah the surplus for example, and already taking place we will

be done during the pilot program. and it was during the expedited disposal process. any more comments. >> for the record can andy reminds me? what is the value for the record? >> we don't know the value but we do do we spend in excess of $2 billion per year of maintaining building this spee back there you go. i walk passing empty building for the last two years they should figure out what to do stibnite thank-you for your support any more comments or

questions? call in favor to the amendment number four? oboes? it is agreed to. senator baker ht issue has come up. >> does anybody have an amendment? since that issue came up i know if it is important to him and his state and you are recognized still beckon want to thank the chair began drinking never -- and the ranking member that just in the last 10 days relearn the postal service increased the rate of packages over 50 percent and used a process that changed a into

the end result even the postmaster general acknowledged unintended consequences as a national decision to have a different rate structure and role alaska the postal service is a monopoly so we have passed for a steady if that market dominant rather than competitive to get the post office they have acknowledged the unintended consequence we want to give them a chance to study it the queue for looking at this amendment i ask for unanimous consent. >> any objection to offering the amendment? with that it is in order. the deputy postmaster general could come to use

the table to talk about the amendment? had any comments? >> no. i would be anxious for the post office to respond but the process i understand it in alaska there was unintended consequences they are market dominant forces and i have heard from hundreds if not more to hear their comment on the record would be fantastic. >> deputy postmaster general, a welcome. >> we'll understand and alaska the affect of the price increase could potentially have a disproportionate impact because of lack of roads in alaska. it is something we are happy to look at and the amendment makes sense so we are more

than happy to accept the amendment as. >> and the post office is committed to solving this problem. >> yes civic figure for the clarification. 80 percent of communities have no road access. that is how they get goods and food and supplies. i appreciate it. >> thank you for your help and cooperation. this debate anymore conversation? of those in favor? >> mr. chairman with. >> the amendment accepted was number four as modified. >> without objection. on the republican side i think senator paul you are the old the republican you

are recognized please proceed. >> chairman last week there was some questions. >> is this amendment number one for clarification? >> this is number three. of last week there were questions whether or not this amendment which would allow carrying grouts on postal property if this were applied to post offices in malls or federal building as we all believe the original language allow that but to begin more explicit we added in a distributed mark did read to cover the changes and in the third section three say nothing made by

this shall be considered the rights of private property owners are the application of federal state or local laws in relation to any federal property not a post office and/or a postal property including a courthouse we think this explains concerns and republic to have a vote. >> just to go back. >> what we have done to make it explicit if there are private regulations for private restrictive covenants that does not allow the guns in a mall this would not supersede private restrictions on the carrying of guns nor would it supersedes. >> a ball? >> post offices are located in malls also post offices located country stores coming convenience stores

>> is as the rights of private property owners of basically in the contract made that is a restrictive covenant on ownership for use of a post office in that location would not be superseded so this ruling basically supersedes the post office's rules but not private contracts nor does is supersede any federal or state or local law. >> can you bring us up to speed of the federal court ruling with a district court judges in colorado had been asked to consider an instance involving a postal customer who had the right to carry a weapon in his stage or county and that he

could have it in the as i recall. could you clarify? how is the judge addressing that? we back with the issue of party moderates verses inside the post office and they are attempting to address the parking lot the whether the courts have made a decision we should go ahead to say what the will of the people is to the representatives. >> help me with this senator paul, to the district court judge whose ruling in this case, they did it set a policy your standard beyond that

particular county or just the post office? riebeckite not an attorney but i would say binder's standing is district court rulings are not universal law set standards the supreme court often does even repellent or district courts make decisions so a nonlawyer understanding to make a standard for the country we ought to do it if the courts rule one way or another does not prevent us to make a decision and i am very concerned there are people who inadvertently who can come about all of the cellblock to stop to pick up the mail and we ought to fix this problem. >> we will recognize the deputy postmaster general. >> what i interesting and is an individual in the court

case he had a gun in his pickup truck embosses you cannot do that. in the picture of my mind is the home town post office where you walked in to get your mail and walkout and to violate the law is a hunting rifle is in the car. the court sided with the individual and might understanding is the post office is appealing that ruling. my hope is that this will go all the way to the supreme court because i think violates the second amendment's but either way senator paul is making the point what we have seen with precedents is a trend to allow responses been -- responsible people ask -- to act responsibly in their state really want to ask

responsible they'll odors to be responsible when they get their mail. it is precluded that if you follow the law of the state in terms of second amendment rights then you are not in violation. i don't think this is as part of the amendment as everybody thinks it is a vital figure will create a difficulty. we have done this before with certain areas it has not been harmful but the official. >> are you familiar with the court case we are familiar with? if you are could you comment what is the position are your appealing the judge's ruling? and more broadly your view of the underlying amendment.

>> yes. with regard to the legal status of the case i would defer to general counsel who is here who was in a better position to describe the status of the case. tom marshall is the postal service general counsel. >> mr. chairman, the case you are referring to out of colorado as he suggested a and in that case the plaintiff was challenging the postal regulation which they dance the carrying of guns of all postal property. he was licensed to carry a firearm but the district court determined that our regulation was not unconstitutional in so far that it prohibited from owning guns into postal property but also determined with regard to the parking

lot in this particular post office with only this plaintiff that our restriction was solitude of the second amendment. we are appealing that decision to the tenth circuit as is he that carrying guns into sub post office is constitutional to. >> 84 that clarification. mr. stroman case you give us the perspective of the postal service underlying amendment? >> our postal inspectors who are responsible for the safety and security of our postal facilities struck we believe the current policy should remain in effect. they are concerned about encouraging any additional security measures they are concerned about the safety

of our employees given the 32,000 facilities and will cost additional resources to go through every facility to make sure they are saving and secure. the administrative burden on the inspectors will make it very difficult for them. the third factor is there has been a history of violence with regard to postal facilities and for the safety and security security, though we believe our current policy should remain in the fact. >> mr. chairman? may i make a comment? >> yes. >> this illustrates why we need to this amendment the post office is supposed to allowing guns in the up

parking lot so it is still an open question and the people should weigh in on this through their representatives. also it might be noted that history of violence is not from citizens but postal live please. when dash employees. >> what i would like to do is there any further discussion on this? >> i had one other point. as far as the amendment it is supported by the nra, the national association of gun rights and gun owners of america also will oppose an attempt to strike fizzling bridge in the attempt to replace its with a study will be opposed by the nra comic and owners of america a and this will be seen as a vote whether to replace as

to whether or die you support law-abiding citizen's right to carry a gun in a parking lot. this is a big deals row rule america where we have people who do go of hunting in the university show up in a parking i about willing to let it wait to go to the supreme court let someone from kentucky axis of a showing up in a party boss or a shot dead in the truck i hope everybody will see it as such as a replacement effort is a vote against gun biting law abiding citizens of america. >> is a justice apartment represented here today? with many issues of construction. >> i know the postal service position we should all

undersnd this is the opinion of the judge was the party mont is one thing but inside the federal building is another. in that case it is unconstitutional to be restricted but inside the building it is constitutional. this amendment does not make any such distinction may be to hold leggett said justice department would be a mistake but. >> the post office is appealing even allowing them in the parking lot so we have the full force to appeal to save did not want you to have your shot dead even in your car so that is what we are talking about. not that the court said it is okay but they say the

italy to have a gun and in the parking lot or inside that is what we're voting on. >> we're not voting on the parking lot because both sides appealed. the postal service appealed with the parking lot with this amendment is not limited to the party bought. the other side cover the plaintiff a citizen is appealing the decision of the court that inside the federal building that this restriction is constitutional and this amendment would reverse that. and we should hear from the justice department formally and not make it decision before this gets to the floor which i assume we would to hear from the justice department so we ought to keep this to the floor to having a review or perhaps a hearing but not adopt this at this time. >> anyone else?

>> i will call up an amendment i will offer in response to senator paul. as a kid growing up in virginia my dad would take me

but frankly those whose think the district court judge. >> it has been a number of years of my life to approve the finances of the postal service to make sure they're not just able to survive not just to be relevant but robust across the country.

in addition:four verge the postal service continues to manage 302,000 post offices throughout the country ensuring the safety of its employees at each of the 32,000 facilities for echo of a committee has focused on the caliber of service i think all of us agree the of the physical safety of postal employees should be a top priority. to essentially allow carrying of firearms on postal property just as individuals abide by the state laws the postal

service maintains the current regulation except for official purposes preserves and promotes public safety in the best interest of its customers and employees. how can we go to run something we have not heard one minute of testimony from a single expert or consultant or a federal law-enforcement agencies within issue of this magnitude? i don't believe we should up decades of settled law without at least studying the issue. i would urge us to commit to studying the issue without having the facts in front of us while the issue of parking lots go to the federal courts i would like to offer an amendment in the

offer a modified version that was circulating this morning modification makes clear that the postal service must immediately begin any changes recommended. modification makes clear the postal service must immediately begin implementing any changes. >> the experts will let the issue before looking at changes to current law. with alcohol tobacco and firearms in the committee of the jurisdiction regarding the security changes. to be made across the country should be carrying firearms consistent with state law on postal property

inside post offices. we require to submit a report with the cost estimates for implementing the security changes if they would necessitate facility closures or relocation. the postmaster general also required to specifically make recommendations to address the lawful carrying of firearms on personal property and how that would impact the safety of post a loss please customer properties. i would not want to take of zero on any amendment without having all the facts and with senator paul's amendment we don't have that much to go on. we know the consequences of public safety before proceeding with the underlying amendment irish my colleagues to support

carter second-degree amendment requiring a steady on this issue. again the modification must immediately begin to make changes recommended in the reports. >> mr. chairman? that which your second-degree amendment you give the post office the authority that congress ought to have after they find out from their study we have no assurance anybody from congress has capability of that committee and no idea where that goes it could go more difficult than the present language. so with that caveat i think there is some difficulty and i appreciate you put your guns and the trunk and i come from a part of the

country didn't have a trunk it is called the pick up. [laughter] >> we cannot afford that. [laughter] has been benghazi i appreciate you offering this modification i also appreciate senator paul's amendment what he is trying to do. i am a strong supporter of the second amendment i have more guns than i need but i want more but the bottom line is some places they are not appropriate. this building is not appropriate. if there is issues with the post office it is not appropriate that the parking lot is a different issue because it rule america they could be out hunting gophers they have the gun in the pickup it is the tool to do their work. if i have might druthers we don't have the opportunity to vote i would vote to

allow them in the parking lot but not in the post office. >>. >> asking the clerk to call the roll as modified. >> t / [roll call]

>> roll call]

this gimmickry need to proceed with they joked -- with a vote. >> the amendment we are voting on is the primary amendment i'd like to do propose of second degree number three as modified. >> suspend for just a moment please.

[inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

this bill veeck senator paul, could lead think i said at the last markup this is my first opportunity to chair a markup of the major bill. this is my 14th year in the senate battle ever recall a situation where someone offered an amendment second-degree to become the underlying amendment. then to come back a and ask for the opportunity to offer the third degree amendment which is the original amendment if that were

approved i don't think it would it would invite me to come back to offer the same substance to we could be here the rest of the day i don't think that is what is intended by the rules. >> in in my experience were usually happens it turns out to be side by side rather than second degree in usually say get the vote. >> in this case we have offered the second degree we have had a good discussion. >> can i make one response or a question that goes along that is there an attempt by the majority not to vote on this issue? you would rather vote in directly the issue is at hand. kid you carry your gun into the parking lot or the post office. many have felt they sidestep the issue.

is that the intent not to have to vote on this issues directly? >> mr. chairman, there is no question where i stand of second amendment rights for car i have taken a beating but it is the right thing for alaska. if you want to do the parking lot issue right that no. whenever the district court has ruled cover that is the law of the will pledge in there. >> i am happy to vote on multiple amendments but we should not have a committee where we can only vote on certain images they will vote on one that you would agree to that is id will not vote john won the you cannot? are you would not have voted as you just did you voted to strike the language purdue

also voted to strike is to not address the serious issue. you cannot have it both ways. >> i disagree the way it is drafted it is clear but if you want to go straight to the parking lot issue that is very simple we were just echo what the district court ruled which i support to make sure. i have the same problem in alaska. let's do it to you quit playing parlor games or politics in and cut to the chase in make sure my folks in alaska when they go to the east chester branch in a park with their gun they will not get in trouble. that is the issue. let's cut to the chase the end do it that is one of my a gun owners and care about. >> senator chester every now

and then with the boats we should point out to is this is something we continue to have fed a discussion of. a ob on the floor you have the aperture 92 offered even though lives his gesture -- suggestions in by a the senator. without objection in the chair will rule has adapted by the second degree is approved and i would like to move on to take other amendments. this is not the finish line. okay? we have the floor in the conference and the courts. this is a an issue that will get a lot of their time before we are done. and with that we come back.

now we have to go to senator testers. >> just quickly coming been in in this position 15 years at know anybody has ever said this is important to carry a gun into the post offices and montana is pro-gun but on the other side there has been debates of guns and parking months before. let's not kid ourselves. this is about politics 100 percent because if i vote against this amendment it will not say he voted against guns in post offices but it will say party wants which is where the concern would be so let's not fool anybody it is not good policy but a political election and what

advertisements are available to be run and how the record will be distorted. >> i wanted to echo at the beginning of this debate it was very clear he said this will be scored watch out the end are a will score it you are in big trouble so with all due respect if we want to vote on the parking lot amendment was a vote on that and quit obfuscating with them made up demand that everyone has to carry their gun in a post office. >> we can photon that when the bill comes to the floor my hope is we will have a good coach -- and a good float. >> one comment. most amendments on this vote are about parochial politics whether representing the printer not closing down the

service center or limiting the closure of post offices are parochial events and political defense because the point dive would make this bill is about expanding revenue in cutting costs stand we ought to get back to working on the substance of the postal bill. >> the way to get past this is to vote on both amendments. vote on and carrying the gun in the parking lot and the post office or just the parking lot by a vote on those. that is the way to do with it for the chair to say we will get this on the floor that has not in the history since i have been in the senate we have not been able to vote on amendments on the floor that is part of the dysfunction of this place. i am happy to move on but

we're not getting votes on amendments. just vote. >> i want to do echo in support of senator johnson doubled love to vote that is just pretty much i raise that issue last time with the colorado court case as an example what a judge has already decided. albeit not for the rest of the country but it seems to me we ought to vote on both and move on. >> i don't know i could guarantee one is a percentage of my paycheck but i will work hard to make sure we have that opportunity. let's move on. >> i want to make sure it is clear that senator paul's amendment is offered. there is a process we could object to the ruling of the

chair and move forward if we vote senator paul's amendment that i will make it very clear we will have a simple amendment to echo the issue that i hear from alaska and gun owners every day with the issue of the parking lot that is what the presentation by is one week ago by senator paul as the issue. that is what we should hone in on. that was the court casey talked about and that case is very clear. i want to make this very clear that we should offer it but you want to boo find that why don't you just go with us to offer his amendment we can draft something quickly if your an intimate passes whenever if not then have an additional amendment to the then a part of this is resolved.

>> we have a discussion. not every ready is happy where we are. the best ways to continue the conversation to bring the bill to the floor i want to has to continue this conversation. there is a clear compromise it to be democrat and republican there is a clue chance to be adopted. it takes politics out to address what is the concern talking about my childhood childhood, i can see how the shotgun in the trunk is an issue. let's just move on and i promise i will pledge to work with others to get this resolved. that having said. >> mr. chairman? >> with all due respect i

will object to your ruling. the reason for is this is an issue we should just resolved and i recognize the debate on the floor is the floor but i think i would point to make it very simple in the sense of how to deal with this. why not deal with this once and for all? if senator paul was thinking about this we would have a compromise right here and be done. >> the problem from the standpoint of continuing u.s. is that senator paul offered a amendment legitimate thing you're

second-degree we voted has passed. i don't know procedurally how you get back on to use that without we could be here all day and keep the voting over andover. place since is the parliamentary posture in the committee of least for now we ought to close this issue to go onto other amendments baby then to bring it back up but we are spinning our wheels. if i was sharing this committee i would have ruled under senator paul as well otherwise never have a process. i stand with the chairman to say this is not an eligible amendment it is third degree. we donau up -- we do not allow that in the senate even though we may want to because we have lost

privileges of the floor so i would back up i would have ruled the same way violates parliamentary procedure. i think we move fallen -- on >> senator teeeighteen and it would urge you to withdraw your objection and move forward and vote as amended as substitute there promise we will come back to revisit souders them later on the floor if you will have every opportunity with every republican and democrat to craft that proposal for price think we have a good chance to get it done and the input from law-enforcement agencies that frankly have not been able to.

i would urge you not to object but let us move forward. >> al will also save you object and you are successful this committee will never operate effectively again because you will have allowed that precedent for the third degree amendment which is a disaster which means it never ends. >> mr. chairman nine understand what the ranking member is saying but the fact is we will determine if those happened later on down the of wind. more important with the parochial interest is the constitution. that brings us to a higher level. i support as senator begich with his objections and quite frankly i think we should take of'' all of

these two issues as senator johnson has said and we could be done to move:. >> i recognize some people may think we would be here all day but monday view is it is part of the committee process. sometimes we agree sometimes we don't and have a tug-of-war. i would remove the amendment for rand paul and a big pitch specifically on the issue of the parts cannot which would be drawn very quickly in the amendment for. [inaudible conversations]

spandex us senior june -- democrat is not be in time to time by elected him for advice i will just ask him to share that with us. >> first of all, we cannot break the rules i believe we will have the endless overriding thin that means there are no rules. the base amount familiar to some of you but what i believe. senator is correct. on either hand we can if we wish by unanimous consent to have two amendments be in order in be drafted to see if we can come up with

unanimous consent agreement to proceed at the end of the of markup so there is time to write these amendments. i would suggest the chair withhold a vote to adopt the substitute until the end of the markup and during that time was see if we cannot escape unanimous consent agreement that is within the rules we can proceed ever be very careful just to override the chair it opened in say wallace committee procedure is to limit that is good advice faq for your comments in his voice to help us. why don't we set aside the vote in reduced the

remainder to see something we can all agree on and. with that being said. >> what they agreed to vote vote, the substance to by unanimous consent hopefully to vote on one or two is subject but we will save that for the end so we have an hour to draft those amendments. >> whoever is advising us, a staff what do i need to do? do we make this unanimous consent or pending business? say something. please. [inaudible conversations]

i will set it aside and move onto the next amendment. >> faq. i would like to reflect on what we covered in terms of my image moved with the last. up before i offered to modify that amendment choose talk about that content of modification. . .