mr. pryor: madam president, i ask that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: and i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. all time has expired. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 2867 offered by the

senator from nevada, mr. reid. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 98. the nays are 2. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read the bill for a third time. mr. reid: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm hoefpl and

confident the -- i'm hopeful and confident the next two votes will be by voice. we expect to have the next vote at around 1:45 today. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 328, h.r. 4152, an act to provide for the cost of loan guarantees for ukraine. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on passage of h.r. 4152. all in favor will say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report.

the clerk: nomination, small business administration, maria contreras-sweet of california to be administrator. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. the senate will be in order. who yields time? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: madam president, i ask consent to be recognized for three minutes. i understand this next vote is going to be a voice vote. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. is there objection? without objection, the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you, madam president. i want to thank my senate colleagues and senator risch for helping us get the next

administrator of u.s. small business administration to the floor. first i want to recognize everybody's thoughts and prayers here for oso and darrington, washington and all their thoughts for the people who have been hit by this unbelievable tragedy. our hearts go out to this community. and i want to say this has been a tremendous effort by first responders and everyone trying to -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well. ms. cantwell: there are hundreds of volunteers, thousands of dollars of contributions. today darrington high school students made 1,300 sandwiches to try to support the research and recovery effort. and i want to thank them for all their hard work. one of the reasons why i want to get a small business administrator is because this agency is going to play a role in this recovery. i thank my colleague, senator murray, for her help and support. the small business administration plays an important role for communities in disasters and the woman we

have before us is a well-qualified woman who can help us with this crisis and continued small business lending. the s.b.a. has been without an administrator for eight months and it is critical we get this position filled today. we can't forget small businesses create two out of three new jobs in our country and provide $28 million to small business assistance that help us create more jobs. so every single day we need to think about small businesses in our community and how much we need to help and support them. everything from choba tph*eu yogurt, ben & jerry's ice cream have been small businesses benefiting from the program and to have somebody like maria contreras-sweet to be this person is critical for us. i urge my colleagues to support her in this nomination and move forward on an s.b.a. agenda, everything from making sure we approve the 504 program to the step export assistance program and to make sure we continue to make ground on exporting small

business products made in the united states of america to the growing middle class around the globe. i thank my colleagues and i urge them to support this nominee. the presiding officer: who yields time? ms. cantwell: i yield back all time and ask for the -- the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the nomination. all those in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the

table. the presiding officer: the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is wanted. mr. reid: miracles never cease. would the chair get order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 p.m. today, the senate proceed

to executive session and resume consideration of the owens nomination, calendar number 573, that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination. that following the cloture vote and notwithstanding rule 22, the senate resume legislative session and proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 3797. further, if cloture is invoked on the owens follow nation, all postcloture time be expired and the senate proceed to vote on the owens no nomination. that upon disposition of the owens nomination and if cloture is invoked -- could we have order. it's hard for me to hear myself. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. senators will remove their conversation from the well. mr. reid: that upon disposition of the owens nomination, the

senate resume legislative session and if cloture is invoked on h.r. 3979, then all postcloture time be considered expired and the senate proceed to consideration of the bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid:: madam president, i ask consent that following the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to h.r. 3979, the senate proceed to the executive session to consider nomination number 700, that there be two minutes for debate prior to a vote on the nomination, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, any related statements be printed in the record and president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: madam president, for the knowledge of all members, the -- 20 minutes or so ago, the house passed by voice vote -- mrs. boxer: madam president, the senate is not in order. no one can hear.

the presiding officer: the senator from california is correct. the senate is not in order. the senate will be in order. senators will bring their conversations off the floor. the majority leader. mr. reid: 20 minutes ago the house passed by voice vote the 13-month patch of the s.g.r. there was work done on a bipartisan basis by all senators to get a permanent fix. we can only do what we can do. i had a number of my republican colleagues come to me and say, we will do this but you have to get the assurance of the speaker that he would accept this and the speaker would not accept what was being proposed. the original plan was my idea and i'm have a disappointed it didn't work out. i've been trying to do it for four years but i'm not surprised. but it's no one's fault here in the senate. we have a new chair of the finance committee. he's work very hard on a

bipartisan basis to come up with a way to get rid of this s.g.r. once and for all. we weren't able to do that. so the patch that we have is imperfect but it's does that will take care of things. and i am -- i don't mean to be mean-spirited here but i am tired of people saying, you're taking care of the doctors but no one else. madam president, we are taking care of patients for the next 13 months. patients. and i think that's extremely important. we have millions of people that have doctors who take medicare patients. for us not to do this would have been really unfortunate. so i am disappointed that we aren't able to get a permanent patch but we have not -- a permanent fix but we've been unable to do that. we should be very happy that we've been able to do as well as we've done. i personally am not overjoyed about what's in the bill but i'm satisfied with what's in the

bill. and i would hope that we could expeditiously move and get this done today. the presiding officera senator:l the roll. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio rubio: madam presiden? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. rubio: and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i addition seeing no one waiting, that i be recognized to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. the reason why i come to the floor today is to call attention to a crisis that has fallen off of the front pages over the last few weeks and that's the situation in our own hemisphere that's occurring in venezuela. and i recognize there's been new stories about an airline that's been tragically potentially lost or has been lost -- we don't know the full outcome of that yet. i know that the situation with ukraine has captivated the attention of the public and rightfully so. and i'm pleased to see today that the senate has taken important steps towards addressing that issue. but i want to talk about something that's happening in

our own backyard, in our own hemisphere. in fact, something that is impacting hundreds of thousands of people that live in florida because they have family members who still live in the country of venezuela. since february 4 of this year, venezuelans have been taking to the streets to complain about their government. and these venezuelans are from all walks of life but it's truly been motivated by young people, by students. the or begins of this public discontent are important to understand because they are not just purely political. it, in fact, has to do with the dysfunction and failures of the government that's currently in charge of that country and the statistics bear out that dysfunction and their failures. for example, violence and insecurity is among the highest in the entire world hemisphere. the murder rate in venezuela is 79 per 100,000 people in 2013. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senators will remove their conversations from the floor. mr. rubio: thank you,

madam president. in the city of caracas, the capital of venezuela, the murder rate is actually almost double that, it's 133 per 100,000, making it one of the most dangerous cities on earth. the unbridled corruption that exists in terms of how state assets are used, venezuela's an oil-rich country. there are individuals in that government that have empowered themselves of venezuela's oil, not their oil. and are basically giving it away to countries like cuba and others and using it as their own personal piggy bank, both for personal enrichment but also to fund their governmental operations at the expense of the people of venezuela. their inflation rate is 57%. in fact, this week, fitch, fitch ratings, they lowered venezuela's sovereign debt rating into junk territory, from b-plus to b and warned that further downgrades are on the way. there's also this unprecedented scarcity of basic goods, including food staples, even things like toilet paper there's a shortage of.

i want to show you some graphics here. this is a line of people waiting in the city of san critola to go into a supermarket. but we're talking about a rich country here. this is not a third world country. this is not a nation that is poor. this is a revenue-rich nation. among the most -- this is a resource-rich nation, among the most resource rich on the planet. and here's a line of people waiting to go to a grocery sto store. reminiscent of cuba, for examp example, a country whose model this government follows. we'll talk about that more in a moment. let me show you some store shelves inside of a venezuelan supermarket. completely empty. nothing on the shelves. this is the economic reality of the failure of the maduro chavez government in venezuela today and this is, among other things, what people have taken to the streets to demonstrate. by the way, there was another catalyst for all of this. there was a sexual assault that coward a college camp us and

students were protesting against law enforcement's unwillingness to address that assault. and the government cracked down. but not on the sexual assaulters, not on the perpetrators, on the demonstrators. and so all of these things that we've talked about -- the failure of that state, the lack of democratic opening, the political abuses, the corrupti corruption, and the economic disaster of the venezuelan government -- led to demonstrations that began on february 4 and continue throughout the country. i want to show you a picture of what those demonstrations look like. it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest, and they were protesting the things i've outlined already -- the insecurity, the violence, the scarcity of basic goods, the lack of opportunity, the political repression. meanwhile, the president of that country and all of his cronies live a life of luxury, and we're going it talk about that more in

a moment, because this government is surrounded by individuals who are living lives of luxury, not just in venezuela but in florida, while the people take to the streets, and you saw the empty store shelves. they are people tied to the government in venezuela buying gold-plated ipads. i didn't even know there was such a thing. in moment, investing in enormous properties and mansions, with the money they are stealing from the people of venezuela leading to these protests. so what has been the response of the midoro government? i'm going to show you some images of what the response has been from the government. here is the first. here is their national guard. here is their national guard battling students in the streets, fully equipped with riot gear, ready to battle against them. this has been their response --

repression at every turn in multiple cities. here is the other response -- tear gas. tear gas by a fully armored individual firing tear gas canisters into the crowd. let me talk about the tear tbas for -- let me talk about the ter tbateargas for a moment. this says "made in brazil," and there have been reports in fact that there's been some u.s u.s.-manufactured tear gas being used against protesters in the street in venezuela. but if it stopped at tear gas, it would be one thing, but it has not stopped at tear gas. in fact, it is now known that the interior ministry of venezuela authorized snipers to travel to tachita state and fire on demonstrate demonstrators. here is a picture of an air

force, army, or national guard individual, or interior ministry individual on a rooftop with a rifle and a scope aiming into a crowd. here is a picture of a sniper. it doesn't end there. those aren't the only pictures we have. here are more pictures of more snipers on rooftops. here is another sniper aiming into a crowd with a spotter next to them. here is another picture of the same sniper blown up. these are government-sponsored individuals. what civilized planet on earth sends the national guard and the interior mustn' ministry of then government, their own country, with snipers to fire on their own people who are demonstrating because of the lack of freedoms and opportunity and economic degradation that exists in a country? they cannot deny this. here are pictures taken by demonstrators themselves of the snipers ready to shoot down people. in fact, 36 people have lost their lives. but it doesn't end just with the

government snipers. because what the government is trying to do here to hide their involvement is they have organized these pro-government militia groups, basically, these militant groups that they hide behind. these groups don't wear uniforms. they're called colectios. they drive around the city in motorcycles. they assault protesters. they break and vandalize their homes. they have weapons that they use to shoot into the crowds and kill or harm people. there are three main groups -- by the way, these groups began under hugo chavez' chavez's cha. these groups have existed for years in cuba. these are neighborhood groups, so they know your family, know who you are, they're always watching, and they organize themselves into armed militias. the government's claim is, these groups are on their own, we're not coordinating with them.

but in fact there have been multiple reports that these groups coordinate with the national guard to take down barricades, to break into the homes of protesters, to vandalize people, and to kill. there are three main groups: la palita is one, based in cur a scuse, a far-left ideology, comprised of radicals who are willing to die for their ideals, whatever those are. they tweeted that the opposition nominee for president in the last elections is a racist and fascist and accused him of intending to launch tax on the poor and impoverished neighborhoods. another group is the group of national liberation bases its teachings on a leftist revolutionary murder by the name of cheg avaro.

another group is an armed communist militant operation that also operates out of caracas. these are just three of the armed, ununiformed, thuggish criminal groups that operate under the auspices and at the direction of the government of nicholas maduro and the people that surround him. what is the result of it? the result of this is there's been over 1,800 people detained in venezuela since this began last month. over 450 people have been injured. over 50 people have been tortured while detained. that we have reports on. and over 36 people have been killed. this is happening in our hemisphere right now, in real-time. and these numbers, they just summarize the depth and scope and breadth of what's happening in the regime's brutality in venezuela, but these aren't just

statistics. behind every single one of these, behind the 36 that much been killed, behind the 1,800 that have been detained are real people with names and families and fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and children. and i want to tell you the story of a couple of them. the first is mavinia. here you see her her on her kne. her you see an armed individual with a pistol pointed otoher. she is on her knees, poses no threat. has given herself up as a peaceful protesters as she faces an armed individual. what happens next in these pictures is these armed individuals from the interior ministry grab her by the wrist and head and throw her to the ground. here'here's what dhowhere what n

the ground? this individual here takes off her hel helmet and proceeds to t her in the head with that helmet. huer is the picture. this is real. this is not a movie. this is happening. this is happening now. this happened to this woman and luckily someone caught it on their phone and was able to capture these individuals. these are individuals associated with the government. you saw she had given herself up and was on her knees. this is what happens. she gets beat in the face with her helmet. she lived to tell her stories. others have not been owe fortunate. here is geraldine, a college student in the city of valencia. on february 19 she stepped outside of her home to see what was going on during an antigovernment protest. and six national guard members -- six national guard members of the maduro government, came by

on a motor psyche tol motorcycle protest. she was hit by gunfire and fell to the ground. she struggled to get up and just then one of the national guard members came up and shot her in the face at pointblank range and killed her. geraldine is someone's daughter. she is not just anyone's daughter. she is rosa hurasco's daughter. she has lost her daughter for every. this is supposed to be venezuela's future and they're being discriminately mow yoed dn in the street by the government of their own country. there are some inspiring stories, too. this is march rhea, a member of the venezuelan opposition party.

she was here in washington. she has bravely spoken out against these things going on in venezuela and bravely the government of panama gave her the space to speak out on behalf of the people of venezuela at a recent o.a.s. meeting. but shamefully, the rest of the countries who are members of the o.a. se -- not the u.s. or canada -- but every remember country did nothing to defend her right to speak. she was denied the right to tell the world the trunnel about what's happening -- the truth about what's happening. she could have snaid exile, but you no he what she did? she got on an airplane and flew back to venezuela to her country to continue the fight there peacefully as a member of their parliament, as a member of the opposition party. well, when she arrived, she was immediately detained a airport in caracas, she was questioned by the thugs you just saw, who

no doubt tried to intimidate her in this questioning, she was verkally attacverbally tacked. then she got had her tar to go to her destination and the same thugs tried to running her car off the road. they are so incompetent, they couldn't even carry that out. she finally made it to her destination. guess what happens this week? the speaker of their so-called national assembly, an individual by the namindividual, a criminad to expel her from the national assembly. she's no longer a member of the national assembly, unilaterally dismissed by their equivalent of their assembly's president, their speaker. and the o.a.s.'s response has been shameful. the organization of american states has been downright impair acing and shameful. i thought it was best summarized

by the opposition leader who wrote in "the new york times" on march 25, "the outspoken response from human rights organizations is in sharp contrast to the shameful silence from many of venezuela's neighbors in latin america. the organization of american states, which represents nations in the western hemisphere, has abstained from any real leadership on the current crisis of human rights and the looming specter of failed state even though it was formed precisely to address issues like these." why do we even need an o.a.s., an organization of democratically elected governments? why do we even need it? why are we even members of it? why do we even contribute funds of american taxpayers towards it if it cannot meet and address systemic human rights abuses such as these? i am less than pleased with our own government's reaction. this is not a partisan issue, but i have to say this. president obama has expressed

he's concerned about this. to his credit, the vice president was stronger in condemning the maduro regime. we're not just concerned about this. we should be outraged about this. just as we're outraged when things go wrong in other parts of the world and weigh in with sanctions -- and we should -- and our vases -- an our voices d -- this is happening in our own hemisphere and it is shameful that the leadership of our government has so far not done more to address this. but we can change that. and i am hoping that we'll. what i happy to do over the next few days is propose specific sanctions against individuals and companies associated with the maduro regime so they know there are consequences for what is happening here. and you think our sanctions have an impact on russia and its violations of ukrainian sovereignty? sanctions against maduro and his

government would have dramatic sanctions, they would have dramatic impact because all those people who are around him that are getting rich off of this regime, sport that are supporting this so they can stay in power and keep making money, they all have bank accounts and restaurants and businesses and mamansions in the united statesf america. if you support this, this government should sanction you. and i ask what i did a few wakes ago in a speech on this subject. if the united states of america will not stand up and be a strong voice on behalf of people who all they seek is freedom and liberty that our own founding documents say belong to all people, rights give tongue them by their creator -- given to them by their creator, if the united states of america will not be a forceful voice, what nation on earth will? they look to us. our own model of freedom and our republic inspires people. we say that we stand for these

principles. we need to defend them when they are threatened, especially in our own backyard. and so i hope that in the weeks to come we can pursue these targeted sanctions against some of these individuals associated with the government. like the assembly president, like others such as these individuals who we will come on the floor in the next few weeks and identify by name who benefit from the systematic violation of human rights in venezuala, who are stealing money from the venezualan people, who are using the resources of that nation to enrich themselves. in the next few weeks we will identify them by name and the properties they own and the assets they hold in our own nation. but i implore my colleagues not to ignore this issue. this is happening right now right in our own backyard, in our own hemisphere. and it is impacting real people

at an extraordinary price. and so i hope in the weeks to come that i along with senator menendez and others who have united behind us and with us will be able to convince enough of my colleagues to take the next step. we've already unanimously passed the resolution condemning all this, and i thank my colleagues in the senate for that. the next step is to build in real consequences for being a part of this. my colleagues, you will have an opportunity to be a part of this in the next few days, especially when we return next week. and i hope we can get a hearing on these sanctions in the foreign relations committee, and i hope we can get passage of it here on the floor so we can send a clear significant gnat tphal to the people -- signal to the people of venezuela, the people of the united states of america are on your side, we support your cause, we will not forget what you are going through, we will not abandon your aspirations. we stand for the liberty and freedom of all people, including those who do not live here with

us. and this is the thing we're going to have a chance to do in the next few days. so i thank you for your attention on this matter and i hope we can successfully take action. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. brown: excuse me, madam president. i didn't hear the senator from florida. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i wasn't planning this today, but as many of my colleagues do, i do a morning coffee where

anybody from my state of ohio -- senator durbin does from illinois and my colleague from ohio does too, senator portman -- that people can come in from around the state and talk about what they want. a couple came in today, a father, mother and two children, one looked to be maybe 10 and the other looked to be maybe 15 -- came and wanted to talk to me about their private school. they have sort of a home school association from a conservative part of ohio, southwest ohio. we talked about what we can do to help them in terms of educating their children. right before we parted and i was going to see other people at this coffee -- we had maybe 75 people there -- the mother of these two children said, by the way, thank you for the affordable care act. i said how's that? she said, she pointed to her son. she said my son -- i think he was 15. she said my son is diabetic. as i learned later he was diagnosed at the age of six and has injected insulin into his

arm and his leg for eight or nine years. she said my son who is diabetic, we couldn't get insurance because of my son's preexisting condition: diabetes. i said yeah? she said we were turned down. i counted them, she said. we were turned down 34 times for insurance. my family was turned down 34 times for insurance. and because of the affordable care act, she smiled and she said we now have health insurance. that's not the first time. one of the most poignant stories i've heard in the importance of this new law, there are 160,000 people in my state that now have insurance that didn't have it in december. but this family, you think about what this is all about. this family's peace of mind, this family's ability to focus on other things now because they have insurance that they couldn't get even though he had a job, the father had a job.

i'm not sure where the mother worked. but the point is they were turned down, she said 34 times because their son -- to cost the insurance company more money because he had a preexisting condition with diabetes. i guess my question to my colleagues is why do we want to repeal this? how do my colleagues, including many, many elected officials in my state who have been very resistant to the affordable care act, to win elections saying i'm going to repeal the affordable care act, how do they explain to this family? if they met this family and the mother said we have insurance now, we were turned down 34 times; why do you want to repeal this law? why do you want to take it away from the 160,000 ohioans who have insurance? the 100,000, 25- 22- and 19-year olds in ohio, my state alone, 100,000 young people have insurance, on their parents' plan because of the affordable care act. 900,000 ohio seniors have gotten

checkups, no co-pay, no deductibles. free checkups, free osteoporosis screenings, free fizzes because of the affordable care act. how do you take that away from those seniors? how do you take away the $900 in savings that the average senior in my state who is on the president bush initially drug plan, medicare drug plan, how do you take that $900 savings; you're going to repeal obamacare? you're going to repeal the affordable care act? how do you face these people like the family i talked to today. 34 times turned down for health care insurance. that is her number. 34 times we were turned down for health insurance because my son has diabetes. how do you think that makes him feel, first of all? she has the comfort, safety in her mind now of having insurance. what do my colleagues do? they wake up every morning thinking i want to take that

insurance from 150,000 ohio families. i don't want them to have it. i want to take those benefits from those ohio seniors, make them pay $900 more. that's what they're saying. repeal obamacare, we lose all that. they want to keep talking about taking these benefits away. let's live with this law. let's make it work well. it's starting to work really well in ohio. we're having thousands of signups every single day. i know in the presiding officer's state of hawaii, they're getting lots of people to sign up. lots of young people are signing up. let's move on. stop debating this. help make it work better and let's talk about how we create jobs, not how you're going to repeal some health care law that you didn't like because it didn't fit with your ideology or you didn't like the president or whatever the reasons my colleagues didn't like the affordable care act. history is going to say over and over, why do you want to take these benefits away? this is working. remember with medicare in 1965, the tea party, they didn't like it, insurance companies didn't like it. but everybody liked it five

years later. social security, the same far-right forces opposed the creation of social security. five years later people liked it. this stuff works and it's going to make such a difference in people's lives. forget about the 150,000, forget about the numbers. focus on that family. 34 times turned down for insurance. she's got insurance now. her diabetic son can get the care he needs. that's such a wonderful thing. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i rise today to recognize the tragic death of a fellow marylander, petty officer second class mark mayo. his heroic sacrifice is the truest display of the u.s. navy's core values of honor, courage and commitment. the united states navy confirmed yesterday that master arms second class mark mayo put himself in harm's way to save a shipmate. on behalf of a grateful nation and my fellow senators, i offer condolences to the family, friends and shipmates of petty officer mayo. the tragic events this past monday evening are still under investigation by the naval criminal investigative services but what we know so far is at approximately 11:20 p.m., there was a shooting aboard the

destroyer mayo. a civilian who was behaving erratically approached the quarterdeck and was con froonted by the ship's petty officer of the watch. the two engaged in a struggle and the civilian was able to disarm the sailor. petty officer mayo, serving as the chief of the guard, witnessed the fight and ran to the quarter deck and placed himself between the civilian and his shipmate, the petty officer of the watch. the civilian opened fire and fatally wounded petty officer mayo. u.s. navy captain robert clark, norfolk's naval station commander and officer said petty officer mayo's actions were nothing less than heroic. he selflessly gave his own life to ensure the safety of the sailors on board. petty officer mayo's parents sharon blair and deconte mayo said their son's actions reflected his strong, caring nature, and his mother put it, he protected people, he was a protector. petty officer mayo was born in

washington, d.c., and moved with his family to hagerstown, maryland, in 1998. he enlisted in the navy in october, 2007. four months after graduating from williamsport high school where he was a washington county wrestling champion, because he wanted to serve his country and because the navy offered educational opportunities, he enlisted in the navy. he reported to naval station norfolk in may of 2011. petty officer mayo's mother, who is a geriatric nursing assistant, said he always wanted to work in law enforcement. randy longnecker, petty officer mayo's former guidance counselor at williamsport high school, recalled him as a kind and easygoing student who earned good grades. he was doing the right thing. he liked athletics and being part of the team. he must have fallen in love with the navy. petty officer mayo served tours of duty in spain and bahrain.

he earned the good conduct award, national defense service medal, global war on terrorism medal, global war on terrorism service medal, navy marine corps overseas ribbon. he was a distinguished member of the navy. americans are privileged and fortunate to have such a brave and outstanding young men and women serving in our armed forces. we must never forget the sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf in defense of freedom. petty officer mayo has made the ultimate sacrifice. while his death is tragic, we should remember and honor the way he lived and how he voluntarily chose to save a fellow sailor from harm. he is an american hero. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. crapo: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: today i rise to discuss the nomination of john owens to the ninth circuit court of appeals. mr. owens who currently works as a lawyer in california has been nominated to fill the seat that has been held for the last 25 years by judge steven trott of idaho. judge trott took senior status way back on december 31, 2004, making the trott the longest current vacancy of any seat on the federal circuit courts. that doesn't mean that there haven't been previous attempts to fill this seat. in a letter to the idaho senate delegation in 2003, then-white

house counsel alberto gonzalez stated -- "i also want to make sure the president's commitment to nominate an idaho indiana for the ninth circuit seat if judge trott retires or assumes senior status while president bush is still in office." idaho has had two ninth circuit seats for more than a decade, and that allotment is appropriate. as such, when judge trott did take senior status the following year, president bush nominated judge randy smith of idaho to the trott seat. at the same time, another nominee was pending in the senate to fill a vacancy on the other idaho seat on the ninth circuit. regrettably, senate democrats used the long-standing senate rules that were available at that time to block the confirmation of both idaho nominees. the reason given by the california delegation for blocking the randy smith nomination to the trott seat

made clear that the objections had nothing to do with judge smith's qualifications and that they were willing to support his confirmation to the other idaho seat. the nelson seat, which is ultimately what happened. as such, the california delegation blocked randy smith's anonymous to the trott seat, not because they believed he was not qualified but because they wanted the seat moved to california, and he was not a californian. the so-called trott seat on the ninth circuit has been held by five different judges, including judge trott, since it was first created in 1935. the first judge to hold that seat was from oregon. the next two judges to hold that seat were from washington state. judge sneed of california, the only judge in that seat to maintain his chambers in california, was the next to hold the seat. finally, as i mentioned earlier, judge trott was the next to hold that seat, and he has maintained

his chambers in idaho for his entire 25 years on the bench. so despite the fact that california already has more than 20 -- that's right, more than 20 active and senior judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals, the california delegation apparently believes that californians have been denied justice for the past 25 years and that the only remedy is to add yet another california judge, leaving the state of idaho with only one single active judgeship on the ninth circuit. senator risch and i had multiple conversations with the white house counsel in president obama's first term where we expressed our interest in working with the white house and the california delegation to reach a resolution to this long-standing dispute in a way that would satisfy both delegations. clearly, the idaho delegation and the idaho people are disappointed by the president's decision to decline to nominate an idahoan to fill the trott

seat. it's even more disappointing that after declining to submit any nominee from the trott in his entire first term, the president has chosen to wait until the senate democrats unilaterally broke the long-standing senate rules regarding the consideration of nominees in order to push through this nomination rather than working with the idaho and california delegations to develop a mutually agreeable solution. if these new senate rules had been in place when judge trott first took senior status, the california delegation would not have had the opportunity it took advantage of to block the appointment of idaho nominees to this seat. this dispute is not about the qualifications of mr. owens. he has been rated unanimously well qualified by the american bar association, and i would be happy to work with the california delegation to support his nomination for the next california vacancy on the ninth

circuit. but i cannot support a process that is the result of an unfair breaking of the senate's rules in order to push through a nominee that takes away a seat that has been an idaho seat on the ninth circuit for 25 years. leaving idaho with only one seat on the ninth circuit court of appeals. sadly, because of the senate democrats' rule change, the idaho delegation will not have the opportunity to stop this effort. therefore, i will vote no on this nomination and my hope is that if confirmed, mr. owens will make the same decision that judge trott did 25 years ago. eye also choosing to maintain his chambers in idaho. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mrs. feinstein: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: i have come to the floor to ask my colleagues

to support the nomination of john owens to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. this was approved by the judiciary committee without dissent. i want to quickly mention his request qualifications. he received his bachelor's with high distinction from the university of california, 1993 as he was inducted into phi beta kappa. he graduated first in his class at stanford law school in 1996. from 1996 to 1997 he was law clerk to judge j. clifford wallace, a noted conservative justice appointed by president nixon to the ninth circuit. he went on to serve as a law clerk to supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. in 2001 he became a federal prosecutor, joining the united states attorney's office in california. he became -- began in the general crime section, prosecuting a wide variety of

violent crimes, drug criesms pacific northwest he also served in the public corruption and government fraud section. but primarily he -- his focus was prostate prosecuting nationl corruption and national security. he really had occasion to receive more than one award, among them the director's' ward from the justice department for superior performance. he has broad support. he has been from the bar association, has -- has given them their highest rating of well qualified. the problem that has arisen around this nomination, though, is not his qualifications because the record will bear those qualifications. but it's the long-standing

discussion over the seat vacated by judge steven trott and there's a history and i'd like to explain it. this seat has been event for over -- vacant for over nine years since judge trott took senior status in december of twowt twowt. 2004. it is the longest running vacancies in the federal judiciary. the ninth circuit has the greatest number of pending appeals per panel. it takes longer than other circuits to resolve an appeal. and it makes no sense for this seat on the busiest circuit to stay vacant any longer. my colleagues from idaho have asserted that this is a vacancy that should be filled by someone from their state. let me explain why that is not the case. judge trott, who will owens would replace, spent his entire legal career in california before joining the justice department under president reagan.

throughout his career, he was licensed to practice law in one state, california. beginning in 1965, he served as county prosecutor in los angeles. in 1975, he sought the position of d.a. from the los angeles county board of supervisors after then district attorney joseph bush passed away. when john van decamp was chosen chosen, trott was chosen as the second in command in the los angeles district attorney's office. in 1981, president reagan appointed him to the united states -- to be united states attorney for the central district of california. all these things are happening in california. he was recommended for the u.s. attorney position by senator s.i. high acould youa of -- high acould youa of california.

in 1982 he submitted an application to the los angeles county board of supervisors to become d.a. after the d.a. john van decamp was elected to be california's attorney general. he was nominated by president reagan in 1983 to serve as assistant attorney general for the criminal division at the department of justice. at his confirmation hearing for that position, senator pete wilson of california introduced him. judge trott's official judiciary committee biography states that his legal residence at the time was california. now, this is all about whether trott occupies an idaho seat or a ninth circuit seat. a california seat. in 1986, he was nominated by president reagan to be associate attorney general. once again, senator wilson of california introduced him at his confirmation hearing and once

again his official judiciary committee biography states that his legal residence at the time was california. in 1987, president reagan nominated trott to the ninth circuit. the judiciary committee sent blue slips to senators wilson and cranston of california. that's the point. the spoint historically -- the point is historically judge trott had occupied a california seat. he stated in his committee questionnaire that -- quote -- "his two clients have been the people of the state of california and the government of the united states." he was confirmed in 1988 to a seat previously held by judge joseph snead, a california nominee. now, that judge's connection to the ninth circuit prior to his appointment was his nine-year

tenure as professor at stanford law school. judge snead established his chambers in san francisco. these are the facts. judge trott was a california nominee to the california seat on the ninth circuit court of appeals, as was his predecessor now, once confirmed judge trott made a personal choice to establish his chambers in idaho. this personal choice essentially an arbitrary occurrence, cannot result in a state losing a judgeship to another state. as we all know, the overwhelming practice of administrations and senates of both parties has been to retain each state's representation on its respective circuit. just look at the makeup of the circuits represented by the

members of the judiciary committee. both iowans on the eighth circuit occupy iowa seats. three alabamans on the 11th circuit occupy alabama seats. all of the texas judges on the fifth circuit who are not the first occupants of their seats were preceded by texans. the senate recently confirmed carolina mchugh to the 10th circuit. judge mchugh was strongly supported by senators hatch and lee, and she replaced michael murphy, who had been a utah nominee. i could go through the history of each circuit and the same pattern would emerge time after time. this is not by accident. there's a reason for it. presidents of either party must know which senators to consult, and senators must know which vacancies to make recommendations for. now, this might sound like

inside baseball to some, but it's fundamental to the senate's advice and consent role. and no senator of either party would allow the arbitrary occurrence of a judge's personal choice of residence to remove a judgeship from the senator's home state. this is a precedent this body cannot allow to be set. now, some might accuse california of trying to take more than its share of seats, and this is simply not so. there's no objective reason for the trott seat to be transferred to idaho, where judge randy smith already occupies that state's seat on the circuit. by every metric, population, appeals generated, district court caseload, california has far less than its proportional share of circuit judgeships, and idaho has already its fair

share. in fact, if idaho were to get an additional judgeship, its representation on the ninth circuit would be five and a half times its share of caseload, and that's ridiculous. idaho would have twice as many seats as montana and, madam president, your state, hawaii, have. even though those states generate more ninth circuit cases than idaho. nothing supports removing this seat from california to idaho. not history, not population, not caseload, nothing. so let me conclude by saying this -- i don't begrudge the senators from idaho seeking additional federal judicial resources for their state. senators crapo and risch have introduced a bill to create new judgeships on the federal district court in idaho. i represent four judicial

districts that virtually always have caseloads at a judicial emergency levels. one of them, the eastern district of california, is the most overburdened judicial district in the country, and has a caseload that's more than double the national average. so i understand the desire of senators from idaho to ensure that a sufficient number of federal judges are present in their state to resolve the disputes of their constituents. in fact, i'm a cosponsor of the federal judgeship act of 2013, which would create all the new judgeships recommended by the judicial conference, including one for idaho. but the fact remains that this seat on the ninth circuit was previously held by two californians and it should be

filled by a californian. i very much hope that the californian will be john owens, who as man months has an impecc, bipartisan support and whom i'm proud to have recommended to president obama and whom i would urge my colleagues to support. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate shall proceed to executive session. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of john b. owens of california to be united states circuit judge for the

ninth circuit. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of john b. owens of california to be the united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. rolevote:

vote: