and other civilian areas. in one stark video of a barrel bomb's aftermath, a man stands in front of a child's body and cries out, oh, god we've had enough, please help us. these are just some of the many reasons why our director of national intelligence referred to the syria crisis yesterday as -- quote -- "an apocalyptic disaster." and with more than 130,000 people dead, after more than one-third of the syrian population has been driven from their homes, no truer words were ever spoken. but this apocalyptic disaster in syria is no longer just a humanitarian tragedy for one country. it's a regional conflict and an emerging national security threat to us. the regime's war crimes are being aided and abetted by thousands of hezbollah fighters and iranian agents on the ground, as well as russian weaponry that continues to flow

into the assad government even as russia works with us to remove the assad regime's chemical weapons, a truly orwellian situation. the conflict in syria is devastating its neighbors. lebanon is suffering from increased bombings in crossborder attacks by both the syrian government and opposition fighters in response to hezbollah's role in the fighting. unofficial estimates suggest that half of lebanon's population will soon be syrian refugees. similar estimates suggests that syrian refugees now represent 15% of the population in jordan, which is straining to manage the social instability this entails. turkey has been destabilized. and perhaps most worrisome of all, the conflict in syria is largely to blame for the resurgence of al qaeda in iraq, which has grown into the larger

and more lethal islamic state of iraq and syria, which now possesses a safe haven that spans large portions of both countries. nowhere is this more threatening or more heart breaking than in fallujah. iraqi city, where hundreds of u.s. troops were killed and wounded, fighting to rid it of terrorists and extremists but where the black flags of al qaeda now hang above the city. the sanctuary that al qaeda now enjoys thanks to the crisis in syria increasingly poses a direct threat to u.s. national security and that of our closest allies and partners. the secretary of homeland security, mr. jay johnson, said -- quote -- "syria is now a matter of homeland security." the director of national intelligence has referred to the al qaeda sanctuary in syria and iraq as a -- quote -- "new

fatah." the tribal areas of pakistan and afghanistan where al qaeda planned the september 11 terrorist attacks. indeed, director clapper has warned that al qaeda affiliateed terrorists in syria now aspire to attack the homeland. if the september 11 attacks should have taught us anything, it's the global terrorists who occupy ungoverned spaces and seek to plot and plan attacks against us can pose a direct threat to our national security. this was afghanistan on september 10, 2001, and that is what top officials in this administration are now warning us that syria is becoming today. the conflict in syria is a threat to our national interests, but it's more than that. it is and should be an affront to our conscience. images like these should not be just a source of heartbreak and

sympathy. they should be a call to action. it was not too long ago, just a few months after the revolution in syria began, that president obama issued his presidential study directive on mass atrocities. in it, he stated, and i quote -- "preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the united states." he went on to say -- "our security is affected when masses of civilians are slaughtered, refugees flow across borders and murders wreak havoc on regional stability and livelihoods." last year, speaking at the u.s. holocaust museum, the president said -- quote -- "too often the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale. we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save." just last september in his address to the u.n. general

assembly, president obama said this, and i'd like to quote him at length -- quote -- "the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order, but sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit one murder or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye. while we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a rwanda, a srebrenica? if that's the world people want to live in, they should say so and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves." that was our president. that was the president of the united states. and i agree with every word of what he said. but how are we to reconcile

these stirring words with the reality of these images from syria? how are we to explain how the leader of the free world who says that it is a moral obligation of the united states to do what we can to prevent the worst atrocities in our world is not doing more to stop the atrocities that are occurring every single day in syria? where is that president obama today? where is the president obama who has spoken so movingly of the moral responsibilities that great power confers? where is president obama who said he refuse toss accept that brutal tyrants can slaughter their people with impunity while the most powerful nation in the history of the world looks on and stands by? where is the recognition that the -- quote -- cold logic of mass graves is right there,

right in front of us, syria, today. yet our government is doing what we have sadly done too often in the past. we are averting our eyes. we try to comfort our guilty consciences by telling ourselves that we're not doing nothing, but it is a claim made in bad faith where everyone concedes that nothing we are doing is equal to the horrors we face. we are telling ourselves that we are too tired or weary to get more involved, that syria is not our problem and that helping to resolve it is not our responsibility. we're telling ourselves we have no good options, as if there are ever good options when it comes to foreign policy in the real world. we're telling ourselves that we might have been able to do something at one point but that

it's too late now, as if such words from the leader of the world's only global power will be any comfort for the syrian mother who will lose her child tomorrow. we're telling ourselves what neville chamberlain once told himself about a different problem from hell in an earlier time. that is an equal, and i quote neville chamberlain, a quarrel in a foreign country between people of whom we know nothing. where is our outrage? where is our shame? it is true that our options to help in the conflict in syria were never good, and they certainly are worse and fewer now, but no one should believe that we are without options even now, and no one should believe that doing something meaningful to help in syria requires us to rerun the war in iraq. that is an excuse for inaction.

that is not a question of options or capabilities. it is a question of will. these images of the human disaster in syria haunt me, and they should haunt all of my colleagues and all americans. but what haunts me even more than the horror unfolding before our eyes in syria is the thought that we will continue to do nothing meaning bfl it and how that deadens our national conscience and how it calls into question the moral sources of our great power and the foundations of our global leadership and how many years from now an american president will stand before the world and the people of syria as previous presidents have done after previous inaction in the face of mass atrocities in faraway lands, and that president will

say what all of us know to be true right now, that we could have done more to stop the suffering of others. we could have used the power we possess, limited though it may be, we could have exercised the options at our disposal, imperfect though they may be, and we could have done something. it is to our everlasting embarrassment that we did not. and that future president will apologize for our current failure. shame on us if we let history repeat itself that way. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the quorum call and proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, fairly recently, the president of the united

states has nominated a candidate to head the civil rights division of the justice department. his name is debo adegbile. i'm here to explain to my colleagues why i believe mr. adegbile is a very bad choice to run the civil rights division of the justice department, but to make my case clear, i need to start with a story of a slain philadelphia police officer. his name was daniel faulkner. this is a picture of daniel faulkner. it's important to tell this story. the story begins 32 years ago. many people have never heard this story. others have perhaps forgotten since it was some time ago, but the fact is danny faulkner can no longer speak for himself, and those who have tried to speak for him have often been drowned out by some powerful and wealthy

voices that have had a political agenda, that has perversely defended his killer rather than the memory of daniel faulkner. so the story begins, mr. president, late at night on december 9, 1981. it was actually the early morning hours, 25-year-old philadelphia police officer, danny faulkner, stopped a car that was driving in philadelphia. the driver got out of the car and began to assault officer faulkner. the driver's brother, was watching the incident from across the street. when he saw what was happening, and as officer faulkner attempted to handcuff the driver of the car, abu jamal ran up to the car and shot officer faulkner in the back. as officer faulkner was falling, he got off a shot but

the shot did not seriously wound museumy abu jamal. after faulkner collapsed on the ground and while he was lying on the ground helpless and defenseless and seriously wounded, jamal stood over him and pumped four more bullets into him including a final bullet to the face that killed danny faulkner on the spot. abu jamal himself, now was quickly apprehended, there were 34r50es the next block over, they got there almost immediately, they arrested abu jamal, they took him to the hospital because he had been wounded and while at the hospital he bragged about the fact he had just shot a police officer and stated he opened the officer would die. -- hoped the officer would die. given these facts, mumi abu jamal's guilt was never in serious question but there was a trial. there were three eyewitnesses to

the shoot, three other witnesses heard jamal brag about the murder he had committed while he was in the hospital. in addition to that there was ballistic and forensic evidence that made his guilt obvious to everyone. a jennifer took only three hours to economic jamal after the trial occurred. took them a fur two hours to sentence him to get. then instead avenue lowg daniel faulkner's young 24-year-old widow and his extended family to grieve in piece, a group of political opportunists decided this would be the face that they would use to launch a campaign to further their political agenda. so they fabricated a whole set of claims that mumia abu jamal was somehow framed, they spread lies about the trail, organized a rally. amazingly that what they were

doing was pierre traig mumia abu jamal as the victim when in fact he was unquestionably a cold blooded murderer. it was part of a campaign to turn jamal into a celebrity and use him by those who had a political agenda to attack america's criminal justice system. unfortunately, to a large extent it worked. jamal, the murderer, became somewhat of a celebrity in certain hollywood circles and in paris he had a street named after him and lawyers volunteered their time to jump on this cause and file endless series of appeals in a case that was an open-and-shut case. this, of course, among other things had the effect of forcing danny faulkner's widow to relive this tragedy, this disaster for her time after time for decade

after decade after decade. so this gross abuse of justice, this travesty of justice had been going on for nearly three decades when in 2009 the naacp legal defense fund or the l.d.f. decided to volunteer its time and considerable resources and its donors' funds to join in this freeway this fray, this travis -- trasty, originally as amicus and then as cocounsel. the president's nominee to run the civil rights decision division, mr. debo adegbile was responsible for this behavior in this outrageous set of circumstances. he was the l.d.f.'s director of litigation and as he told our own senate judiciary committee, during his testimony -- and i quote -- "he said he supervised the entire legal staff at the

l.d.f." that was 18 lawyers. he was also in the words if you look at the l.d.f.'s web site he was responsible for providing leadership and coordination regarding both litigation and nonlitigation legal advocacy. he was again acourt the l.d.f.'s own description, he was responsible for the l.d.f.'s advocacy both in the courts of law and the court of political opinion. so all of the legal and public and political actions that l.d.f. was taking, it was taking under the direction, the supervision and the authority of mr. adegbile. this is important to understand this, there's a very clear legal principle that a supervising lawyer has responsible for the actions undertaken by the lawyers that report to him, that is the case in these circumstances as well as the fact that the l.d.f.

openly acknowledges this. so what is it that the l.d.f. lawyers then did in the circumstances of this case? well, when they should have been pursuing their historic role in providing truth and justice for american people, they were advancing neither cause. it's important to point out this was never a case of a criminal deserving a legal defense. criminals do deserve appropriate legal counsel in their defense. the fact is, the trial had occurred decades ago, abu jamal had multiple high-cost lawyers volunteering their time, he had plenty of lawyers, he didn't need more lawyers. what mr. adegbile did, he decided to join a political cause. that's what he decided to do. that's what this was all about and in my view, by doing so he demonstrated his own contempt

for and, frankly, a willingness to undermine the criminal justice system of the united states. under mr. adegbile's oversight the l.d.f. spread misinformation about the trial, the circumstances and the jury, promoted division and strife among the american people, and blocked justice for danny faulkner and danny faulkner's family. these l.d.f. lawyers promoted the myth that mumia abu jamal was a heroic political prone proner, that he was framed. in fact, he was a coward and awn unrepent ant murderer. under his oversight in january of 2011 the l.d.f. issued a press release decrying what they called the great injustices embodied in abu jamal's case. in may, 2011, two lawyers reporting to mr. adegbile traveled to france on behalf of

this murderer. one of the lawyers said she was -- quote -- "overjoyed that the death sentence was suspended but bemoneyed the fact that he -- bemoaned the fact he would not have a new trial so he could be set free." another lawyer described abu jamal as one of the people who are -- quote -- "innocent but will continue to be put to death in america. later the same lawyer would falsely state state there was an absence of forensic evidence tying abu jamal to the death. there was forensic evidence, there were four eye witnesses to the murder and eye witnesses to the murder of can jamal bragging about the murder. and at this rally one of the lawyers gushed it is absolutely my honor to represent mumia abu jamal. this attorney went on on to say- quote -- "there is no question

in my mind and no question in the mind of anyone at the legal defense fund that the justice system has completely and utterly failed mummia abu jamal. i have to say i agree that the justice system failed but the justice system failed danny faulkner, not mumia am -- abu jamal. now we're face with a situation where an individual who was directly responsible for some of these terrible injustices that have been done in the wake of danny faulkner's murder, he's been nominated to a high-ranking position at the justice department and the civil rights division is an extremely important division within the justice department, the head of this division plays a very, very important role and what is his responsibility? well, according to the division's web site, civil rights division -- quote -- "fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals" -- end quote. of course, this requires that the head of the civil rights

division have an absolute commitment to truth and to justice. i do not believe that mr. adegbile's nomination is consistent with the role of promoting truth and justice in america. i do not believe his nomination is consistent with respect for america's legal system and the rule of law and i do not believe that mr. adegbile's nomination is consistent with justice for the family of officer danny faulkner or for anyone else who cares about the law enforcement community across this country. for these reasons, mr. president, i will oppose mr. adegbile's nomination to head the civil rights division and i urge my colleagues to do the same and i note the absence of a quorum. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his request? mr. toomey: happy too, yes. the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: i ask consent to proceed on my leader time. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. the senator is recognized. mr. mcconnell: yesterday we were, instead of finally explaining to the american people why he believes certain employers should get obamacare exemptions while the middle class should not, well, he just double downed again on the same old talking points. it's truly disappointing. i wish he'd finally agree to work with republicans on a way to replace obamacare with bipartisan reforms that could help the middle class and those who are hurting the most. because this much is now perfectly clear. obamacare is not working the way the administration promised. it's hurting the middle class, it's eliminating incentives to work, in the middle of a jobs crisis, and it will lower overall compensation, things like salaries, wages, and

benefits for the american people. with those who earn the least potentially the most negatively impacted of all. obamacare is a law that's just not fair. and this is essentially true for many of those it purports to help. and for all the disruption and pain, it's a law that will still leave 31 million americans uninsured at the end of the day. that's why it's not surprising when we hear that nearly 90%, nine out of ten, of the new enrollees in obamacare exchange plans are actually folks who were already insured, many of them simply shifting from plans they liked to more expensive plans the government thinks they should have which leads so many americans to ask what was the point, what was the point of obamacare? for months the folks in my state have watched the administration hand out exemption after exemption to its friends and waiver after waiver to the

politically connected. and they're left to think how is that fair? more than a quarter million kentuckians received notice the last year their insurance plans would be canceled because of obamacare. kentuckians lost plans they liked and want to keep. many realized they would be -- wouldn't be able to afford new coverage or that new plans wouldn't cover the doctors and hospitals they'd come to know and trust. or that massively increased premiums and deductibles would radically alter ways they lived and worked. while i'm sure the folks who concede that the law meant well this much seems perfectly clear by now, trying to runs folks' lives from hundreds of miles away is not the way to help. it's often the way to make things worse. kentuckians are capable of making the decisions that work best for them, for their own medical needs and financial situations.

i'm sure there's some think tank report that might disagree. i know there's no end of well-paid washington bureaucrats with -- quote, unquote -- "better ideas but people don want -- do not want washington's judgment ruling over their lives and obamacare is what you get when you put decisions that belong with the middle class in the hands of the government class. 2,700 pages of laws that lead to $20,000 pages of rules and regulations. a web site that doesn't work, a symbol of the law that won't work. you get a maze of bureaucracies and government contractors with indecipherable akronisms, cciio, c.g.i., qssi, that seem to exist, to obscure accountability when things go wrong. you get decisions that are based upon the needs of a political calendar rather than what it will take to get the job done and worst of all you hear stories from kentuckians like this one from a woman about to

lose her plan who was shopping on the exchange, here's what she said, i can't afford the options made available to me. i make too much money to qualify for any help from the a.c.a. but i don't make enough to afford paying double what my premium is now. to get a a plan that is comparable to what i have now, i will have to pay about $12,000 a year in premiums alone. and you hear stories like the one rebecca stewart recently shared with president obama himself. she told the president that she had to change health insurance plans even though she liked her old plan and that she was having a panic experience trying to get consistent answers about whether or not her 10-year-old son would continue being able to see his specialist under obamacare. this just isn't right. i know the president can't be unmoved by these stories, so i'm

calling on president obama to move to the center. i'm saying it's time to start over on health care. to replace obamacare with real bipartisan reforms that can actually help the people who really need it, because a plan like obamacare that costs this much, that hurts this many americans and that still fail to achieve its principal goal at the end of the day, they just won't work. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, we're not in a quorum call now, is that correct? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise to speak briefly about a bill that i have introduced. this is a bill that's about protecting our kids in schools, and as a father of three young kids, i share the feeling that i suspect every parent has. there is no higher priority than making sure our children are

safe. we can't personally provide that security all day everywhere at all times, and so we want to make sure that the places our kids go are as safe as they can be. our kids obviously spend a great deal of time at school, and we want our schools to be the safest environment that they can be, and it turns out there is more that we can do. so i have a bill, it's a bill that i have introduced with joe manchin, senator joe manchin from west virginia, it's a bipartisan bill, and it is going to help provide greater security for kids in our schools. madam president, my immediate inspiration for -- for introducing this bill came from a tragic story that originated in pennsylvania. it's a story that begins at a school in delaware county. one of the schoolteachers, it turns out, had molested several boys and had raped one. the prosecutors never felt like

they had enough evidence to actually mount a case against him, but the school knew what had happened, and so they dismissed the teacher, but unbelievably to me, although they dismissed him, they also gave him a letter of recommendation that he could take with him as he applied -- where do you think -- to other schools, because that's what these predators do, they look to be in an environment where they can find more victims. that's exactly what this guy did. he managed to get another teaching job in west virginia. the story, this episode ends in 1997 when that teacher, who by then was a school principal, raped and murdered a 12-year-old boy named jeremy bell. so justice has caught up with that teacher. he has since been apprehended, charged, tried and convicted. he is now serving a jail sentence for the murder. but that all was too late for

jeremy bell. unfortunately, jeremy bell's story is not unique. i was at a ymca in chester county, pennsylvania, just a few weeks ago. our district attorney there, tom hoe began, is the district -- tom hogag is the district attorney for chester county. he told me they are doing an investigation for coatsville school district for financial mismanagement, that's what the investigation is about, but in the course of the investigation, they discovered that there are new numerous school employees who are felons. now, he couldn't reveal many details because it's an ongoing investigation even now, but he was able to share one story. it's the story of a victor ford who is an employee. he had been convicted three times for felony drug dealing. in 2009, he was hired as a special education classroom aide and a seventh grade boys basketball coach. in 2010, he raped a young girl, not at the school.

later he resigned from the school and has since pled guilty to corruption of minors. this is -- this is just appalling, and it is so completely unacceptable anywhere in america. so i have introduced a bill and it's a bill that has broad bipartisan support. in fact, it's a bill that has passed the house unanimously. this should not be controversial. what it would do, it would insist that schools conduct proper criminal background checks for both existing and prospective employees and that these background checks be repeated periodically. there are five states that don't require any checks at all, according to the g.a.o. report, and my state of pennsylvania requires it only for new hires, but never relooks at people who may have been working for the school for many years. the second thing that this bill does is it requires the background check for a criminal history be done for any employee who is going to come into contact with kids, not just

teachers. it could be a coach, it could be a contractor, it could be anybody who is going to interact with children. there are 12 states that have no such provisions. and it also would require more thorough background checks. some states check their own state's database for criminal activity but they don't look at the f.b.i.'s database, they don't look at the national record of criminality. our bill would require that. it would forbid knowingly passing on a letter of recommendation to a predator. it is shocking that that even has to be contemplated, but since it has occurred and sometimes there is this feeling that, well, let's just make the problem someone else's problem, it does happen, it's outrageous and appalling, it needs to be forbidden, and our bill would do that. and it also would preclude the possibility of hiring people ever convicted of a violent sexual crime against a child, whether that's a misdemeanor or

a felony, and a number of other violent felonies, including homicide, child abuse or neglect, crimes against children including pornography, other serious crimes and other felonies if they had been committed within the previous five years. the enforcement mechanism basically is to withhold federal funding for schools in states that refuse to do an appropriate check to make sure our kids are safe. so, madam president, i think this is just common sense. it has broad bipartisan support. again, i want to thank senator joe manchin for being my cosponsor on this legislation. it's called the protecting students from the sexual and violent predators act. it's s. 1596. again, it passed the house unanimously, but i think this is more than just a piece of legislation. this is a moral imperative. there is something we know we can do to make our schools safer for our kids, and i think we should just do that. so i'm engaged in discussions with -- with some of my

colleagues. i should hope that this would not be controversial. it's my hope that we will soon get to the point where we can pass this by unanimous consent or hotline this so that we get this done. as i said, it's already passed the house. as soon as we pass this bill, it will go to the president and it will be signed into law. so, madam president, i -- i hope my colleagues will join me in this effort and we'll be able to get it done soon, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. johanns: madam president, i rise today to speak again about the president's health care bill, obamacare. monday of this week was another milestone for obamacare. it marked yet another admission

by the president that the health care law is unworkable as written. so what happened? on monday unilaterally, the administration decided to delay the employer mandate for a year once again. this time around, the delay is for employers with 50-99 employees. it's amazing to me and it's completely contradictory that one day the president is behind the podium talking about how great this law is and the next day he's erasing the very text which he supports. the administration had nearly four years to implement the major provisions of the law, yet the president finds it necessary to literally rewrite the law with delay after delay after delay.

now, on one hand i'm pleased that the president recognizes the grievous harm that is being done by this legislation. i appreciate that he recognizes that the harm is just too great to leave it in place, but all he is doing is delaying the pain until after the elections, which is unfair to american families. the truth is further delays don't solve the problem, they just extend the pain. reports certainly indicate we have only seen the tip of this iceberg. last week, the nonpartisan congressional budget office dealt yet another blow to obamacare. the c.b.o. estimates that there will be about 2.5 million fewer full-time workers in just ten years than if this law had passed.

these new figures are nearly three times greater than the c.b.o.'s already dismal analysis back in the day when the law was being debated before its passage. i found it remarkable back when we were debating this law when unemployment was hovering around 10% that any of my colleagues would support any bill that cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. now we're learning the truth, and it's even worse. it's three times as bad. c.b.o. says the law's subsidies and taxes reduce incentives to work. is that what this congress should be about? and their report asserts that the costs of the employer mandate penalty will be passed on to workers in the form of lower wages or other compensation. now, a number of nebraskans have

reached out to me. an individual from eastern nebraska shared this -- quote - "i work part time and i have had my hours cut from 30 to 28 hours due to obamacare last april. my employer implemented it early to be sure that i did not exceed 30 hours in the year 2013. even with the delay in the mandate, they have stuck to the 28 hours for part-time help. the loss to me is about $150 a month, and it sure has hurt our budget. my employer's hands are tied as they would have to pay health care for employees with 30 hours or more or pay a fine if not offering health care. this obamacare is a job killer. i keep hoping i will wake up and

this will all have been a bad dream." unquote. another nebraskan from the northeast corner of the state wrote to me and said -- quote - "my wife just left my office in tears. she worked for the city for over ten years. she is or rather was a 34-hour a week employee who was informed that she is having her hours cut back to 29 as a result of the affordable care act. to many, those five hours per week may not seem like much, but to our family, it will result in a future loss. we currently have three children, including one daughter who is a senior getting ready to graduate and go on to college. as a family, we pretty much live hand-to-mouth with our income, and this reduction in hours,

which i'm sure seems minor to a lot of folks, is a huge blow to my family. the thing that pains me most is the impact it's going to have on our daughter's decision about college. that one thing alone is so unfair. she should not in the cusp of choosing her path in life have to be put into the -- in the position over five hours worker of delaying or altering life plans. in world where we tend to be futurists, always talking about the importance of education and the next generation being our future, it just doesn't seem right that i have to let my -- look my daughter in the eyes tonight and have a discussion about how five hours may alter her future." unquote. now, madam president, these are

such heartbreaking stories about americans who want to work, but their government has gotten in their way. we've seen smaller paychecks and a 2.5 million number, fewer full-time equivalent jobs is what that number means. we all remember that this law's primary marketing pitch was it would provide coverage for tens of millions of uninsured americans, but c.b.o. now estimates that 31 million americans will likely be without health insurance in 2024, and that's roughly one of nine americans. and six million to seven million americans won't get coverage through their employers who otherwise would have, according to c.b.o. let me say that again. six million to seven million

fewer americans will get health insurance -- will not get health insurance from their employer under obamacare, compared to no bill at all. so obamacare has been counterproductive, to say the least. it's hardly a good return on investments considering this law cost about $2 trillion, raised taxes about a trillion. i appreciate and support the goals to help the most vulnerable americans, and i support reforms that increase competition and lower costs. i support reforms that expand health savings accounts, not reduce them. i appreciate the opportunity to work on reforms that allow insurers to ceet across state lines -- compete across state lines and allow small businesses to pool together to create a broader pool to be insured at lower rates. these solutions would produce results, but a 2,700-page bill

packed full of perverse incentives and negative consequences that hurt workers, increase taxes and cost trillions is not what america wants. that's why i'm committing to shielding americans from the harmful effects of obamacare. we must repeal this law and build on the alternative solutions that have been proposed by republicans to help our american families. madam president, i thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: madam president, i have a quick notification and will let my other colleagues speak here. we have two judges on the calendar from arkansas, 565 and 570. i'm not going to ask for unanimous consent at this moment but i do intend to very shortly just wanted to alert the senate that i would like at the proper time ask for unanimous consent twha we confirm these en bloc and i have i think very strong

reasons why they need to get done before we go for recess. with that i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent that the time until 11:15 a.m. be equally divided between myself and the senators from illinois, massachusetts, new york, and both senators from connecticut. and that -- at the conclusion of these remarks i be recognized to speak for an additional three minutes and that following my remarks the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. madam president, what has made america strong is that we've provided opportunities for individuals to develop their talents. previous generations of americans have recognized this and they've invested in higher education accordingly. during president lincoln's time the federal government invested in public colleges throughout the nation. after world war ii we opened the doors of postsecondary education to our returning soldiers and

sailors and airmen under the g.i. bill. as part of the war on poverty we enacted the higher education act with the idea no american should be denied the ability to go to college because their family lacked the means to pay for college. senator pell, my predecessor with the creation of the opportunity grant, later named the pell grant in his honor, made the promise of a college education real for millions of americans. as part of the student aid programs we invest in offering low cost loans to create opportunity, spur innovation and grow our economy. our student loan programs were originally seen as an investment, an profit center or even a cost neutral proposition. today, our student investment aid tab has been stood on its head though. the congressional budget office estimates we were generating revenue through student loans through 204. and student loan debt has become a serious threat to our ladder of opportunity, our pathway to progress for this generation and for our economy. and that is what brings me and

my colleagues to the floor today. we must turn the tide because too many students are drowning in debt and it has threatened to hold back a whole generation of new americans when they would be buying a car, starting a business. as student loan repayment plans stretch out over 20 years or more, this generation will still be paying off student loans when it comes time to send their own children to college. and perhaps even taking care of their parents in their senior years. the bottom line is we know that borrowers are struggling, 2 government could play a more constructive role in helping them and enacting reforms to increase fairness and transparency in this process. the federal reserve bank of new york recently reported that delinquency rates on student loan debt are increasing even as we see decreases in delinquency rates for other household debt. the cohort default rates have been increasing. for borrowers who ended

repayment in 2010, 14.20% had defaulted by 2013, up from 13.4% for those who began repayment in 2009. it is essential that borrowers know about their repayment options. that is why senator durbin's borrows' bill of rights is so important and why i'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. but changing the trend of growing debt and rising defaults is more than a student loan servicing issue. we have to provide a real avenue to allow individuals straining under the weight of the estimated $1.2 trillion in student loan debt, many with loans carrying an interest rate of 6.8% or higher an opportunity to refinance those loans to a lower interest rate. the g.a.o. just reported on loans made between 2007 and 2012 the federal government is estimated to make $66 billion. clearly borrows are paying more than they should and we have to

address these college costs. but we also have to deal with the issue of giving colleges and universities their incentive, their skin in the game to ensure that they carefully review their loans, that they direct students to the lowest possible loans that they do this in a way that will make them truly responsible and conscience of the debt accumulated by students. so i have been working on legislation to require that. so let me commend senator durbin, senator warner, and others for what they're doing to deal with this issue and with that mr. chairman i would yield the floor to my other colleagues. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i want to thank senator durbin and senator reed for their extraordinary leadership on this important issue. i also rise today to talk about the crushing burden that student debt places on our college students and our economy and

call on congress to address it. the core facts are well known to every family in america. in recent decades, college costs have skyrocketed. adjusted for inflation a young person today pays 300% of what her parents paid just 30 years ago. millions of young people, the only way to cover this tuition cost is to take on huge debt. the average student loan balance among 25-year-olds who borrow has grown by 91% in just ten years. total outstanding student loan debt stands at a staggering $1.2 trillion, and it's getting bigger every single day. the problem is made worse by a federal student loan program with high interest rates that will produce obscene profits for the government. the g.a.o. recently projected

that the government will bring in $66 billion in profits on its federal student loans made between 2007 and 2012, profits that would make a fortune 500 c.e.o. proud. this exploding debt is crushing our young people. more than a third of borrowers under the age of 30 have been delinquent for more than 90 days. this exploding debt is also dragging down our economy with monthly loan bills that can easily exceed a mortgage payment, it's no surprise that homeownership among 30-year-olds has declined steeply and last spring, the federal reserve raised concerns that rising student debt may threaten our overall economic growth. tying students to a lifetime of financial servitude as a condition of getting an education does not reflect our values.

these students didn't go to the mall to run up charges on a credit card. they worked hard and they learned new skills that will benefit this country, help us build a stronger middle class, and help us build a stronger america. they deserve our support. they don't deserve to be buried in debt. to reverse this trend of student borrowing we need to bring down the cost of college. that will not be easy and it will require everyone, the government, higher education institutions, and the students themselves, to do far more than they do now. i am committed to work with chairman harkin and my colleagues on the senate help committee to find ways to meaningfully reduce college tuition, and i'm working closely with many of my colleagues, including senator durbin, senator reed, senator schumer, senator gillibrand, senator murphy, and senator brown, who are all intensely focused on this issue.

but our need to reduce the cost of college must not blind us to the urgency of addressing the massive debt that's already crushing our young people. the pressure is building, and we must act to provide real relief to our students and young graduates now. in the coming weeks i will join with my colleagues to introduce legislation to do just that, legislation that will allow eligible borrowers with high-interest loans to refinance at interest rates that are at least as low as those currently being offered to new borrowers in the federal student loan program. the idea is pretty simple. when interest rates are low, homeowners can refinance their mortgages, big corporation can swap more ebbs expensive debt for cheaper debt. even state and local governments have refinanced their debts but

a graduate to took out an unsubsidized loan before july 1 of this year is locked into an interest rate of nearly 7%. older loans run 8%, 9% and even more. last year, congress agreed that those interest rates were much too high, so they lowered them significantly for this year's bother owers -- borrowers but that does nothing for the millions trapped under the old, high-interest rate loans. refinancing those old loans would lower interest rates to 3.86% for undergraduate loans. the savings would vary, of course. for a recent graduate who borrowed the maximum, payments would drop by as much as a thousand dollars a year and total interest coon cut nearly in half. for those who have even older loans, those with graduate school loans --. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. warren: and those with

private lenders, the savings would be even higher. thank you, madam president. i yield back. a senator: the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i agree with my colleague from massachusetts. she says it exactly right. as does the other senators who are going to speak on this issue today. i urge the congress to work immediately to tackle the mountain of student debt that is crippling the lives of young people and weighing down an entire generation. the federal student loan refinancing act which i wrote to address the growing economic burden facing our graduates and their families basically affords a graduate the same right to refinance their loans as already provided to homeowners, corporations and even government. this legislation would lower interest rates on refinancing student loans to 4%, saving borrowers thousands of dollars that would otherwise be spent

prochg a home or a car or starting a new business. in new york state and across the nation, we are facing a student loan debt crisis. student loan debt is at $1.2 trillion nationwide. americans now owe more on their student loans than they do on their credit cards, car loans, holding back our economy and our economy's growth. for tens of millions of young people who graduated college an securing their first jobs, they are not starting their careers on even ground. they're starting them under water. and have a hard time staying afloat when juggling all their bills. a new york student who borrows to pay for college now graduates with an average of more than $27,000 in student loan debt, according to the federal reserve bank of new york. when you owe upwards of $30,000 in debt before you've even earned your first paycheck, it's no wonder that young people are falling further behind on their payments.

providing graduates with the ability to refinance their student debt federal loans particularly, would lead to the personal savings of $14.5 billion nationwide in the first year alone, according to the center for american progress report. a higher education remains the clearest path to our middle class. when we price young people out of college, we all pay the price. keeping a high-quality education in new york affordable is simply the right thing to do. that's why refinancing federal student loans should be one of congrescongress's top prioritie. the magnitude of the problem requires leadership and the solution is right in front of us. now is the time to act. our nation's students, graduates, and families cannot afford further delay. i yield the floor, madam chai

chairwoman. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i want to thank my colleague, senator jack reed of rhode island, senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts, senator gillibrand of new york for joining us on the floor this morning to talk about the student debt crisis and college affordability. i don't think this is just another issue. i think it is a defining issue. imagine, if you will, what has happened to america since we've called into question the intrinsic value of owning a home. that used to be built into our culture. the notion that if you could get beyond the rental stage and tallly buy a home, it was a smart investment, number one, and good investment in terms of your neighborhood, your community, your state. well, the mortgage crisis that we went through was a shock to many people. they paid too much for their homes. they found themselves facing foreclose and short sales, and the basic premise has been

challenged. there's more rental property now. people are hedging their bets on the issue of homeownership. now take one of the other pillars of our basic american values, and that pillar is they'll never go wrong with more education. i learned that at an early age. luckily my mom and dad, with limited education and experience on their own part, pushed me afford into college, into -- pushed me forward into college, to law school. now comes this new challenge: the increasing cost of higher education drives many families deeply in debt, many students deeply in debt to the point where many times it's impossible for them to pay back their debts. as senator reed says, it is transformative. you'll have young people who literally have their lives dramatically changed because of debt, and it has called into

question the basic premise: is a higher education worth the money? i didn't think i'd ever see that as a legitimate topic in america but it turned out to be a topic in "time" magazine. average people, working fathers are talking about it. that's why we're coming to the floor here and we hope to expand our numbers more and more, and i hope some of our republicans will expwhroi join in this convn about what to do when it comes to student debt and the crisis it's creating. millions of merntio americans pa college education hoping they'll realize the american dream. but as college tuition, textbooks and fees skyrocket, students are paying more and more for an education and taking on greater debt to pay for it. 60% of the class of 2012 graduated with some debt of $20,000. the average debt was close to $40 yo,000 for these students wo

attended for-profit schools. americans now collectively hold more than $1.2 trillion in student debt, more than americans hold in credit card debt. this has surpassed credit card debt. it goes way beyond higher education. it goes into a question about personal credit, changsz for -- chances for mobility and the future of student whose sign up for these bone-crushing debt loans. in his recent state of the union address, president obama said he wajtses to work witwants to worn this. i hope more members will step up and accept the challenge. late last year senators reed, warren, myself, senator barbara boxer of california introduced the student loan borrower's bill of rights to spell out the rights of student borrowers and their families in interacting with federal and private

lenders. it is amazing to me that when it comes to mortgage debt there are laws dictating what you need to be told. when it comes to student debt, not nearly the protections. younger people who are making these life-changing decisions about debt deserve to know everything that they face and what they're getting into. i met a young woman in chicago recently. her name is hanna moore. she thought she did the right thing. she started off her higher education by going to a community college. she was told that's affordable, clees to home, dclose to home d. then thee made a fatal error. she enrolled at the herington college of design in chicago. if you go to the web site, you will be dazzled with the beauty of the school and the faculty. but this for-profit school ended up being a debt pit for her life. after she had exhausted all of her federal loans and started taking out private loans at the herington college of design, she

graduated with a debt of $124,000, and she couldn't find a job. at one point she was working three part-time jobs to pay $800 a month on this debt from this for-profit school. her federal loan payments are manageable because the federal program at least allows her to make payments based on income. but the private loans that this school lured her into, thanks to interest and fees, now amount to $110,000. her servicer refuses to work with her to find repayment alternatives. she sinks deeper and deeper every day into debt. this poor young woman thought she was doing the right thing going to school. today she's so deeply in debt, she can't even dream of buying a house, a car. her father had to come out of retirement to help her pay off the loans at this for-profit school, the herington college of design.

unfortunately, she wasn't protected with a bill of rights, which i've introduced and is being cosponsored by my colleagues who have spoken today, which would have told her, don't apply for a private loan until you've exhausted that exhausted --until you've exhau r government loans. she wasn't told that. she was lured into this debt trap by a school that just wanted to rake in the federal dollars at her expense. this is going to standardize policies like how payments are applied to principle and interest so that borrowers benefit instead of banks. under the current situation, many students paying back their loans find that the money is going to the lower -- the higher-interest loans and not to the lower-interest loans. it is not being transferred to their benefit. the bill requires servicers to have a service member and veterans liaison -- veterans are often victims of these notorious

for-profit schools and other lenders. we also require students be told of all their options with better terms of repayment. students often have no other choice than to take owl loans to pay for -- to take out loans to pay for college education but it says you don't give up your power over your money and debt. i also want to tell you, in bankruptcy court in america today, there are only a handful of debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy court: taxes and government payments, child support, alimony, and government student loans. a few years ago the for-profit industry and the private loan industry engineered into these bankruptcy discharge laws a protecprotection for their own t means if you go to a for-profit school and take out a private loan, you are literally burdened with that for a lifetime. the grounds for discharging a student loan debt are some of

the districtest and toughest in america. so students who sign for this debt ought to know: they're in it until it's paid. and that can mean for a lifetime of "the wall street journal" reported some time ago of a grandmother cosigning a student loan for her granddaughter. the granddaughter defaulted and they decided to levy on the grandmother's social security payments. that's how outrageous this has become. and sadly these students don't realize when they're signing on the dotted line at age 19, 20, and 21, they're signing up for a debt that can trail them for a lifetime. that's got to chaifnlg change. we have got to follow senator reed's lead. he has said that she is colleges have to have some skin in the game. if they're going to lure these students in, let them bear some responsibility, too. so i want to thank my colleagues for bringing this issue up. i want to.

-- i want to thanksenator warre. because of her background in law and finance, she can be an important part of this conversation. we're not going to end with this speech on the floor today by each of us. we're going to continue once a week to bring together those in our caucus -- and i hope in the republican caucus -- who believe we have to address the student debt crisis and come up with a reasonable way for students to pay for an education that is reasonably priced. to have these students burdened with a student loan debtor prison is unacceptable in america today. it is time for us as a congress to address this issue, and i yield the floor. ms. warren: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. rein reason i would like to-- ms. warren: i would like to talk about the issue of student loans. this is real money back into the pockets who invested in their

education, real money that will help young people find a little financial stability as they work hard to build their futures, real money that says america invests no those who get an education. we don't need to add a single dime to pay thor this plan. right now this country essentially taxes students by charging high interest rates that bring money into the government while at the same time we give away far more money through a tax code riddled with loopholes and let the wealthiest individuals and courts of appeals avoid paying -- and corporations apayincorporationsr share. we can start with the buffett rule, a rule that would limit tax loopholes for the wealthy and he sure that billionaires pay at least as much as their secretaries. for every new dollar that we bring in by stitching up this loophole, it can go directly into reducing the cost of

student loans for our students. dollar for dollar, we can invest in billionaires or we can invest in our students. this is about opportunity. our country should offer a helping hand to young people who are working hard to try to build a future, not a handout to billionaires who've already made it. refinancing student loans won't fix everything that's broken in the higher education system, but it's a huge step forward. i was the first person in my family to graduate from college. i went to a commuter college where the tuition was $50 a comefter. smefort. i went to a public law school. i grew up in a country that chose investing in kids over investing in billionaires. i believe in that america, and i believe in what we can do when we work together to build opportunities for everyone who busted their tail to get an education. thank you, madam president.

i yield back. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: is noter from rhode island. mr. reed: i again want to compliment my colleagues, senator durbin, warren, gillibrand, on their commitmens to reinvigorate being our education policy and doing it in way so that a generation of students aren't so burdens that they cannot essentially rise up, buy homes, start families, dot things that -- do the thanks my generation took for granted because there was strong support for higher education at every level of government. but before i leave the floor, madam president, i want to turn to another key issue that requires urgent action. that is the renewal of unemployment benefits for millions of people. it's now been 46 days since unemployment insurance expired for many job seekers and today their ranks have swollen to 1.8 million americans, including

20,000 veterans who've lost their emergency unemployment insurance benefits. getting americans back to work and accelerating job growth should be congress's top rioter, our -- top priority, our number-one job. we all ngd the answer is having a -- we all understand the answer is having a situation where there are not three applicants for each job. there is a good job for each ally can't. and we have more toad. but in the meantime we have to address the crisis of these families who have worked hard all their lives. they only qualify for unemployment insurance if they've lost a job through no fault of their own and are looking for work. in that search, it's difficult. and it's certainly difficult to get by, pay the rent, put gas in the car, keep a cell phone operating to take the call from a potential employer when we cut off the modest benefits of roughly $350 a week. doing this has historically been a bipartisan endeavor.

we've all recognized in our communities, regardless of where they're located in this community, people who've worked hard who are struggling and need assistance to make the transition from unemployment to reemployment. and i am a particularly troubled today by the way some people are commenting about the unemployed, suggesting that they don't have the backbone, the characteristic to work. that this is a great deal for them. getting $300 a week, when in fact one of the obvious points to me at least of this crisis of unemployment is it's not young, entry-level workers. too often it's middle-aged individuals who have done extremely well in their lives and now for the first time are coming into unemployment situations because of technology, because of changes in the workforce. they are good people and they deserve our support.

but instead they're being mischaracterized, dismissed, ignored. perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this problem. we were only one republican short of breaking a filibuster that would allow us to at least temporarily help these people out. and i want to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we've worked very con conscientiously, consistently and thoughtfully on this matter. if one more of our colleagues can recognize the need to do this, we can do it and we should do it. we are, i believe, on the verge of addressing the issue of military cola reductions. that is something important that we have to do. but let me point out that does not go into effect until december 2015. there is no veteran that has lost his or her cola yet. but they are -- there are 1.8 million americans and growing that have already lost their benefits for unemployment

insurance, their extended benefits. so the immediacy of this problem is compelling and we have to deal with it. we've never turned our back when long-term unemployment was so significant. we've always stood up and said "we'll help you." not indefinitely. in fact, in 2012 i was part of the conference committee that made significant reforms to the unemployment system, one reform was to cut back the weeks from 99 to 73. we provided the ability of states to have innovative programs in terms of putting people in jobs, in terms of making sure that job search was being thoroughly conducted by recipients. these reforms have been made. what we have asked for is a short extension of the program, and i think that's what we should be asking for at this juncture. but as we progress, as we get close to the point where the three months has expired, i

think we have to think more about what are we going to do in the long run because we're still going to have millions of people that do not have work. we have, i think, and we've demonstrated by these votes, members on both sides that want to get this done. we need one more vote to procedurally move forward. i hope we can get that vote. and, madam president, with that, i believe under the u.c. that is prevailing, we'll now go into executive session. with that, i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask to speak in morning business for seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: thank you. and i will yield the floor if some people want to speak in executive session on the issues of the nominations.

madam president, we in the budget committee yesterday -- i'm ranking republican on the budget committee. director elmendorf of the congressional budget office gave us the report and his projections for next year and what the consequences and financial situation will be for our country as he projects it. his projections of economic growth, when i ask him about it, he acknowledged have been way too high the last several years. that's been disappointing. our growth has not reached the level we want it to reach. and he projects now a lower growth rate than he had been projecting for the next ten years. let me just share with you, colleagues, as we vote on these matters which we want to help veterans and we want to help unemployed, and we can do that, but we've got to remember who we are, what we're doing, and how we got here.

we virtually doubled the deficit in the last ten years of the united states of america, the total debt of the united states of america. deficits are going down the last couple of years, and one more year going to elmendorf. but then we'll begin to rise to nearly $1 trillion deficits at the end of ten years from today. the interest that we pay -- and he testified to this; it's in his report. the interest that we are now, we paid last year on the total debt of the united states, even with extraordinarily low interest rates, was $230 billion. amazing amount of money. we've got a group testifying right now about the highway bill. they would like to see more money spent on our infrastructure in highways. mr. chamber of commerce, mr. done haourbgs -- mr. donohue, mr. trump, they all

agree we need to spend more money on highways. last year the interest we paid on the debt, according to dr. elmendorf, was $230 billion. that's a stunning figure. it's half the total budget for the defense department. but let me tell you what he said that's most troubling. projecting a modest increase in interest rates over the next ten years and the increased deficits that we will see, mr. elmendorf predicted last year that in ten years from now the one year interest payment would be $830 billion. we're having a dispute to try to get -- not cut the veterans' retirement, and we should not cut the veterans' retirement the way this was done. it would cost $6 billion over

ten years. you see the difference? we're paying at $230 billion. if you paid at that rate for ten years, that would be $2.3 trillion. but we're not going to be paying $230 billion a year. by the time we get to the tenth year, according to mr. elmendorf, we would be spending $890 billion on the interest on the debt that we've accumulated in the united states of america through reckless spending, so much it producing very little benefit for anybody in the long term. and we cannot continue this. he testified that if interest rates go up 1%, we will pay $1.5 trillion more on interest over ten years than if it didn't go up 1%. and who knows? he acknowledged he's no seeer, interest rates, many people

predict right now, would surge dramatically, may go up to some of the levels we had in the 1970's. if it did, this country would probably be financially destitute. i've got to say we're not playing games here. the money of the united states needs to be managed by the elected representatives. they expect us to manage their money wisely. they expect us not to put this country at financial risk. and they have every right. and they have a responsibility actually, as citizens of this country, to be angry with their congress, to be angry with their president for running up this kind of debt. it's just not a good thing. so amazing. well, let me just start over. so earlier this year there was deep concern that the budget control act that was passed on a bipartisan basis, signed by president obama, that limited

the growth in spending. didn't cut spending, but over ten years spending would increase $8 trillion -- increase $8 trillion instead of increasing $10 trillion. so we saved -- quote -- "$2 trillion." that was deemed too tough this year, so we had the ryan-murray bill that said we're going to fix some of the tight places, and we're going to avoid spending -- we're going to put more money in. we're going to spend more than we agreed to. but we're not going to break the total debt situation because we're going to raise taxes some and we're going to cut spending some. and one of the cuts they came up with in secret, without any public hearings or debate, was the cut veterans' retirement bill -- retirement plan. and it blew up. it meant $60,000 to $150,000 for

retired veterans, how much they would lose in their retirement cost of living. and so i opposed that. well, they passed it anyway. a democratic majority here blocked proposal after proposal. one was to more than pay for if by reducing fraudulent income tax credit checks being sent out to people illegally here who don't qualify for it. that was blocked too. and so what did we have just a few days ago? we had a -- we have a bill to save the veterans so they don't have to have their pensions reduced. and how would they pay for this $6 billion in costs? why, they wouldn't pay for it at all. there's no payment whatsoever.

they actually, by voting and supporting that provision, the pryor amendment, cosponsored by a number of democrats, it would increase the spending of the united states above the agreement -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: madam chair, i would ask for one additional minute and i'd wrap up. consent for one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: so, it would have added to the debt of the united states directly above the agreement that we just voted on in ryan-murray. it set the cap on how much spending. so less than two months later, we're in here directly having to defend against a proposal that would have broken the spending agreement that was in the ryan-murray legislation. it's just unthinkable. i can't imagine that this would happen. there's so many places we could

pay for this kind of restoration of veteran retirement benefit without raising taxes and without adding to the debt. so i guess i'm saying i'm frustrated about the mind set of this congress. i don't think we're focused on the threat that this debt poses america. dr. elmendorf told us we're on an unsustainable path, and he began to discuss the danger of a fiscal crisis like we had in 2007, because we were in such a red zone, a marginal zone debt. madam president, i see the majority leader. i know he's busy, and i would yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: we're not in a quorum call, are we? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. reid: i have ten unanimous consent requests that have been approved by me and senator mcconnell. i ask consent that these requests be agreed to that allows committees to meet during today's session and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i now ask unanimous consent that following the series of votes scheduled for 11:30 this morning and the rulings of the legislative session not withstanding the previous order the time until 1:45 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, that at 1:45 this afternoon the chair lay before the body the message from the house to accompany s. 540. following reporting of that message, the majority leader or designee be recognized to move to concur on the house amendment to s. 540. that if cloture -- if a cloture motion is filed on the motion to concur, the senate proceed to vote immediately on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur. if cloture is invoked all

postcloture time be yielded and the senate proceed to vote on the motion to concur on the house amendment to s. 540. that upon the disposition of the house message to accompany s. 540 the chair lay before the body the house message to accompany s. 25 with remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in effect with the debate time modified to be two minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to vote on the motion to concur on the house amendment to s. 25. that if cloture is not invoked on the motion to concur on the house amendment to s. 540 the chair lay before the body the house message to accompany s. 25 with the remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in effect with the exception of the debate time which will now be two minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the motion to concur on the house amendment s. 25. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, department of state, tina s. kaidenow, the district of columbia to be coordinator for ko*urpbt -- counterterrorism. daniel bennett smith of virginia to be an assistant secretary, international bank for reconstruction and development, catherine ann novelli of virginia to be united states alternate governor. department of state, catherine ann novelli to be under secretary. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, it is my hope that we don't have to use 30 minutes, but let me start off by saying that i am

very pleased that we have three highly qualified nominees for posts at the state department that are critical to america's national security and diplomacy. these nominees were voted out favorably by the foreign relations committee. ambassador tina kaidanow is well qualified to serve as coordinator for counterterrorism at the department of state. in a long career, most recently she served as the deputy ambassador at the u.s. embassy in kabul. in kabul, she worked on some of the most difficult and pressing terrorism issues the united states faces, and she previously served as deputy assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs. bafer kaidanow has shown the ability to forge the kind of partnerships necessary to engage

the counterterrorism objectives necessary for the united states, and i hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting her nomination. next is daniel bennett smith, the president's nominee for assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. this is an incredibly important position as the state department thinks about our advocacy abroad in terms of foreign policy, having the best information on intelligence and research is critically important, and certainly playing a role as it relates to embassy security across the globe is very important. ambassador smith served as the u.s. ambassador to greece from 2010-2013. he has been a career officer in the senior foreign service, ranked -- with the rank of career minister. he served as executive secretary of the state department, as principal deputy assistant secretary for council of

affairs, deputy secretary. if confirmed, he will advise the state department officials on many intelligence issues that the department faces, issues that are critical to policymakers' decisions as they relate to the u.s. foreign policy efforts, and i urge my colleagues to support his nomination. finally, catherine ann novelli is in a unique opportunity to help us, particularly with our economic diplomacy abroad. with over three decades of experience in the public and private sector, including senior levels at apple and the office of the u.s. trade representative, miss novelli has shown a deep personal commitment to public service. she will bring tremendous private sector skills, understanding of the interagency process, knowledge of international economic issues to her role as the most senior economic official of the state department and as an alternate

governor to the important multilateral development banks that are a big part of our efforts abroad. miss novelli's experience as the u.s. trade representative, coordinating trade and investment policies for europe, the middle east and north africa and the leading role she played in many of the most important u.s. trade negotiations of the last 25 years make her an ideal candidate to lead the state department's engagement in our country's most ambitious trade agenda in generations. one thing that i find particularly important as i always advocate questions on international intellectual property rights and other elements that are important to the united states who leads the world in innovation, our private sector is facing tougher international competition, and the world's serious environmental threats and a changing energy landscape are

also elements of those challenges. we're fortunate to have someone with miss novelli's expertise in promoting trade and investment and her intimate knowledge of the support needed to ensure our private sector remains globally competitive. she is the right person to oversee the state department's efforts to increase commerce, open markets, support the rights of workers, and i urge my colleagues to support her nomination. these are three very important critical positions, and i look forward to the senate confirming them. and with that, madam president, i also ask unanimous consent to yield back all time on both sides, including the two minutes prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there okay? without objection. the question now occurs on the kaidanow -- mr. menendez: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: .

the presiding officer: has every senator voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 98. the nays are zero. and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the smith nomination. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you, madam president. i'll be very brief. i rise to support the nomination of ambassador daniel bennett smith to be assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mrs. feinstein: ambassador smith was reported