the -- for most of the day. the senate was not in session yesterday because of the snowy weather here in washington. the entire federal government was shut down because of the storm. no votes scheduled for today as lawmakers are continuing to make their way back to to washington d.c. tomorrow they will take up the nomination of assistant attorney general for the justice department's civil rights division. and now live senate coverage here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by pastor dave weigley, president seventh day adventist church in the mid-atlantic united states. pastor? the guest chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, creator and maker of all, who sits enthroned above the earth and in whom we live, move and have our being. we praise you from whom all blessings flow.

we thank you for your sustaining power, for peace, and for the freedoms we enjoy. we ask your blessing on our great, nation, insightful leaders, and dedicated lawmakers. establish their steps, and give them discernment and courage to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. strengthen those who need to be uplifted, who are downcast, who need the compassionate touch p of a brother's or sister's hand. above all, may your kingdom come, may your will be done, and may we readily incline our ears to your call today. this we pray in your holy and righteous name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 309, s. 1086. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 309, s. 1086, a bill to reauthorize and improve the child care and development block grant act of 1990 and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators

permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. there will be no roll call votes today because of the inclement weather we've had the last three or four days. the next roll call vote will be tomorrow at 11:45 a.m. mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: charles and david koch are shrewd businessmen. their wealth is nearly unparalleled. not only in america but in the world. the brothers inherited a small oil company. they inherited this company from their dad. they built it into a multinational corporation. it refines oil, makes carpets, manufacturers fertilize,chemicals, makes paper products, extracts minerals, produces glass, they own a cattle ranch, lots of stuff. like most shrewd businessmen, the oil baron koch brothers are

very good at protecting and growing their prodigious future and fortune. there's nothing un-american about that. but what is un-american is when shadowy billionaires pour unlimited money into our democracy to rig the system to benefit themselves and the wealthiest 1%. i believe in an america where economic opportunity is open to all. and based on their actions and policies they promote, the koch brothers seem to believe in an america where the system is rigged to benefit the very wealthy. based on senate republicans' ardent defense of the koch brothers and the fact that they advocate for many of the same policies as the koch brothers, it seems my republican colleagues also believe in a system that benefits billionaires at the expense of the middle class. the koch brothers are willing to invest billions to tbhi buy that

america. they're investing billions to buy that america. in 2010, the supreme court opened the floodgates of corporate money into locktorial politics -- into electoral politics. that was with the citizens united decision. since they can launder their huge contributions use being shadowy shell groups and so-called nonprofits, it is difficult to tell exactly how much they've invested so far. investigative reporting by some of the most respected news outlets in the country has revealed that the koch brothers funnel money flew a web of industry groups -- through a web of industry groups that are immune from disclosure rules such as the club for growth, heritage, a n.r.a., and the the united states chamber of commerce. we may never, never know how much money the koch brothers are spending to rig the system, to rig the system for themselves. but we do know their investments

have paid off already. in november 2010, the petroleum industry walked right through the door the supreme court had opened and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect a republican majority in the house of representatives. that majority has effectively shut down any hope of passing legislation to limit the pollution that has caused climate change. and that republican majority is in fact working to gut the most important safeguards to keep cancer-causing toxins and pollutions that cause sickness and death out of the air we breathe and the water we drink. without those safeguards, the koch brothers would pass on the higher health care costs to middle-class americans while padding their own pocketbooks. so the koch brothers are already seeing a return on their 2010 investment, and a republican house of representatives will do it what they want done. but they certainly haven't stopped there, madam president. the kochs backed americans for

process experprosperity alone s0 million last election cycle. if you have seen an ad recently maligning the affordable care act or obamacare, chances are significantly that these ads are one of the shadow groups paid for by the koch brothers. koch-backed groups have spent a vast sum electing -- trying to elect republican senate cans -- senate candidates this year, some that back the senatorial campaign spending. the koch brothers and other moneyed interests are influencing the politica politia way not seen for generations. republican senators have come to the floor to defend the koch brothers' attempt to buy our democracy. once again, republicans are all in to protect their billionaire friends. not only have senate republicans

come to the the floor to defend the koch brothers personally, they have again and again defended the koch brothers' radical agenda -- and it is radical, at least from the middle-class perspective. senate republicans have opened so many different avenues to oppose closing a single tax loophole. they've -- senate republicans oppose closing even a loophole for these oil companies or corporationcorporations that shs overseas. and this benefits the koch brothers. senate republicans have proposed asking billionaires to pay the same higher tax rate as middle-class tax families, as so illustrated by wa warren buffet. they have proposed workplace standards that might cost the koch brothers a few extra dimes, a few extra dollars, maybe. and the koch brothers are returning the favor with huge donations to republican senate

candidates, either directly or indirectly. senate republicans, madam president, are addicted to koch. in fact, senate republicans hardly need the nrsc anymore, which for decade after decade was their main funding tool for the republican senate. not any longer. the koch brothers take care of that. besides, the nrsc can't hide its donors' identities, like the koch brothers' funding groups can. senate republicans call this freewheeling spending by anonymous donors nothing more than free speech -- free speech. senate republicans say, whoever has the most money gets the most free speech. but that's not what america's founding fathers said. they didn't mean that by "free speech." the founders believed in a democracy where every american had a voice and a vote.

this discussion, this fight, isn't just about health care or even about a few hundred million dollars in disingenuous ads. ads this is about two very wealthy brothers who intend to buy their own congress, a congress beholden to their money and bound to enact their radical philosophy. witness this, madam president. senators beholden to wealthy special interests -- republican senators -- rushed to the floor to defend the kochs whifer say something nextgen -- whenever i say something negative about the brothers or their radical agenda. by the way, the words "radical agenda" aren't my words. charles koch proudly told brian doherty, editor of the magazine "reason" about his self-described "radical philosophy" in 2007.

these are the same brothers whose koch industries rank near the top of the list of america's worst objectio toxic air pollut. these are the same brothers whose company, according to a bloomberg investigation, paid bribes and kickbacks to win contracts in africa, india, and the middle east. these are the same brothers who, according to the same report, used foreign subsidies -- subsidiaries to sell millions of dollars of equipment to iran, a state sponsor of terrorism. let's make sure we understand that madam president. i may not have said it quite right. these are the same brothers who, according to the same report, use foreign subsidies -- i said it wrong again. foreign entities is the word, better than my trying to say the other word, which didn't come

out quite right. these same brothers, according to the same report, use foreign entities to sell millions of dollars of equipment to iran, a state sponsor of terrorism. we all know that. the koch brothers already believe they can play by a different set of rules. think about how an america rigged by the koch brothers would look. they don't care about creating a strong public education system in america. the koch brothers don't care about maintaining the strong safety net of medicare and social security. and the koch brothers don't care about guarantee of affordable, quality health insurance for every american. that's obvious from the misleading ads that they have paid for all over the country. why? because the koch brothers can afford to buy all the benefits and more for themselves and their families. this means abolishing social security, medicare, their extreme vision for america means

eliminating minimum wage laws. they are extreme vision means putting insurance companies back in charge of your health care and denying health care for preens. -- preexisting conditions. they are vision means stripping tens of millions of people of the benefits of the affordable care act today. their extreme vision for america means allowing the gap between the wages women and men earn to keep growing. their vision means giving giant corporations the unfettered right to dump toxins into our rivers and streams and valleys and to give them even more tax breaks while they destroy our environment. madam president, we democrats have a different vision. democrats believe the economy is strongest when the middle complas is vibrant and -- middle class is vibrant and growing. democrats believe that world-class education leads to world-class work and this work

is one where people are ready to take on any challenge. right now, madam president, there's at least three people for every job that's available. democrats believe in an even playing field with higher wages, affordable health care, and a secure retirement for every american, so that every american can have a shot at success. i welcome a debate over these competing visions. the average american shares our vision for a country whose success is built on a strong middle class. the koch brothers know americans share our vision for a country whose success is built on a strong middle class. that's why rather than having an honest and fair debate, they're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a massive campaign of deception. they manufacture stories, make up facts. they're angry that i'm calling attention to their campaign of distofertiodistortion and decei.

i'm not oblivious that my comments have caused some controversy. anyone that's turned on fox news lately knows that i have gotten under their skin. but i will continue to shine the light on their subversion of democracy. when i hear the republicans defending the koch brothers, as they have, i recall the words of adlai stevenson, "i've been thinking. i want to make a proposition to my republican friends that if they have stop telling lies about democrats, we'll stop telling the truth about them." spwopbgz the koch brothers continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying elections we'll do all we can to expose their intentions. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i noted with interest the majority leader was hammering the koch brothers

again today, and i wondered why he left out billionaire tom steyer who plans to spend as much as $100 million pushing the issue of climate change in the 2014 election and appears pocketed to rival the deep-pocketed koch brothers according to "the new york times." the true of the matter is, madam president, these american citizens have a constitutional right to participate in the political process. and it strikes me as curious that if we are going to demonize people for exercising their constitutional rights to go out and speak and participate in the political process, we would just pick out the people that are opposed to us and leave out the people who are in favor of us. the truth of the matter is there are many wealthy americans who feel deeply about the country, who are committed to one side or the other, who are trying to

have an impact on the country. as many on the left as on the right. so i think we ought not to leave out tom steyer, and i believe he has a brother who is also a billionaire who has similar views and will probably try to impact the fall elections in one way or another beneficial to the things he advocates. madam president, on another matter, the release of a president's budget is usually a pretty big deal, but president obama's latest budget released just this morning, well, it hasn't even ginned up very much excitement. folks aren't taking it seriously because it's not a serious document. first of all, it could probably never even pass the democratic-led senate. and in some sense, really that's the point. rather than put together a constructive blueprint the two

parties could use as a jumping off point to get our economy moving and our fiscal house in order, the president has once again opted for the political stunt for a budget that's more about firing up the base in an election year than about solving the nation's biggest and most persistent long-term challenges. it would increase taxes by well over $1 trillion in the worst economic slowdown nearly anyone can remember. it would explode spending by $790 billion, forcing us to borrow more money from places like china. as i indicated, it would do almost nothing to address the most serious threats facing our children's few taourbgs and it doesn't even -- futures, and it doesn't even come close to balancing this year. now no wonder the president thought the left would love it, but here's my question for the president: what about the middle class? what's in it for them?

it seems to me like the president has just about given up on helping folks who are in the middle action folks who feel like washington doesn't take their concerns and anxieties into consideration anymore. what hope is he giving them that their medical bills won't be as high, that their wages will start going up instead of down? what's in this budget for them except a nagging feeling that they'll just keep getting squeezed? look, the president is well into his sixth year of trying to fix this economy, his sixth year of trying to tax and spend and regulate our way to prosperity, just as his ideology demands. but this much has to be clear by now: this doesn't work. since 2009, the government has spent almost $18 trillion. yet millions, millions of middle-class americans continue to suffer whether in the unemployment line or in jobs

that barely allow them to get by. it's time the president realize that doubling down on the same failed policies is simply not going to work. yet, that's just what this budget proposes to do. we don't need anymore election-year gimmicks. what's needed is a new approach, a positive strategy that focuses on helping the middle class instead of appeasing the far left. president obama still got two years left in his presidency. it's not too late for him to try to make a positive difference for folks struggling to pay their bills, but he's got to let go of the left and reach out to the middle. he has to decide that bipartisan solutions are worth fighting for. if he does, he's going to find significant support on this side of the aisle. we want to work with him to get important things done for our country. we always have. we're eager to expand opportunity for the middle class and to build more ladders of opportunity for those who aspire

into it. we're eager to enact policies that can create american jobs, approving things like the keystone pipeline and medical device tax repeal and important new trade legislation, just to name a few things that we could do together. we're eager to find ways to control spending and put the debt on a path to elimination. we're eager to reform the regulatory state so that the rules coming out of washington actually work for people other than the bureaucrat class that rights them. there are bipartisan solutions to be had on these types of issues if only the president can put politics aside for a few minutes and actually work with us, really work with us, because the kind of unserious budget he put out today, that's just the type of silly politicking we need to get past. after all, why would we want a budget that grows the federal budget while the middle class continues to shrink?

washington is doing just fine in the obama economy. but real americans deserve a lot better, and we can give it to them if we work together. what i'm saying is this, mr. president. you've got two years left in office. work with us to make them count. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for debate only, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. murphy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. very briefly, first i want to associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader. i certainly understand the concern of those on the republican side about an individual who has proposed to spend a certain amount of money supporting a global warming cause but it pales in comparison to the money already spent by the koch brothers who poured hundreds of millions of dollars

and will continue to pour hundreds of millions of these dollars into these races completely dwarfing any amount of money spent on the other side. i want to talk about the ongoing crisis in the ukraine and i'm glad to have senator mccain on the floor today because it's really hard to describe the sensation both he and i felt at the end of last year when we got the chance to travel to the midon, independent square in kiev and speak to about a million people. and it was even harder to describe the sensation of hearing that group of people yelling back to you in unison, "thank you, u.s.a.. thank you, u.s.a." but that was the reality that we were able to experience. and it's important to note that senator mccain and i didn't go to the midon that day to advocate for president yanukovych's removal even though that the end of that process resulted in that fact. in actuality, we spent two hours

that night meeting with yanukovych, pleading with him to reverse course on his decision to abandon plans to join the e.u. so that he could win back the support of the hundreds of thousands of people who had gathered on that square to support european integration and domestic political reforms. but president yanukovych didn't listen, and instead he lost his legitimacy as ruler when he turned his security services on his own people, resulting in the murder of over 100 ukrainians who simply wanted to compel their leader to follow the wishes of the ukrainian people. now i was proud to author a resolution that passed unanimously in this body that declared our support for the ability of ukrainians to peacefully air their grievances against their government and oppose the use of force against them. then i was equally proud to join senator mccain and some others in a bipartisan call for sanctions against yanukovych when he began his murderous crusade against the protesters. and i was even prouder of

president obama who through the state department sent a clear, unwavering message to the ukrainian people that the united states stood with them in their desire to see a better future for ukraine aligned with europe and the west. this strong bipartisan approach here in america to the midon movement helped the people in the ukraine as they charted their path toward a new government. we didn't dictate. we supported the right of the people to determine it for themselves. but now despite the success of the midon, the crisis in the ukraine has changed its face. it hasn't dissipated. and today secretary kerry was greeted in kiev by ukrainians pleading for the continued support of the united states. and so having been so clear voiced in our support of the ukrainian people thus far since the tproe tests began last november, now is the moment when republicans and democrats should stand united in this congress so years from now when a group assembles in kiev marking the

anniversary of this grave crisis they will celebrate ukraine's political sovereignty and economic rebirth with more chance of thanks to the united states. so, in what shape should this support come? first, we need to stand together in the next week to deliver serious financial assistance to ukrainian economy that is weak and is growing weaker as this crisis persists. a $1 billion aid package is a good start, but our real work must happen within the structures of the i.m.f., which can provide the potentially tens of billions of dollars necessary to fully right the ukrainian economic ship. and while ukraine does need to undergo economic and budget reforms from within, i would caution the i.m.f. to be gentle in the timing of the conditions applied to this aid. difficult steps need to be undertaken to right size gas prices and trim budget deficits, but ukraine should be given a long enough lease so that these necessary reforms don't strangle a nation today dealing with threats to its very existence.

second cry me i can't. -- crimea. they have invaded and the very accord they signed guaranteeing crimea's territory. no doubt president putin was sore and no doubt he didn't like the fact that the united states voiced its strong support for the right of a sovereign ukraine to make independent decisions about its future partnerships and no doubt he is infuriated that the ukrainian people are now on their way to getting their way. but this is not a schoolyard. you don't get to push around weaker kids just because you don't like them. this is the 21st century. the reason we belong to organizations like the united nations or the reason we negotiate treaties like the budapest memorandum is because we now understand, after centuries of european war, how

destabilizing this kind of behavior is. the irony for russia, of course, is that this invasion demonstrably weakens, not strengthens their nation's position in the world. let's say for argument's sake that the end result of this crisis is a crimea more closely aligned with russia than the ukraine. what will that have accomplished for russia? won the occupation of two million ukrainians while the majority of the 43 million go towards the european union. if the united states and russia make good on sanctions threat it will devastate the russian economy leaving millions of russians out of work and adding instability to putin's land at a time he can't afford much more instability. and it will make russia an international pariah, shunned by industrialized nations that helped form the future path of global political and economic values. given this reality, why did putin do it? he didn't do it to protect russians in ukraine because the only threat to their safety is

due to a military crisis of russia's own making. he did it because like the schoolyard bully, he doesn't see past his own nose. he believes that he wins by temporarily flexing his muscles and by capturing the world's attention. he doesn't look to the long term potentially dire consequences to his own political standing and his own people. he throws punches because it feels good today, no matter how bad it will hurt tomorrow. but that being said, no matter the irrationality of moscow's behavior, we need to make sure in the case that russia does not correct this mistake and correct it soon, that the consequences do hurt. i believe that congress should authorize broad authority for president obama to enact strong sanctions on russia through penalties to its banks, its oil companies and its political and economic elite. i believe the president should only be allowed to use this authority in the case that this illegal incursion into ukraine continues and that we should give moscow the opportunity to reverse course or join with the

international commuty to address their concerns about the safety of russian citizens in ukraine. let's give russia the chance to make this better and deliver a clear message of consequences if they don't. this of course can't happen without the support of our european allies and as chairman of the foreign relations committee son europe i'll be on the phone this week with european parliamentarians urging them to join us in proposing new sanctions on the russian economy. i know there is hesitance in europe due to the integration of russia into the european economies, but this crisis should frankly matter more to europe than it matters to us. five years ago, it was a laughable proposition that russia would invade ukraine, but it's happening now, and it may be unthinkable today that russia in five years is going to move on a nato ally, but if this aggression goes unchecked, then the future can be very perilous, even for our friends in europe. finally, a word on the politics of this crisis. i've listened to some of my good friends on the republican side try to score political points in connection with the russian move

on crima, trying to -- crimea, trying to paint this as how obama's fault. this is a ridiculous contention. putin marched into georgia in 2008 under a republican president whom many of my republican colleagues considered to be strong on foreign policy and now he is dealing with a democrat in office, and president obama today is considering steps in response that seemingly weren't even considered in 2008. and what makes me even more suspect of the criticism of president obama is that there doesn't seem to be any real difference here between what republicans want the president to do and what he is actually doing. it's easy to just say that it's obama's fault, but history tells us otherwise and these political attacks mask the fortunate fact that today there is pretty solid bipartisan agreement on what to do next. ukraine can remain whole and free, madam president, and it can stay on a path to join europe, and when that day emerges from the smoke and the fire of the crisis, if we play our cards right, then they will

have america and our european allies to thank in part for that new day. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i thank my colleague from connecticut for his thoughtful remarks on the events taking place, the tragedies taking place in ukraine as we speak today. i appreciate his commitment to trying to find a way through this very difficult situation. the senator is dead wrong when he says this is like georgia. in fact, this senator wanted to do a lot more than we did. in fact, we did a lot more. the fundamental problem here i say to my friend from connecticut is that this president does not understand vladimir putin. he does not understand his

ambitions. he does not understand that vladimir putin is an old k.g.b. colonel bent on restoration of the soviet of the russian empire. it was vladimir putin that said the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the downfall of the soviet union. the senator from connecticut should understand that, that what this is all about, and this president has never understood it. this president is the one that ridiculed mitt romney when mitt romney said our great enemy was russia and its geopolitical threats, said the cold war has been over for 20 years. this president believes the cold war was over. vladimir putin doesn't believe that the cold war is over, and when -- when the president of the united states is overheard to say to -- to mr. putin's puppet, mr. meg -- vedev, tell

vladimir after i am re-elected, i will be more flexible. did you get that? tell vladimir after i am re-elected, i will be more flexible. this is the president that somehow believed that vladimir putin had anything but the ambitions which he is now realizing in the ukraine. in fact, i think it might be interesting for my colleagues to note that what vladimir putin spoke to the press today, and vladimir putin, among other things during his answering questions from the press, said, first of all, my assessment of what happened in kiev and in ukraine in general, there can only be one assessment. this was an anticonstitutional takeover and armed seizure of power. that was vladimir putin's view

of what happened in kiev. as yanukovych slaughtered, i believe, 82 innocent civilians as well as wounding hundreds, and then he goes on to say, i would like to stress that under that agreement mr. yanukovych actually handed over power. obviously, yanukovych did not hand over power. he was driven from power by the good people who were tired of his corruption, were sick of his nepotism and his crony capitalism. anybody who believes anything good about mr. yanukovych should see the pictures of the home he had and the dacha that he was building that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. truly a man of the people. the parliament of president

putin went on to say the current acting president -- talking about the acting president of ukraine -- is definitely not legitimate. there is only one legitimate president from a legal standpoint. yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate president. and then comes more interesting things. mr. putin announced -- vladimir putin now says now about financial aid to crimea. as you know, we have decided to organize work in the russian regions to aid crimea which has turned to us for humanitarian support. we will provide it, of course. i competent say how much, when or how. the government is working on this by bringing together the regions bordering on crimea by providing additional support to our regions so they could help the people in crimea. we will do it, of course. regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces, so far there is no need for it but the possibility remains. i repeat today, vladimir putin

said regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces, so far there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. now, this is a return to the old russian soviet doublespeak which was absolute nonsense, but they said it anyway. he goes on to say what is our biggest concern? we see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and antisemitic forces going on in certain parts of ukraine including kiev. when we see -- when we see this, we understand what worries the citizens of ukraine, both russian and ukrainian and the russian-speaking population in the eastern and southern regions of ukraine. it is this uncontrolled crime that worries them. therefore, if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country, we should pay careful attention to these words of

mr. putin. if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country and if the people ask us for help, while we already have the official request from the legitimate president, we retain the right to use all available means to protect those people. we believe this would be absolutely legitimate. then he goes on to say, in answer to the question, thus the tension in crimea which was linked to the possibility, the possibility of using our armed forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. i repeat. the tension in crimea was linked to the possibility of using our armed forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. the only thing we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defense of our military facilities because they are constantly receiving threats, and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in.

now, russia has well-trained, well-equipped, now additional 16,000 or more, and vladimir putin was worried about enhancing the defense of his military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats. there is something i'd like to stress, however, he goes on to say. obviously, what i am going to say now is not within my authority, and we do not intend to interfere. however, we firmly believe that all citizens of ukraine, i repeat, wherever they live should be given the same equal right to participate in the life of their country in determining its future. my friends, we are seeing justification for intervention and serious intervention in eastern ukraine. so he goes on to further questions, and then he goes on to take a shot at the united states, saying our partners, especially in the united states, always clearly formulate their

own geopolitical and state interests and follow them with persistence, then using the principle -- quote -- you're either with us or against us, they draw the whole world in. those who do not join in get beaten until they do. then he goes on to say our approach is different. we proceed from the conviction that we always act legitimately. i have personally -- i say to my colleague, i am not making this up. this is what vladimir putin said. i would like to stress yet again, i have always been an advocate of acting in compliance with international law. i'd like to stress yet again that if we do make the decision, if i do decide to use the armed forces, this will be a legitimate decision in full compliance with both general norms of international law since we have the appeal of the legitimate president and with our commitments which in this case coincide with our interest to protect the people with whom

we have close historical culture and economic ties. protecting these people is in our national interest. this is a humanitarian mission. we do not intend to subjugate anyone or to dictate to anyone. however, we cannot remain indifferent if we see that they are being persecuted, destroyed and humiliated. then here is probably the most interesting part. the question -- mr. president, a clarification, if i may? the people who are blocking the ukrainian army units in crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the russian army uniform. were those russian soldiers, russian military? vladimir putin -- why don't you go take a look at the post-soviet states. there are many uniforms there that are similar. you can go to the store and buy any kind of uniform.

question -- but were they russian soldiers or not? vladimir putin -- those were local self-defense units. those were local self-defense units. question -- how well trained are they if we compare them to the self-defense units in kiev? vladimir putin -- my dear colleague, look how well trained the people who operate in kiev were. as we all know, they were trained at special bases in neighboring states, in lithuania, poland and in ukraine itself, too. they were trained by instructors for extended periods. they were divided into dozens and hundreds. their actions were coordinated. they had good communication systems. it was all like clock work. did you see them in action? they looked very professional, like special forces. why do you think those in crimea should be any worse? in that case, can i specify it? did we take part in training

crimean self-defense forces? vladimir putin -- no, we did not. and this is the same guy that the president of the united states pushed the reset button time and again with. this is the same guy that we can work with vladimir putin and my colleague from -- and former member of this body on friday, on friday, as putin's forces moved in to the crimean, and it was very clear to anyone that the russians were moving in, the secretary of state on friday spoke with russian -- secretary of state john f. kerry spoab friday with russian foreign minister sergay lavrov. quote from secretary kerry -- we raised the issue of airports, raised the issue of armored vehicles, raised the issue of personnel in various places,

kerry said, and while we were told that they were not engaging in any violation of the sovereignty and do not intend to, i nevertheless made it clear that that could be misinterpreted at this moment and that there are enough tensions that it is important for everybody to be extremely careful not to inflame the situation and not to send the wrong messages. i am not making that up. so after five years of -- of believing that somehow vladimir putin was anything but what he is, we are now paying the piper. the chickens are coming home to roost. and we do we have a military option? no. but we do have a number of other options. i want to read one other article that was in the "usa today" today by jonah goldberg, "obama

in denial on russia." i won't go through a lot of it about student obama, in 1983, then-columbia university student obama penned a lengthy article for the school magazine, placing the blame for u.s.-soviet tensions largely on america's -- quote -- war pen tallity and the twisted logic of the cold war, president reagan's defense buildup according to obama contributed to the silent spread of militarism and reflected our distorted national priorities rather than what should be our goal, a nuclear-free world. that's what student obama said. but the remarkable thing that two weeks ago in response to tensions in ukraine, two weeks ago the president explained that -- quote -- "our approach is not to see events in ukraine as some cold war chess board in which we're in competition with russia. this is a horrible way to talk

about the cold war because it starts from the premise that it all was just a game conducted between two morally equivalent competitors. similar comments about cold war rivalries and the like are commonplace of late especially during the olympics when nbc commentators were desperate to portray the chapter as nothing more than a pivot alexperience. america surely made mistakes during the near half century struggle. the fact is there was a right side and a wrong side to that conflict and we were on the right side of it. the soviet union of which vladimir putin was a part, the soviet union murdered millions of its own people, stifled freedom in nearly every form, enslaved whole nations and actively tried to undermine democracy all around the world including in the u.s. president putin, a former

k.g.b. agent has said --. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent for five more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. commune: president putin, a former k.b.g. agent said the collapse of the evil empire was -- and i quote -- "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." that should have been a clue to this white house that reset buttons weren't going to cut it but they were too stuck in the past to see it. i could go on and on including the ridicule some of us were subjected to when we pointed this out from time to time. including in 2008 when i said in a debate with then-candidate obama, watch ukraine, watch ukraine, putin will not give up ukraine. we need to have an economic aid

passage immediately and i'm glad our secretary of state is over there, initial loan loan guarantees and a longer substitute package through the international monetary fund. we have to stabilize the economy, the economy of ukraine which is on the board near collapse. financial sanctions, freezing assets, visa bands, trade embassies can -- embargoes can be accomplished, and people will not have bank accounts, will not travel, not ever get a visa, they need to pay a penalty for oark sphraiting what's happening -- orchestrating what's happening in ukraine right now. obviously we should not go to the gh summit. he should be thrown out of the g.h. it should be the g-7. there has to be -- obviously suspend military-to-military engagements. we need to have a path and a quick one for both moldova and

georgia to move into nato. both countries are occupied by russian troops. moldova and in georgia, and, by the way, every day quite often the russians keep moving the fence further and further into the sovereign territory of these countries. in an attempt to appease mr. putin we abandoned missile defense systems in poland and check check --, the czech republic. we need to reinstate those and move forward as quickly as possible. there's a number of things that the most powerful nation in the world needs to do. i'm not counting on our yiewn friends -- european friends, already there have been statements by and merkel and the -- awn debrisa merkel and leaking a memorandum from the british government. we may have to do a lot of

things by ourselves because they're dependent on russia for a lot of their energy supplies and actually we have seen a significant recession in european leadership over the last ten to 20 years. but we need to act and we need to speak up in favor of the people who are now being overtaken in crimea by vladimir putin's army, his military. and i worry and -- in conclusion i say it's time we woke up about vladimir putin. it's time that this administration got real. and it's also time for us to worry about what vladimir putin will do on eastern ukraine on the pretext that somehow disorder and demonstrations might require russian presence. and my friends, if we allow mr. putin to assert his authority over these areas

because of russian-speaking people, that message is not lost on poland, where there's russian population, on romania, on latvia, estonia, lithuania and moldova, and we are on the verge possibly of seeing a move to reassert the old russian empire, which is mr. putin's lifelong ambition. madam president, i've overstayed my time. i thank my colleague from alabama and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i appreciate the opportunity to listen to senator mccain. i think facts have proven him right for many -- over many years of warning this country about how we have to conduct international relations in a realistic way. i had the opportunity to be in georgia and the ukraine about

three years ago, in georgia we went to asettia, where the russians had moved in there against the european -- the international law, and had set in and just last week or so we were informed by the prime minister from georgia they were building barbed wire fences along that border, digging in even deeper than they had before. they told us in the ukraine, we met with some of the democratic dissidents that were trying to hang on for democracy there, they had beaten tim cinco. -- tim ashe knowo. who, the lady who led the orange revolution. she was worried about going to jail. i didn't think she would go to jail but they kept her in jail for years on what the e.u. and nato officials have all said were bogus charges.

and they told us that they were somewhat depressed, some of the democratic activists there that putin with his intel background was using the russian intelligence services in ukraine to buy up media, buy up television, to propagandize the country and they were hurting. they didn't know if they could be able to successfully resist and it was such a delight for me to see this revolution again. basically a nonviolent resolution, in which -- revolution in which the people stood up for their country and now we see that mr. putin does not accept sovereignty. and he's going to try to utilize military force in a way that's stunning, and i got to say the crimea is far larger and more strategically significant than

south assettia but it's just the same actions. senator mccain, thank you for your leadership. madam president, i want to share a few thoughts on the nomination of debo p. adegbile to be the assistant attorney general of the united states, the department of justice, the civil rights position, a very important position. no question, he's a bright young lawyer, has a good resume, spent 1 years with the naacp legal defense and education fund, one of their advocacy groups of that historic organization. they've been champions for advocacy and defense of civil rights and have done tremendous work over the years and i've seen a lot of that. but they've also had -- they've

used the courts to advance political agendas and haven't always been accepted, have been seen to be improper. so while serving as the acting president and director counsel of the legal defense fund, mr. adegbile positioned himself at the center of many high-profile cases, cases that are in the news media. and issues that he dealt with. perhaps most notably, as litigation director he chose without being asked or without being even needed, to participate in the case of mumia am ewe jamal, the country's most notorious killer of a police officer. he was tried, completely -- he was convicted of the murder of a young 25-year-old philadelphia

police officer, daniel faulkner. the evidence at trial proved that abu-jamal shot officer faulkner in the back and then stood over him and shot him three more times. before firing a final shot into officer faulkner's face. immediately following the murder, he stated he hoped the officer died. as noted by a philadelphia district attorney, seth williams, in his letter to the senate judiciary committee, in opposition to this nomination, this is what mr. williams said, district attorney williams -- quote -- "evidence at the trial established that while this was not some case -- this was not some case of random street crime, abu-jamal was a supporter of the move organization, an an anarchist group that explicitly advocated

violence against police" -- close quote. this is a district attorney's summary of this case. he goes on to say some members of this body have argued that mr. -- his choice to involve himself to involve in this case is irrelevant because it is simply a case of a lawyer representing an unpopular client, and lawyers do that. they're called upon to do that. i live in my home, month in monroe county, alabama, the home of attic uz finch, harper lee who wrote "to kill a mockingbird." he was asked to defend someone, an unpopular defendant in monroeville, alabama, and he undertook and did his duty because he knew it was his duty. but i would like to take a few moments to read from district

attorney williams' letter to chairman leahy and ranking member grassley, which powerfully illustrates why this is not the same thing that we're talking about there, the lawyer's duty to take on unpopular clients and make sure every american who is charged with a crime is entitled to an adequate defense. he goes on to say, the district attorney of this very large office -- quote -- "abu-jamal made every effort to turn the trial into a political theater. he repeatedly interrupted the proceedings, insulted the judge and chanted the name of move leader john africa during the appeals his supporters attempted to intimidate the judge by massing in front of his home in a residential neighborhood. worst of all, they have maintained a three decade long campaign of verbal abuse against

officer, frankly,'s widow, maureen, who simply wanted justice for her dead husband" -- close quote. this is indisputable, i think no one denies this. goes on to say, the d.e.a. does --, the d.a. does, his lawyers echoed these tactics in their defense maneuvers. in other words, the lawyers defending him used the same tactics that the defendant did. they're not required to do that. lawyers are officers of the court. they should never misrepresent anything in court or take a position contrary to plain law or to misstate facts. lawyers aren't entitled to do that. so he goes on to say despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt, they have -- the defendant and the lawyers here, they have consistently attempted to turn

reality on its head, arguing that abu-jamal was framed and that it was he rather than officer faulkner who was the victim of racism, the legal defense fund perpetuated these allegations when it took over abu-jamal's case. although abu-jamal's death sentence was overturned invented after the trial, his murder conviction has been upheld and his lawyers' bogus racial claims have consistently been rejected in both state and federal court." so that's the d.a.'s continuing summation of it. and he goes on, "aside from being patently false, moreover, these claims are personally insulting to me. as an african-american, i know all too well the grievous consequences of racial discrimination and prejudice. i also know that abu-jamal was

convicted and sentenced because of the evidence, not because of his race. and i have continued to fight for the jury's verdict because it was the just result." so that's -- i respect that opinion. i don't think he would be saying that if he didn't believe it was so. so he goes on to say this -- quote -- "given all of the laudable objectives of the naa naacp, it is telling that mr. mr. adaj valet chose to devote his resources to this particular cause rather than the many legitimate battles that call for his formidable abilities." now, i would suggest, madam president, i was a federal prosecutor for 15 years, attorney general of alabama for two. i am a firm believer in the essential integrity of the

american criminal justice system. i've seen it too long. i've tried too many cases before a jury. i believe they do justice every time. but there in a place as large as philadelphia and places large in america, in any state of america, you've got poor people, people who are uneducated, people who can be deprived of rights that they didn't know they had, errors by chance could just occur in a trial. there are needs for groups like the naacp, legal defense fund and other groups to defend people who've been caught up in the system and unfairly treated. that's a legitimate thing. so i heard -- when i hear the -- what i hear the district attorney saying is, well, why is this one they've got to choose to be so active about? he had lawyers. the case was on appeal. good lawyers. so he goes on to say -- quote --

"of course in our system, even a radical cop killer like mumia abu-jamal is entitled to legal representation. that does not mean, however, that those lawyers who elect to arm him in his efforts are suitable to lead the nation's highest law enforcement office, one of them. to select such a lawyer among all those qualified for the position speaks volumes to police officers and their families." so he's saying, well, okay, you can do this but -- you can defend these cases, perfectly right, you can pick that case out of all of them in the country and defend it, but don't necessarily say, should you be promoted to this high position. so this was not simply a case of a lawyer representing an unpopular client. it was a political cause.

there was really no question about it. now, the thing that troubles me more than some of the other issues in the case is that his cocounsel, mr. adaj baley's cocounsel, christina swarms, who actually worked for him -- he was the supervising attorney -- explained the legal defense fund's motivation for getting involved in this case. why? she said so and explained it at a free mumia rally in 2011, and she -- this is what his cocounsel, this is what the person who reports to him said at that rally. "it is absolutely my honor to represent mumia abu-jamal. it is my pleasure, it is my

honor to have that opportunity. and there is no question in my mind, there is no question in the mind of anyone at the legal defense fund" -- i suppose surely that includes the nominee -- "that the justice system has utterly and completely failed mumia abu-jamal and in our view, that has everything to do with race and that is why the legal defense fund is in this case. we are acutely aware that the injustices of the criminal justice system are inextricably bound up in race." and she says they all at the fund agree with that. but the district attorney, mr. seth williams, an african-american himself, said the conviction had nothing to do with race but everything to do with the plain fact that he murdered a police officer, was

observed, was -- confessed and admitted it and said he hoped he died. and the jury found that, a jury with -- a biracial jury convicted him. you can say well, that's just her opinion, that's her statement o. well, she said she was speaking for others. let me point this out. i serve on the judiciary committee and so we asked mr. mr. adaj balet, what about this statement by this lady, miss swarms, and do you agree with it, and how do you explain it and what do you have to say about it? did he say he didn't agree with it? did he said she misspoke? did he say, i wouldn't have used those words? did he say it was inappropriate?

i don't know about -- i didn't know it. this is what he said. "i do not know what police swarms had in mind when she made this comment -- i don't know know what miss swarms had in mind when she made this comment." well that's not satisfactory to me. i would like -- the question was a very serious one. i believe the comments by miss swarms were inappropriate, they were false, they demean the integrity of the legal system of america improperly. as an officer of the court, she had no right to do that. should really have been disciplined, in my opinion. and what did he say, even now at the judiciary committee, written questions submitted to him, what does he say? all he says is, "i don't know what she had in mind when she made the comment."

i think it's pretty clear what she had in mind. this is a radical, a radical view of criminal justice in america. it's very wrong. it's not correct. it's false. and i'm amazed that he wouldn't at least take this opportunity now, several years later, to correct and say he's -- he would correct it. i would make another point here. in a 2011 legal defense fund press release at the time that the nominee was leading that department, it said this -- quote -- "l.d.f. seeks to sweep the grave injustices embodied in this case into the dust bin of

history and in so doing give communities of chlorin chlorineo believe that they can and do receive legal justice in pennsylvania courtrooms." so it's a direct attack on the integrity of the courtrooms and the jury and the judge and the appellate courts and the federal appellate courts in pennsylvania. that's the official press release of the legal defense fund. i don't think there's any evidence that there was any grave injustice done. in fact, justice was plainly done in this case. so that same press release quoted former l.d.f. director john peyton as saying that -- quote -- "abu-jamal's conviction" -- this is the person who held the office before mr. adegbile did. quote "abu-jamal's conviction

and death sentence are relics of a time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination. unless and until courts acknowledge and correct these historic injustices, death sentences like mr. abu-jamal's will invite continued skepticism of the criminal justice system by the african-american community." and mr. adegbile has not rejected these statements. in fact, he's proud of his role in the case, testifying it demonstrates america's commitment to follow our procedural rules even in those hardest of cases. i just would say, mr. president, that if a chief of a civil rights division of the united states department of justice in washington, d.c., holds a extremely important position, he is not a blind advocate for one

vision of what some might call civil rights. i don't think it is civil rights to take the position that these lawyers were taking. he is supposed to be a neutral observer. and if a police officer violates civil rights of someone under his custody, then he ought to be prosecuted, he ought to be dismissed and he ought to be punished for it. but the civil rights division leader is supposed to be somebody that everybody can trust. if people believe does not have an a-- that people believe does not have an agenda, that they believe is fair to all. so i think therein lies the rub. so even someone who murders a police officer deserves legal representation, there's no doubt about that. but as philadelphia district attorney, mr. seth williams, an african-american, said -- quote -- "that does not mean that those lawyers who elect to arm him in his efforts are

suitable to lead this nation's law enforcement officers. to select such a lawyer among all those qualified for the position speaks volumes to police officers and their families." it speaks volumes to them that this guy, this individual, this nominee for the department of justice would be so perceived as someone who voluntarily, aggressively and improperly, in my opinion, taking the sides of someone who was proud to murder a policeman. so the civil rights division must protect the civil rights of all americans. it must not be used as a partisan tool to further the political agenda of any special interest groups, as too often has occurred in this administration, in my opinion. but it must be a place where the rights of all americans are protected, regardless of their

race and political party, and we have seen racial prejudice in the past and it does need to be stamped out. but i do believe the president's nominee is -- i do not believe the president's nominee is, therefore, qualified because i do not see the required degree of objectivity and balance that will be necessary. and i will oppose the nomination. i would just note, mr. president, i don't like to oppose nominees. it's no fun. i'm sure this nominee has done many good things in his life. but there are points in time where we just have to say that as congress, i can't cast a vote for a nominee i don't believe is going to be objective and fair in the conduct of that important office. i would yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk for a few minutes today about health care and more inquiries i've gotten from the people i work for in our state about -- about health care. and like we always do, i followed up with them to verify that i understand their account and they don't mind if i at least mention their first name and where they're from as we talk about these problems. i had a chance this morning, mr. president, to speak to the american federation of hospitals

about the challenges we face and mentioned to them a comment i made on the floor here just a few days ago, which was if we were dealing with this health care debate today, it would be, in my view, a much different debate. every member of the house, every member of the senate and almost every american that's been impacted in any way by the changes in health care understands this a whole lot better than we may have understood it four years ago. i was in the house in 2009 and was leading our effort to come up with the alternatives that were clearly out there that i think we could have and, frankly, should have pursued, but at that time it was clear that a lot of members hadn't really thought about this and the people they worked for in many cases had thought about it even less. we had a situation that in many ways was an accidental development at the end of world war ii were most people in

america got their insurance at work, that had insurance. the people that had insurance at work liked what they had, and, of course, among other things, hoped they'd be able to keep it. and hopefully many of them will but clearly many of them won't. the letters i've got today are reflective of all kinds of challenges that people are seeing. one of the things that actually was working very well in the almost 40 states that had it was the high-risk pool, where people that had preexisting conditions had a way to get insurance. they were in a pool that was pretty well defined. not everybody with a preexisting condition, mr. president, had a -- an ongoing cost. you might have a condition that was under control. you might have had a heart problem or cancer problem or another problem that stood in the way of you getting other insurance but it didn't mean you had a lot of ongoing cost. it did mean that that high-risk pool was a place you could go. and in our state, the premium

for people in the high-risk pool was 135% of what everybody else was paying. so what everybody else, the average rate that people were paying for insurance, add 35% to that. but remember, these were people that everybody understood, including them, they had a preexisting condition, they had a place to go. and if the new plan would have reduced that 35% back to what everybody else was paying, that might have been a worthy goal but that doesn't appear to be what's happened at all to the 4,000 people that left the missouri high-risk pool when it was ended because of the new law on december the 31st of last year. there was a transition for some of them. here's one, bjorn from kansas city said his wife was previously insured under the missouri high-risk pool for preexisting conditions. in her case, a back condition.

that was canceled in the middle of 2012 when she was put in another high-risk pool that the law allowed to happen as a transition. the problem that created for them was it reset their thousand dollar deductible so they met the thousand dollar deductible in the high-risk pool and they met the $5,000 deductible again in the second half of that year. and now the insurance that they've been able to find cost them four times what they were paying before. it's not 135% of the old premium. i guess four times that would almost be 150% of the old premium. so somebody that was paying 135% of the -- what used to be the normal premium for an individual is now paying 550% of what used to be the premium for the old

individual. if that was the way to help people who had a preexisting condition, they'd better hope that the federal government doesn't try to help them anymore. mark from parkville says his two sons, young and healthy as they were, both just increased to 20% increase in the policies they had. the only reason they were given is that the new requirements of the affordable care act meant that their premium would go up. mark says he lived out of the country for two years and was amazed to find upon his return that the same type of health coverage he had before his -- before he left, his cost would go from what had been $250 a month to now $1,000 a month. bill from st. james, missouri, his deductible went from $1,000 to $2, 500. mr. president, in missouri and

west virginia and lots of places you and i know that if the individual deductible is $2,500, a family looks at that and for many -- that's just like not having insurance at all. if a couple of you happen to get sick that year, it's suddenly $5,000. i met with some missouri hospital folks last week in st. louis. they said their fastest-growing, uncollected debt was now among people with insurance. now, why would that be? because it's among people with insurance who suddenly have a deductible that is much higher than the average person with insurance used to have. the point they were making was, people can't pay the $2500 or the $,00 $3,000 ored $5,000 or r deductible. so that part of the bill just doesn't get paid. that's the new growing debt that hospitals have. now, these people have the high deductibles are insured maybe for lots of thifntio things thet

used to be insured for, but they don't use any of the things that they're out in insured for that they didn't used to be insured for and so bill from st. james says, obamacare sure has not helped us. i worked for a small business that has renewed my health care and my deductible has risen from $1,000 to $2,500. my visits went from $20to $30 in the co-pay and the specialist co-pay went from $50 to $75. and he doesn't understand how he's helped by the new health care law. carl in lee's summit, missouri, says he has type 1 diabetes and his deductible went up to $7,500. again, for most families, a $7,500 deductible is like not having insurance at all. it's -- if we had -- if we could

go back to where we had the health savings account, where you had a high deductible and you had your health savings account and that high deductible could kick in only if you had to pay the high deductible, i never saw a health savings account plan that wouldn't be cheaper than these plans that cover a lot of things but they cover a lot of things a lot of people don't need. carl says, to keep my premium rates down, my employer had to raise our deductible to $7,500 with no prescription benefit so that now instead of putting away $400 per month for my retirement, i spend it on insulin and diabetic supplies. how is this a.c.a. helping my honest -- any honest-working

american who's trying to take care of themselves and not rely on the government? carl's point is the money he used to spend to prepare for his own retirement he now spends to pay for his insulin and diabetes medicine that used to be covered until this year by his policy. christine from kansas city said her husband's employer was forced to make changes in their insurance resulting in a deductible that went from $1,300 to $6,100. now, if this had been the way we would have explained this, that somehow, let's assume we're even insuring more people, which there's no reason to believe that yet. but let's assume we were, but we're insuring more people with -- what have i had here today? -- a $6,100 deductible, a $2,500 deductible? sheshe said our deductible went

from a managing deductible to a devastating $6,100. i recently sent in prescriptions for my doctor and can't imagine how much they will be. we were told they would be between $25 and $200 depending on the cost of the drug. and, remember, they're all before you get the deductible. fred from columbia, a drug company that makes one of his prescriptions no longer offers him a discount. the pharmacy told him it was because of the affordable care act. now, i'm perfectly willing to believe that the affordable care act has become an excuse for some things. this may be one of them. i haven't talked to the pharmacy here, but i do know that these are problems that other individuals are having because their insurance doesn't cover what it used to cover. fred is a retired state employee, and his plan, he says,

just doesn't offer as much coverage as it used to. houston and shirley, have a supplemental health insurance. their supplemental health insurance increased by $333 since the affordable care act was passed. they say their policy increased $149 -- this is their supplemental policy. "senator blunt, we are on medicare and have a supplemental health insurance. our monthly premiums were a little less than $165 prior to the a.c.a.'s package. now as of january 1, 2014, they're $498.48. our premium has increased by $150 a month, and that's from supplemental insurance and just last week medicare advantage, one of the ways that people in underserved areas, whether they're inner cities or rural communities, the way to encourage that competition was

reduced as well. i would just say, mr. president, that if there was ever a time that we should take a second look at something and the factss that every one of us have in our office that would suggest we take a look at it and even demand we take a look at it, it's this policy that's hurting americans, that's hurting families, and, mr. president, if we had this debate again, the country, the health care providers, and the congress of the united states would be a whole lot better prepared to talk about what needs to be talked about than apparently the congress was prepared to talk about in 2009 and 2010. and i would yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: several weeks ago, february 12 to be exact, as

washington, d.c., at that time was braced for a snowstorm and the senate rushed to finish its business before the president's day recess, the senior senator from arkansas came to the floor to offer a unanimous consent request to confirm a district court judge for his state. before he made the request, i spoke with that senator, who to his credit was one of only three democrats to vote against the so-called nuclear option the month before in november. although i was sympathetic to his desire to see his home state judge confirmed, i objected to his request to bypass the procedure the majority adopted in november, including recorded cloture and confirmation votes. i did so based on principle. i did so because, after 52 democrats voted to strip we

republicans in the minority from our rights, the very least we could do is to ask the majority to utilize the procedure that they voted to adopt. after all, the simple fact of the matter is that the minority can no longer stop nominees. that's the result of the nuclear option. and that was, of course, the whole point that the majority had when it acted back in november. so the senator from arkansas offered his unanimous consent request, and i withheld my consent. we had our exchange on the floor, but we did so courteou courteously, and that's what senators should do. later that evening, the majority leader came to the floor, made another unanimous consent request. senator cornyn objected fo for e same reason that i had. thereafter, the majority leader

exercised the power that he has, he alone possesses it, to move these judges and file cloture on four district court nominees. that set up several votes for last monday evening. that evening during our side's hour of debate time -- and that's all we have anymore for district court judges, one hour of debate time on each side -- i spoke on the current state of the senate with respect to the legislative process. i spoke about how our founding fathers intended the senate to operate. i spoke how the senate used to operate, how it should operate, and, sadly, how it does the opposite. i spoke about how the majority leader routinely files cloture on bills before debate has even begun. i spoke about how, in today's senate, in what is supposed to

be the world's greatest deliberative body, the united states senators from great states all over this nation are shut out of the process of legislating. sometimes even debating. as our side's hour of debate time neared its end, the distinguished chairman of our committee asked if i would yield him a few minutes of our time. i have of course agreed to extend him that courtesy. i extended him the courtesy even though i knew he had used that time to argue against everything i just said. i extended him the courtesy because i know he'd do the same for me. and as a matter of fact, he has done exactly that same thing for me. that's the united states senate. we're courteous to each other, courteous to each other even when we disagree. as i said, that was monday

night, eight days ago. on tuesday morning we had a series of stacked votes related to those district court nominees. we had several cloture votes as well as a confirmation votes. i voted against cloture along with many of my colleagues. i don't presume to speak for many of my colleagues or any of my colleagues, but i voted against cloture to register my objection to a process arrived at via brutal force -- in other words, by the action of the nuclear option. but the majority leader wasn't content to simply use the procedures he led his caucus to adopt last november when the nuclear option was adopted, when the minority rights on judges was taken he away. he wanted voices -- voice votes rather than recorded votes on those lifetime appointments. and i emphasize lifetime

appointments. so they deserve serious consideration. at that point i objected, and i exercised the right of the united states senator to ask for a roll caught vote of yeas and nays. i supported each of the nominees on final confirmation. some of my colleagues opposed them. but even if the votes had been unanimous, the right to demand a recorded vote is one of the most basic and fundamental rights of any u.s. senator. there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with exercising that right, especially when it comes to approving lifetime appointments to the courts. before we had that recovered vote, i took the opportunity to remind my colleagues of how well this president is doing with respect to getting his judges that he nominates confirmed by the united states senate. specifically, that thus far this

congress, we've confirmed 50 of president obama's judicial nominees by way of comparison, at this point in president bush's second term, we'd only confirmed 21 judicial nominees. that's 50 for president obama, 21 for president bush. those numbers compare both district and circuit nominations. that's the benchmark both sides typically use. so why are we republicans blamed by democrats for not approving judges, especially when over the course of five years and two months now we've approved 223 judges and only disapproved two? those are basic unassailable facts. in response, the majority leader described our request for recorded votes, as i was talking

about, eight days ago as -- quote -- "a waste of taxpayers' time." end of quote. and then he concluded his brief remarks by saying this -- quote -- "i would suggest that my friend, the senior senator from iowa, that he not believe his own words because they're simply not true." end of quote. that was on tuesday, a week ago. two days later, on thursday evening, the majority leader came to the floor, proffered a unanimous consent request for several district court judges. senator moran was on the floor at the time and objected for our side. thereafter the majority leader filed cloture on four district court judges, and the nominees to lead the department of justice's civil rights division. that's a right that the majority leader has under our rules. a few minutes later the majority

leader returned to the floor so he could as we described, -- quote -- ," say a few words about the man who does all of the objections around here, or a lot of the objecting." end of quote. then he proceeded to quote extensively from a speech that i delivered in 2005. he then accused me of violating senator sp* -- senatorial consideration -- without consent we could vote on the amendments that members on my side thought we had a right to offer, as any senator should have a right to offer amendments. now even if some of the amendments the democrats wanted had bipartisan support, i was a senator standing up and defending the right of our members to offer amendments, even controversial amendments. to be clear, i was prepared to vote on any democrat amendment

provided the republican amendments were not restricted. the majority leader then concluded his highly discourteous remarks by saying this -- quote -- "the senior senator from iowa, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, and the people of iowa should check this out. they should see what he says and what he does." end of quote. given how inappropriate these remarks were and that they were roughly coincided with several other inappropriate comments the majority leader made last week, i feel compelled to respond. and of course that's what i'm doing. let me start by reviewing briefly how we arrived where we are today. as i said, the majority leader quoted from a speech that i delivered in 2005. for the benefit of my colleagues who weren't here at the time, that was back when the democrats were indiscriminatately filibustering a host of president bush's highly

qualified nominees for the circuit courts. and make no mistake, the democrats were utilizing the filibuster on judges at that time to an extent never witnessed before in our nation's history. during this time they were filibustering ten -- ten -- different circuit court nominees. so like i said, the majority leader quoted from a speech that i delivered during the debate may 23, 2005. what he failed to mention is that six days later, on may 17, 2005, he said this on the senate floor regarding the nuclear option -- quote -- "it appears that the majority leader" -- referring to then-majority leader senator frist -- "cannot accept any solution which does not guarantee all current judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. that result is unacceptable to me because it is inconsistent with the constitution checks and balances. it would essentially eliminate

the role of the senate minority in confirming judicial nominations and turn the senate into a rubber stamp for the president's choices." end of quote. now i'm not going to relitigate that fight today except to say this. at the time republicans, myself among them, were arguing those nominees should be afforded an up-or-down vote. but as the quotation i just read demonstrates, democrats refused. at the end of the day our side lost that debate. we didn't believe judicial nominees should be subjected to a 60-vote threshold, but nor did we believe that we should play by two sets of rules. so when the roles were reversed and there was a democrat in the white house, republicans utilized the tool as the democrats did. the only difference was that we used it much, much more

sparingly. as i said, we've approved 223 obama nominees to the courts and only disapproved two. but the democrats, of course, didn't like being treated to the tactics that they had pioneered, so they began to threaten to utilize the so-called nuclear option. a lot of negotiations ensued between our side and the majority leader. that's the way the senate most often will get things done, negotiate to consensus. again, i'm not going to review every detail. but as any member of this body can tell you, the results of those negotiations was this. the minority, this time the republicans, relinquished certain rights regarding nominations. did it by negotiation. for instance, district court nominees -- nominations used to be subject to 30 hours of

debate. they are now subject to only two hours. in exchange for relinquishing those rights, the majority leader of the united states senate gave his word that he would oppose any effort to use the nuclear option. on january 27, 2011, the majority leader said this on the senate floor -- quote -- "i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next to change the senate rules other than through regular order." end of quote. not withstanding that promise at the beginning of the next congress, we were once again on the receiving end of threats regarding the nuclear option. and once again on january 24, 2013, after lots of negotiations, the majority leader again gave his commitment. here is what he said on the floor of this chamber -- quote -- "any other resolutions related to senate procedure

would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the rules committee." end of quote. that commitment mattered. it mattered to me. it mattered to my colleagues. we, as a minority, relinquished certain rights in exchange for extinguishing those rights, we received a commitment from the majority leader of the united states senate. and remember, my colleagues, please, this is the united states senate. not only are we courteous to one another, we keep our word. ten months after making that commitment, on november 21, 2013, the majority leader and 51 other democrats voted to invoke the nuclear option. they chose to adopt a new set of procedures for confirming judges. so that is how we got where we are today. and yet, three months later when

the minority has the audacity to insist that the majority utilize the procedures they voted to adopt, the majority leader comes to the floor to level an ad hominem attack. amazingly, given the commitments he made at the beginning of the last congress, he accuses me of speaking out of both sides of my mouth. the fact of the matter is there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding debate time and roll call votes, especially on lifetime appointments to the judiciary, and especially after the majority chose to adopt these very procedures just last november. that's not a waste of taxpayers' money, as the majority leader called it. it's representative government. and while i'm on the floor of the senate, while i'm on the subject of floor procedure, let me say this about the

legislative process that we've been following on the floor. i spoke at length on this subject a week ago yesterday, just as i have on several other occasions. i've been highly critical of the process we follow these days on the floor, but i've always tried to avoid making my criticisms personal. i've always tried to be courteous. but there is no getting around this fact. it's nothing short of a travesty that great senators from all over the nation must go to the majority leader to ask permission to offer amendments. proud senators from proud states, republican senators and democratic senators, conservative senators, liberal senators, northerners and southerners, appropriators and authorizers, hawks and doves, all of these senators have been reduced to this. they're forced to come before

one individual on bended knee to ask permission -- permission -- to offer an amendment. that is not as it should be in the world's greatest deliberative body, the united states senate. so am i highly critical of the legislative process we undergo on the floor? absolutely i am. but i didn't criticize the majority leader in a personal or discourteous way. i did accuse him -- i didn't accuse him of -- quote -- "talking out of both sides of his mouth" as he did this senator. i wasn't attacking him personally. i was defending the rights of 99 other senators as well as my own rights as a senator. and what exactly is a majority leader afraid of anyway? taking a few hard votes? we're paid to take hard votes. we're sent here to exercise our best judgment on behalf of our

constituents. that's how a republic is designed. it does not have to be that way. consider how amendments are handled in the judiciary committee as an example, something that ought to be followed here in the united states senate. our chairman -- i should say the senior senator of this body, the president pro tempore, senator leahy, our chairman does not tell us on the minority, republicans, or even the democrats what we're allowed to offer. nor does he tell us how many amendments we're allowed to offer. he controls the agenda, as you would expect a chairman to do, but we get to offer amendments, and as a result, every single senator of our committee, whether they like it or not, contributes to the process. the chamber controls -- the chairman controls the agenda.

the minority offers amendments, and the majority has to vote on those amendments. that happens to be the process. that's what happens when you have a chairman who respects the rights of united states senators. there is absolutely no reason that we couldn't do exactly that same thing right here on the floor of the united states senate. now, let me mention one other thing about what the majority leader said the other night, because i found it particularly offensive. immediately after accusing me of --quote, unquote -- talking about of both sides of my mouth, the majority leader suggested that the people of iowa, my constituents, should pay attention to what i say and what i do. well, they do. but let me relate something to my colleagues about how i keep track -- keep in touch with iowans. the people of iowa know who they elected to the senate. they know that ever since i was

first sworn in in this body in january, 1981, i have fought all day every day to represent them. i know my constituents, they know me. i go to constituent meetings in every county -- every one of 99 counties every year. now multiply that 99 by 32 years, and you get a fairly large number. i have been in 25 counties so far this year. so i talk to my constituents. i read their mail. i know, for instance, how hard obamacare has been on families in my state. so i find it personally offensive for the majority leader to come to the floor, as he did last wednesday, and accuse americans, including my constituents, of telling lies when they share their stories about how obamacare is impacting them. so last thursday evening, the majority leader came to the floor so he could, as he described it, quote, say a few

words about the man who does all the objecting around here. well, mr. president, do i object? you bet i do. so do the rest of my committee members on the judiciary committee when it comes to things of the judiciary committee. so does the rest of our caucus. we object to the authoritarian way this senate is being run. we object to being shut out of the legislative process. we object to dismissing constituents' stories of obamacare as lies. we object to taking to the floor of the united states senate to attack fellow citizens as un-american because they have the audacity to exercise first amendment rights. and yes, we object to the discourteous add hominen attacks on senate colleagues because they choose to exercise their right to demand roll call votes

on lifetime appointments. it should stop. the senate should return to being the greatest deliberative body in the world. 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. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to speak on the nomination of debo adegbile to serve as assistant attorney general for the civil rights division. mr. president, some americans may recall avia abujamal.

maureen faulkner will forever remember him as a cold-blooded cop killer who left her as a widow at age 24. maureen faulkner has endured three decades of endless appeals and a dishonest international campaign to turn her husband's killer into a celebrated icon for some on the radical left. now one of the lawyers who helped to promote that campaign has been nominated to lead the justice department's civil rights division. this isn't stand, mr. president, and i hope the senate will not confirm him. let's review the facts. 3:15 a.m. on december 9, 1981, 25-year-old police officer daniel faulkner pulled over a car. in the city of philadelphia. the car's headlines were off, driving down a one-way street.

the driver began assaulting officer faulkner. the driver's brother was watching from across the street. four eyewitnesses race across the street, shoot daniel faulkner in the back and while officer faulkner was lying helplessly on the ground, jamal shot several more bullets into faulkner's chest and face. three other witnesses heard abujamal brag that he had shot faulkner and hoped that faulkner would die. during the trial when daniel faulkner's blood-stained shirt was displayed, the jury saw abujamal turn in his chair and smirk at officer faulkner's young widow maureen. so it was no surprise when a pennsylvania jury took just three hours to convict abujamal of murder, and the next day two hours to sentence him to death.

mr. president, instead of allowing daniel faulkner's young widow to grieve in peace, a group of political opportunists decided to use this case to further their own political agendas. that fabricated claims of racism, spread lies about the evidence, they organized rallies that amazingly portrayed abujamal as a victim. before long, abu-jamal was a cause celebre, complete with celebrities, free mumia t-shirts and posters, had his own hbo special and they even named a street after him in paris. in 2009, 27 years after daniel faulkner's murder, the naacp legal defense fund or l.d.f., decided they would join the fray. now, for decades before mr. adegbile assumed his leadership role with the l.d.f., the l.d.f. served as a force of

truth and justice for all americans, as a very important and well-deserved reputation for having done that, but unfortunately l.d.f.'s representation of abu-jamal promoted neither truth nor justice. it's important to point out, this is not a case about every accused person deserving a legal defense. that's a principle upon which i hope there is no disagreement, certainly not for me. the fact is, though, abu-jamal had multiple high-cost lawyers already volunteering their time. mr. adegbile was director of litigation for the l.d.f., and he told the senate judiciary committee that he -- quote -- supervised the entire legal staff, end quote, at l.d.f., 18 lawyers. also he was, in the words of the l.d.f.'s own web site, responsible for l.d.f.'s advocacy -- quote -- both in the

courts of law and in the court of public opinion. end quote. this is important to understand because this duty to supervise has very specific implications for lawyers. a lawyer must confirm that the lawyers he oversees are honest when presenting facts in a case. the law backs this up. supervising lawyers can be sued for malpractice or sanctioned by a court for the actions of the lawyers that he or she supervises. and how did the l.d.f.'s lawyers comport themselves under mr. adegbile's direction and leadership and supervision? well, under mr. adegbile's oversight, l.d.f. lawyers promoted the pernicious myth that abu-jamal was an innocent man and that he was framed because of his race. there was never any merit to the claims of racism. that's a conclusion that was investigated and concluded by both state and federal courts. in fact, the jury that convicted and sentenced abu-jamal to death

complud two african-americans and would have included one more except that abu-jamal himself ordered his lawyer not to seek that third juror. yet in february of 2011, mr. adegbile's group issued a press release, and i quote, abu-jamal's conviction and death sentence are relics of a time and place that were notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination. end quote. in may of 2011, two of the lawyers supervised by mr. adegbile traveled to france. they went there for a rally on behalf of mumia abu-jamal. one l.d.f. lawyer said she was -- quote -- overjoyed that abu-jamal's death sentence was suspended but she benoand the fact he would not have a new trial and could not be set free. the other l.d.f. lawyer described abu-jamal as -- quote

-- one of the people who are innocent but will continue to be put to death in america, unquote. at another event in new york city that same year, a lawyer working for mr. adegbile gushed -- quote -- it is absolutely my honor to represent mumia abu-jamal. she continued -- quote -- there is no question in my mind, there is no question in the mind of anyone at the legal defense fund that the justice system has completely and utterly failed mumia abu-jamal, and that failure has everything to do with race. mr. president, i agree that the justice system has failed, but it's failed officer danny faulkner and his family. now, no one understands this story of injustice better than officer danny faulkner's widow, maureen. maureen faulkner pleaded with the senate judiciary committee for a chance to tell her story, for a chance to testify before the committee as they were deliberating the candidacy of

mr. adegbile, but the senate, the senate democrats on the committee would not allow her to testify. they didn't let her tell her story, and instead they voted to send his name on to the senate floor for confirmation. mr. president, i think maureen faulkner has a right to be heard so i hope my colleagues will listen as i read a letter that she wrote addressing all of us. "dear senators, while i would have preferred to do so personally, i'm writing this letter peeling to your sense of right and wrong, good and evil as you consider the nomination of debo p. adegbile to be the next head of the civil rights division of the justice department. 33 years ago, my husband, philadelphia police officer daniel faulkner, was violently murdered by a self-professed revolutionary named mumia