women of color. they spoke about the overlapping cultures of law enforcement and school discipline and about the need to reduce prison populations and bring about much-needed reform in the way sndz are calculated not only -- sentences are calculated not only as a matter of fairness but to reduce the cost of incarceration. these young people are thinking about where our society should be going, what's our plan and our strategy for making our neighborhoods and communities better places and safer places to live. i made a commitment to those students pictured here that i would come back again, and i will. i made a commitment that i would tell their story, which is really javier's story, a story of hope and promise, dreams and aspirations cut short by gun

violence because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and murdered. that investigation may be ongoing, but we already know the answer to the fundamental question -- can we do something to reduce gun violence? the answer is yes, in his name, in the name of the 30,000 people who have perished along with him from gun violence, needless and senseless deaths that are -- all our responsibility. i respect the second amendment, as i know the presiding officer does. i respect the right of people under the constitution and the second amendment to own and possess firearms and use them for hunting, for recreation, target practice. i will continue to honor the memory of javier martinez and

the lives and aspirations and hopes of the students at common ground and work not only to build that garden but to make the neighborhood around it safer and the community around it a more nurturing and better mace to live. i have made no secret of the fact that i believe this body has a responsibility to act, and its failure to do so is shameful and disgraceful. the students of common ground agree, and if their aspirations includes organizing to make more people aware of the need for this action, i commend them. in fact, i urge them to participate in this effort. i'd like to close with the words from a card that they sent me

with this photograph. the card read -- "senator blumenthal, we are so grateful for your help in remembering javier martinez, supporting our common ground community and taking action to stop gun violence. it means so much to have you by our side as we recover and make meaning in this incredibly difficult time. know that we will stay with you in the struggle to build a safe and peaceful community." i know it sounds more like rhetoric than reality, but i will tell my colleagues in the senate that as long as the young people of common ground and others like them are at our side, we will prevail in commonsense measures to reduce gun violence, and we will prevail in the fight to make america a better, safer place to

live. i thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to offer amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation that we're currently considering. while we all want to help those who are unemployed, the real solution is to get them a job, is to create a growing economy and more jobs. we need to get this economy going, and one way we can do it is by empowering our energy sector. now, that doesn't mean spending more government money. what it means is taking the shackles off billions in private investment that's ready to go into energy development in this

country. in 2011, the u.s. chamber of commerce commissioned a study, and the study was -- took a look at the energy projects that are stalled in this country due to government bureaucracy and red tape. that study found that there are more than 350 energy projects, projects that will both produce renewable energy as well as projects that will produce traditional energy that are stalled at a cost of $1.1 trillion to the american economy and almost at a -- at a cost of almost two million jobs for the american people. i want to take just a minute to read from that report. in aggregate, planning and construction of the suggest projects would generate $577 billion in direct investments calculated in current dollars. the indirect and induced effect

where we apply the multiplier would generate an approximate $1.1 trillion increase in u.s. gross domestic product, g.d.p., including $352 billion in unemployment earnings based on present discounted value over an average construction period of seven years. furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs would be required during each year of construction. two million jobs. many of these projects are still blocked by government red tape and the permitting process. that's why i have introduced a states-first all of the above energy plan for our country to get these projects going. if you think about it, it just makes sense. the states, after all, are the laboratories of democracy. let's make them the laboratories of energy for our country, and

the right energy plan is about much more than just energy. it means economic growth, it means national security and it means jobs, jobs for those who are currently unemployed and jobs at a good wage. so today i'm offering amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation that will do all of these things. the first one i'd like to talk about for just a minute is the energy security act. i am pleased to join with the senior senator from wyoming, senator barrasso, and also our ranking member on the energy committee, senator lisa murkowski from alaska, as well as other cosponsors on the legislation, senator john cornyn of texas, obviously a big energy-producing state, senator gyms inhofe of oklahoma, and senator david vitter of louisiana.

what the energy security act does, quite simply, is first it approves the keystone x.l. pipeline project. now, this is a more than $5 billion pipeline that has been in the permitting process now for more than five years. we're now in the sixth year of the permitting process, trying to get a permit from the administration. we have thousands of pipelines all across this country, millions of miles of pipeline, and here's a project that for six years the administration has held in limbo. the latest, greatest technology, moves canadian oil, our closest ally, moves oil from canada, as well as oil from my state, north dakota and montana, to refineries across the united states. now, we import 50% of our oil. do americans want to get that from the middle east or do they want to produce it here in our

country and get it from our closest friend and ally, canada? that's an obvious answer. that's why in poll after poll, 3-1, americans wouldn't this project approved, but it remains in limbo. now in its sixth year of the permitting process on the part of the administration. so when i talk about those 350 projects, when i talk about $1.1 trillion in g.d.p., when we talk about almost two million american jobs that that study performed by the u.s. chamber of commerce identified, you can see what they're talking about. they're talking about this project that has been held up now until the sixth year. so the energy act would approve that project but it would also approve the 24 pending application that is would allow us to export l.n.g., liquefied natural gas, to our allies who need that help. right now in this country, we produce 30 trillion cubic feet

of natural gas a year. we consume about 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and that is growing rapidly. believe me, i know, we're flaring off natural gas in our state that we want to get to market. we need a market for that product, but right now, we're not allowed to export liquefied natural gas to countries like the nato countries. look what is going on in eastern europe. look what russia is doing in the ukraine. what's next? and what are the reasons that russia is able to take that kind of action and the european union is reluctant to put sanctions in place as a response is because europe, the ukraine, they are dependent on russia for natural gas, for energy. over one-third of the supply of the e.u.'s energy comes from russia. so we have an opportunity here. we can create economic activity. we can create jobs. we can use that natural gas that

we produce beyond what we need here at home to help our allies, and at the same time stand up to russian aggression. that's why i say this is -- this is about jobs, this is about getting our economy growing, but this is also very much about national security. our national security here at home, energy security for our country, but also security working with our allies to stand up against the kind of aggression that we see from russia and from president putin right now. in terms of jobs, the obama administration's state department, their own state department has estimated that the keystone x.l. pipeline during the construction phase will create more than 40,000 jobs. that's just that one project, more than 40,000 jobs. and if you look at some of the studies, very conservative studies on job creation, on the part of -- that will occur by approving these l.n.g.

applications, the national economic research associates identifies more than 45,000 jobs that would be created by expediting approval of those permits. let me give you just two examples so you understand the magnitude of what we're dealing with here. shineer energy wants to invest $11 billion in an export facility at corpus christi, texas. now, that's not one penny of government spending, not one penny. we have a huge deficit and we have a huge debt and we have got to get on top of it. that means controlling our spending, but that means we have got to have economic growth. so here are companies willing to invest and create jobs and create economic growth and create tax revenues. not raising taxes. creating tax revenue. why in the world do we hold them up? how would -- how does that make sense? how is that common sense? and here we are on an unemployment insurance bill

where we're going to spend more government money to pay people who remain unemployed when we could approve these projects and put them back to work at good-paying jobs, and instead of growing the deficit, we could actually create tax revenues from a growing economy. again, not higher taxes. from a growing economy to help reduce our deficit and debt. so the sheer energy project, $11 billion investment at the facility in corpus christi creates a market for some of the natural gas that is now being flared off. according to the perryman group, 3,000 construction jobs, far more indirect jobs during the construction phase. here is another project. exxon wants to build the golden pass l.n.g. facility at sabian, texas, which is on the border between texas and louisiana. that's a $10 billion investment, $10 billion investment. perryman group estimates that between both the direct construction jobs and indirect

jobs on the order of 45,000 jobs for the project during that construction, almost 4,000 permanent jobs. so you can see when we talk about the national economic research associates saying hey, there is going to be 45,000 jobs for these projects, that's a very exafort estimate and it creates so much more. not just good-paying jobs but also a growing economy, tax revenues to help with the deficit and national security and security working with our allies at a critical time, a critical time in eastern europe. in addition, i have offered other legislation, legislation i filed, but i am now offering as an amendment to this unemployment insurance bill. again, legislation that will create jobs and help people get back to work. the second one i want to mention

is the empower states act. the empower states act gives primary regulatory responsibility to the states when it comes to regulating hydraulic fracturing. the reality is a federal one-size-fits-all approach does not work for hydraulic fracturing because the way hydraulic fracturing is done across this country is very different in different states. the way they high drawlically -- the way they hydraulickicly fracture in, say, west virginia is different from north dakota. we drill down two miles, two miles vertical drill, and then we drill out for miles at that level, produce primarily oil, natural gas. huge amounts of natural gas and gas liquids as a by-product. but we are miles away from any potable water, which is much closer to the surface so it's

very safe. the water produced, the frac water as well as the water that comes up we put back down hole, in essence recycling the water. anything that can't be reused in essence goes back down hole, and that creates a recycling process. that's different than the way it's done in the marcellus shale, in places like new york, pennsylvania. it's different than the way it's done in west virginia. different than the way it's done in the utica shale in ohio. some similarities with the way it's done in texas in eagleford where they also drill for oil. the point is the way this is done, the technologies used, even the product we're going after and certainly the formations are different across the country. so when you put a one size -- a federal one-size-fits-all approach in place, it doesn't work. not only does it not do the job in terms of making sure you have

the right kind of regulation, it holds up projects. it prevents job creation. it doesn't allow our economy to grow. it doesn't empower us to produce the energy that could be produced across this country with the right approach, with the right energy plan. as far as job creation, our state is now the fastest-growing state. we have the lowest unemployment and we have the fastest-growing economy. 7.6% in the most recent statistic versus 2.6% average for the other states. again, this is about creating a growing economy. it is about creating jobs. also i'm offering the domestic energy and jobs legislation that i filed as an amendment to this bill. deja is a series of bills that have already passed the house. this is all legislation that has already passed the house. so we know that if we can get a vote here, the legislation that we can pass here has already

gone through the house. we're already a huge distance on the journey to getting this done. what does the domestic energy and jobs act do? it does exactly what the title says. reduces the regulatory burden, sets goals, helps produce more energy and create jobs. for example, we establish an american energy development plan for federal lands. we've got all these federal lands, millions and millions of acres of federal lands both onshore and offshore. the department of insheer kwror should have -- interior should have a faln -- should have a plan to develop energy. this legislation would require them to do that. we freeze and study the impact of e.p.a. rules on gasoline regulations. that benefits all americans at the pump, not only small businesses look to go hire people, but families, all consumers. we provide onshore oil and gas leasing certainty, meaning that

the department of interior has to approve the permits within a stipulated reasonable period of time. it advances offshore wind production. this is about producing renewable energy as well as traditional energy. it streamlines the permitting process. it provides access to the national petroleum reserve for development in alaska. it requires the b.l.m. to hold live internet auctions. let's use this new technology to encourage investment in job creation, in energy development in new and creative ways. it establishes rules on surface mining that makes sense, commonsense rules. it increases states' revenue sharing for outer continental shelf drilling, offshore drilling. and it also offers lease-sales off the virginia coast. clearly developing these new areas creates revenue for the

states, creates revenues for the federal government, creates more energy for our country, creates more jobs. not spending federal money. investing hundreds of billions of private dollars that are currently sidelined in these new and exciting projects. finally i'm introducing the -- i'm offering the stream buffer rule legislation that i filed as a stand-alone bill. i'm offering that as an amendment as well to this u.i. bill. the department of taoeurpb kwror kwror -- interior wants to implement a federal one size fits all rule for extreme buffer zones meaning mining proximity to streams. a one-size federal approach for every situation does not work. allow the states to take the primary role in regulating the stream buffer zones and let them

do what makes sense. with all this legislation, we can empower hundreds of billions in private investment. we can put that investment in good old-fashioned american ingenuity into getting our country going, getting our economy growing, and getting our people back to work. we can do it. the way we can get started is simply by voting. that's what we do here. that's what we do in this senate forum. let us put forward our ideas. let's have a vote. if it passes, we can do these things. but why in the world wouldn't we get a vote? that's what this body is all about. let's have the debate. come on down. let's have the debate. let's debate each one of these, and a lot more. that's what we do. and then let's vote.

and that's how we'll decide. that's what the american people expect us to do. they sent us here to do just that. so the question i have is: why aren't we voting on these amendments and a lot more? if we're serious about getting people back to work, if somebody wants to come down and refute this, come on down, do it. and then let's vote. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i want to commend my colleague, the senator from north dakota here not only for his leadership on so many energy initiatives, but for the proposal that he has put forth here this afternoon. i'm pleased to be able to join

him in support of those various measures, measures that as he has outlined will not only as a nation allow us to move forward, take that leadership role which we so rightly, so rightly have, and really should use as something to benefit not only ourselves and our economy, jobs within the nation, but really to benefit other nations. and so the proposal that he has advanced, again, that i am pleased to join him on, one that allows for incredible jobs and opportunities with the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline, provisions that will allow for expedited prosing of our l. -- processing of our l.n.g. exports, recognizing again that when we produce more

in this country, when we produce more of a resource that not only allows us to be more energy secure, but that also helps our friends and allies around the world, that also helps to really effectively reduce the cost of that energy to american consumers, how can this possibly be a negative? how can this possibly be bad when it adds to jobs? when it strengthens our economy, when it makes us more secure as a nation? so there are many, many win-wins that i think we see in these energy proposals that we have in front of us, that senator hoeven has offered up. but, again, if you only have an opportunity to kind of talk loud about them but never actually have a chance to move them forward, move them forward through a legislative process so that they can actually become law, so we can actually see

those benefits play out, it doesn't do us much good. so i appreciate what my colleague has outlined this afternoon through his proposals. i know we'll have an opportunity to speak further to them tomorrow, and i look forward to doing that as well. mr. president, i wanted to take just five minutes in this late afternoon to continue to educate not only my colleagues, but folks within the administration and really around the country about an unjustice that continues to unfold in a small corner of my state, a very remote part of the state in southwestern alaska, a small community by the name of king cove, about 509 people that live -- 950 people that live in king cove. i have been fighting now since i came to the united states senate -- and before i came my father took up this fight in an effort to get a small connector road, a small ten-mile, one-lane

gravel, noncommercial use road that will allow the people of king cove access to an all-weather airport so that they can get out in the event of medical emergencies. mr. president, we had another one last night, another one last night. i got an e-mail saying that the weather had just completely taken over in the gulf, in king cove, and there was an emergency call that went out, a 58-year-old fisherman who had been injured. he had been out on a seattle-based processor called the m.v. golden alaska. this fisherman just happened to live in seattle, and he was on board this boat. they were out near unamac, out towards the chain in the north pacific when this fisherman was

accidentally sprayed with a high-pressure hose and it severely injured his eye. it was 1:00, 1:00 a.m. when this incident happened. so you've got this big vessel, this big processing vessel, 305-foot. it was headed from dutch harbor to seattle when the accident happened. i don't have a map with me. about if you can just envision, there's a lot of big wide-open ocean, and medical care is a long, long way away, and this fisherman couldn't wait for that medical care. the closest deep-water port was king cove. king cove got the word that they had this injured fisherman on board, and they said, look, our clinic, our clinic can't handle somebody that has critical needs. see if you can take the boat over to cold bay so that not

necessarily he can get medical care, but so that he could get on an aircraft out of cold bay that could fly him the 600 miles or thereabouts to anchorage for the medical care that he needed. but the problem that they faced was they had wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour. they had rough seas, really rough seas. the ship captain said i'm not going in to cold bay. i'm not going to try to hoist a guy who's been severely injured to his eye, i'm not going to try to hoist him up a 20-foot ladder at the cold bay dock. we're not going to do that. they went into king cove, a safer, more protected could he have, and they were able to get the gentleman there at

11:30 a.m. the physician's assistant -- we don't have a doctor in king cove. we've got a p.a., somebody that basically does a good job in stabilizing folks. he contacted the emergency room there in anchorage and the e.r. folks said look, you've got to get this guy to an ophthalmologist as soon as you possibly can in order to preserve as much of his eyesight as possible. as i mentioned not only does king cove not have a doctor, they don't have any kind of an eye specialist. the nearest ophthalmologist is in anchorage, more than 600 miles away. the p.a., k.d. eebee did what health professionals at the clinic always do in an emergency like this. she calls for help to the coast guard. she begs the coast guard to come. coast guard says they'll come but they can't come now. they can't chance the weather to

get in there. they're not going to risk a pilot and his crew to get in to this situation where you unnecessarily put even more lives at risk. so they said, look, we're going to have to wait until the conditions improve and the winds die down. so the physician's assistant trao*eus -- tries to stabilize the physician, manage his pain as best she can and basically she just waits, holding the hand of a man and telling him the coast guard will come. the -- and the coast guard did come around 3:00 the next day. so this injured fische fishermas 18 hours for the wind to settle. mr. president, the problem with this story, of course, is there are other alternatives for this

fisherman who has been injured who had to wait in pain, wonder if he's going to go blind, if he's going to completely lose his eyesight while he's waiting for the -- for the coast guard to come in in a helicopter, pluck him out, fly him over to cold bay and then have a flight to take him to anchorage. the other alternative, the safe, reliable, affordable way out is a 10-mile one-lane gravel, noncommercial use road. if that fisherman could have been put in an ambulance and taken across that road, a dozen hours could have been spared. and, mr. president, this -- this medevak yesterday marks the fifth medevak by the coast guard in this current year, in 2014 we

have had five coast guard medevaks. keep in mind, each one of these medevaks costs around $210,000 per flight. so those that are saying that we can't have a road in king cove because it's going to cost the taxpayers money, let me tell ya, it's costing the taxpayers money because we're footing the bill for the coast guard. and thank goodness the coast guard is there. but we're also putting the lives of these men and women, our fine coasties, at risk when we're doing this. but if we had a road, who's building the road? it's the state of alaska. who's maintaining it i maintain? it's the aleutian's east borrow. it's not the united states taxpayers paying for this. again, 10-mile, one-lane gravel non-commercial use road. you've got options here. the secretary of the interior has determined she wants to look at other options, she wants to

find other alternatives. well, mr. president, the fact of the matter is we've been looking at alternatives for a long time now and those alternatives have been tried and failed or studied and reviewed and discarded. but the one thing that we're pretty sure of is that this fisherman from seattle who got injured and had to wait 13 hours to get out, we're pretty sure that we could have put him on an ambulance across that road if one existed. and that he would not have had to wait for 12 hours. we're pretty sure that the 63-year-old woman who suffered heart issues on valentine's day and had to wait hours and hours and hours for the coast guard to pluck her out of king cove before she was able to safely make it to the hospital in anchorage, we're pretty sure

that she could have been spared some of that agony. we're pretty sure that a couple weeks ago when a father who has been crushed by a 600-pound crab pot and his pelvis is crushed and his legs broken and the hours and hours and hours that he waited in the king cove clinic to get medevaked out, and the fact that his infant son, a one-month-old baby named wyatt who was there in respiratory distress also had to be medevaked out on this same day. only that baby had to make it through the nights in the arms of the physician's assistant. and that p.a., knowing and feeling that that infant was in distress and actually felt him stop breathing, if we'd had a road, if we'd had a road in place, the -- the agony of not

only the individuals who have been injured but the -- but the loved ones who care about them. there are -- there are better alternatives, mr. president, and it's very clear to me that the alternative that works -- that works for the people who live there and the people who are in the area -- the fishermen -- maybe i'm taking this a little bit too personally, mr. president, because my oldest son crabbed in the bering sea this winter. he was out in those waters. he was out in that foul weather. he was work not guilty a very dangerous industry. if anybody's ever watched "deadliest catch," you know what i'm talking about. both my sons fish in these areas. they go through the gulf of alaska. they go through eunamack pass every year as fishermen. and if something should happen to them or somebody else on their crew and the closest

deepwater port for them happens to be king cove but the weather is to the ground, i want a road for them. i want a road for the people in king cove. i want a road for the seattle fisherman who is transiting ba back. because it's a lifeline, mr. president. it's a way to get to help. and right now the one thing that's keeping these people from getting help is the secretary of the interior. because she has concluded -- she has concluded that we cannot build a 10-mile, one-lane gravel non-commercial use road without disturbing the water fowl, the black brandt and the gees that t go through the eisenbeck. we've all heard my stories on this many, times before, many, many times before. we know that we can build this

small road and have it coexist peacefully with the birds that go through there. we know that the people who live there will continue to care for the water fowl and the wildlife just as they have for thousands of years. so, mr. president, i just -- i don't want to keep coming to the floor and ranting about why we need this road. i don't want to make it appear that we're sensationalizing injuries of men and women and children for purposes of winning this fight. but, mr. president, i'm not going to have somebody die out there when we could have found a safer and saner path forward. so i'm going to keep coming to the floor. i'm just hoping that -- that secretary of interior is

listening, that folks in the administration are listening and that they understand that we in alaska can be responsible for the lands where we live and we can provide for the health and safety of those who are out there and those who are transiting through. but we need -- we need this secretary to do the right thing for the people of the state of alaska and provide for a lifesaving road. with that, mr. president, i thank you. i would 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 south carolina.

mr. graham: i would like unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. greenhouse gamr.objection.grahae recognize ad for a few minutes -- you. mr. graham: just to be recognized for a few minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. there is an issue facing this country that needs to be addressed firmly and decisively. i am encouraged that there is a bipartisan effort to deal with the issue. the issue is very simple: the person who's been nominated to be the u.n. ambassador for iran is a gentleman who participated in the takeover of our base in tehran and holding hostage u.s. personnel, 52, i believe, for 444 days. this is a slap in the face by the iranian government to the american people, to the hostages, and it should not be allowed to stand. senator cruz, i believe, will be

offering an unanimous consent request potentially dealing with this issue, but i just wanted to rise for a few minutes and speak in support of what he is trying to accomplish in the senate, and i am somewhat encouraged that there is a bipartisan effort forming among our intel folks to deal with this affront to the american people, to all those held hostage, and basically to human dignity. the idea that the iranians would be appointing someone connected in such an apparently direct way with the embassy takeover back in 1979 to represent their nation in the u.n. tells you all need to know about iran. this hard-line, moderate divide doesn't exist. this is all game.

the president of iran when he was the negotiator for iran bragged about how much progress they made when the heat was off. and if he were truly moderate, he wouldn't be on the ballot and wouldn't be serving today at the pleasure of the ayatollah. nobody serves in iran without the blessing of the leader. i don't want to butcher his name, the ambassador to the united nations from iran, when he ihe has actively participaten violating every diplomatic principle in law, the idea of invading a consulate orange or n embassy runs afoul of every principle of international law and diplomatic behavior. it would be different if in the

last 30 or so years the iranian regime had changed. we have relationships with people today that are some of our strongest allies that used to be our enemies. well, there's nothing changing in iran since the embassy takeover that would make iran in the column of a friend of america. this regime has been actively involved in worldwide terrorism plots. they have provided equipment to those we were fighting in iraq to kill our soldiers. they support hamas and hezbollah, two terrorist organizations. they have been designated by our state department as state sponsors of terrorism. they are trying to build a nuclear wp, no wp, not weapon, r plant. i hope this body will send a

signal to the iranians that we will not accept on u.s. soil the person you have designated because this person was actively engaged in holding 52 americans hostage for 444 days in contravention of every law on the books and human decency and that if you want a new relationship with the united states, this is not a good way to start it. so, mr. president, i think there will be a lot of bipartisan objection to allowing this person to come in to new york. we have provisions in our laws that give us the right, as the host nation, to exclude people who have been involved in acts of terrorism against the united states or that may present a security threat. again, the idea of doing business with former enemies is the way life is. the idea of accepting as the ambassador to the united nations

from iran one of the people intricately involved in taking over our embassy and holding americans hostage for 444 days is an affront to us as a people and to the united nations as a whole, and he has served in other posts in europe. that's not the issue. it was our embassy that was taken over. it was our people that were held hostage. and the hostages -- surviving hostages are very upset, as they should be. you don't want to reward people for doing bad things. this would be the ultimate reward for somebody who did a very bad thing, and it would be, i think, a mistake to engage iran this way. not push back. if you want a better relationship with iran, you're going to have to fight for it, and you're going to have to stand up to these people, because they'll take advantage of us if we allow them. so i will look forward to

supporting senator cruz's efforts and others who want to join in the effort to stop this man's appointment, because it is wrong. with that, i will yield back and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense

with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to draw attention to an extraordinarily dangerous situation that our country faces under current law which allows known terrorists to be granted visas to the united states under the cover of being ambassadors to the united nations. the president of the islamic republic of iran, hassan rouhani, has recently announced that hamid abutabli will be his new ambassador to the u.n., which is, of course, headquartered in manhattan, new york, and a visa application has been duly filed. in most cases, indeed until now in all cases, such applications for ambassadors have been granted in accordance with

article 13 of the united nations charter, but mr. abutabli is a special case as he was a member of the muslim students following the imman's line, the grucci that held 52 americans hostage in tie ran for 444 days from 1979-1981. he protests that his involvement was limited to translation and negotiation, but, madam president, he was sufficiently involved for the -- quote -- muslim students organization which is still active to feature to this day his photon their official web site celebrating that historic outrage against the united states of america. and now the obama administration is considering granting this person a visa to come to the united states.

i have to wonder in the words of c.i.a. director stanesfield turner in the movie "argo," you don't have a better bad idea than this? it is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic protocol the united states would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were stationed in his country. this person is an acknowledged terrorist. in a january 3, 1980 state of the union address, then-president jimmy carter called the hostages -- quote -- "innocent victims of terrorism and their captivity an act of -- quote -- international terrorism. i do not believe that anyone beyond perhaps the supreme leader in tie ran, has debated

president carter's characterization since then, nor do i think i have ever agreed more emphatically with president carter. it is therefore necessary to amend the statute that currently gives the president the discretion to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she as it currently states has engaged in espionage against the united states and poses a national security threat. the legislation that i have introduced, s. 2195, will require the president to deny a u.n.-related applicant a visa if the president determines the applicant has engaged in terrorist activity against the united states, has engaged in espionage against the united states or poses a national security threat to the united states. i will note that i very much

appreciated the kind comments and the impassioned support for this legislation from the senior senator from south carolina. this legislation speaks to the larger issue of who we have to let into this country. madam president, how would we feel, for example, if the taliban had sent osama bin laden to be an ambassador to the united nations from afghanistan? or how would we feel if some other country sent an ambassador who was complicit in the terrorist attack that murdered 220 marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers in beirut in 1983? or, madam president, how would we feel in another country sent as an ambassador someone who was complicit in the attack on kobar towers that murdered 19 airmen in 1986, to name but a few potential examples? none of these examples would

necessarily meet the current statutory requirement of having engaged in espionage. they murdered or kidnapped or tortured innocent americans, but they didn't necessarily engage in the specific act of espionage, but all unequivocally should be excluded. this legislation would ensure that such people can never use the united nations to gain entry into the united states. now, madam president, i had intended this afternoon to ask the senate for unanimous consent to pass this legislation to change the standard so that we could exclude a known terrorist from entering into this country, but i am told -- and i'm pleased to report that i have been told that there is a real possibility of bipartisan cooperation on this, a real possibility that both sides of the aisle will work together to expeditiously change this law so that we can keep this known terrorist out of

the united states. i am encouraged by that possibility of cooperation. i hope it comes to fruition, and i hope this week we see the senate act in a bipartisan way, in a unanimous way to change this law to exclude this known terrorist. i want to make a broader point, madam president. this nomination is willfully, deliberately insulting and contemptuous. it is not an accident that rouhani picked a known terrorist who held americans hostage to send to our country. and i would suggest that this action should serve as a wake-up call that the regime in tehran is directed by the same policies that resulted in the hostage crisis in the first place. there has been considerable optimism expressed by the obama administration in the months following the election of

president rouhani that iran is somehow softening its position towards the west, that rouhani is somehow a moderate and is acting as a good-faith partner in its negotiations over its nuclear program. this nomination should dispel those i illusions because the professed optimism of this administration flies in the face of reason. on the eve of the first round of these talks in november, the revolutionary guard surrendered american south africa sayed abidini, unfairly incarcerated for just professing his christian faith from the evan prison to the even more brutal ravashar prison, carefully selecting the date of that transfer to be the anniversary of the hostage crisis. what they called death to america day in iran. after the joint plan of action was agreed to in late november,

which one of our slowsest allies has rightly assessed as a very, very bad deal, an historic mistake, president rouhani triumphantly tweeted, in english, no less, that in the geneva agreement -- quote -- "world powers have surrendered to iran's will." madam president, these are hardly the words of a threat. last february, the iranian government released a statement declaring that the nation of israel is -- quote -- a cancerous tumor that must be removed. madam president, these are not the words of a rational negotiating partner. now, the choice of mr. aboutalebi for ambassador to the united nations once again demonstrates that same militant

hatred of america that has dominated iran's foreign policy since the revolution, and it continues to flourish unabated. indeed, there is a reason iran refers to israel as the little satan and america as the great satan. it is astonishing, it is dismaying, it is dangerous that the administration continues to engage in these talks, given the clear and consistent message of hostility coming out of tehran. the legislation that i am introducing will take the first step by establishing that there are no circumstances under which the perpetrators of the hostage crisis, those who have committed overt acts of war against america will be welcomed into the united states. this action should be followed by the president's suspending the geneva negotiations unless and until iran not only ceases this behavior but also ceases all enrichment activities and

dismantles their nuclear program in its entirety. then and only then should there be meaningful dialogue between our two countries. in 1979, madam president, our citizens had to wait more than a year during which they were tortured by their captors. before they were finally released on january 20, 1980. not coincidentally, on the very day on which ronald reagan was inaugurated as president. i am encouraged at the prospect of bipartisan cooperation so that we can stand together as a unanimous senate against allowing a known terrorist into the united states who has participated in acts of war against our nation. we should not extend the ordeal of those hostages even further by tolerating this most recent outrage on the part of iran.

one of the former hostages, barry rosen, called the possibility that the united states might grant the visa application a -- quote -- disgrace, and he said it may be setting a precedent, but if the president and congress don't condemn this act by the islamic republic, then our captivity and suffering at the hands of iran was for nothing. madam president, i believe it is well worth setting a precedent to show the world that whatever smiling mask is on the other side of the table in geneva, the true face of tehran remains the terrorist who took our people hostage 35 years ago who they are now attempting to send to america under the auspices of being an ambassador. instead, i believe we should stand together in saying that no known terrorist who has carried

out acts of war against america will, in mr. rosen's words, each of them should -- quote -- never set foot on american soil. madam president, i hope we can stand together in this. madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are indeed. ms. klobuchar: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i rise today to urge the drug enforcement administration to issue the final rule necessary to implement the secure and responsible drug disposal act of 2010. i note that year, madam president, 2010, because that is the year this bipartisan bill was passed. what it does is it provides consumers with safe and responsible ways to dispose of unused prescription medications and controlled substances. and i want to thank senator cornyn, who is a cosponsor, the

lead cosponsor on the republican side of this legislation, as well as senator grassley, senator brown for working with me on the legislation. the important law expands safe disposal options for individuals and for long-term care facilities and it promotes the development and expansion of prescription drug take-back programs. and as you know, madam president, this simply means that when you get prescription drugs and you don't use all of them or your doctor prescribes something else, that you don't just leave them in your medicine cabinet where someone else might be taking them. instead, you find a safe place to dispose of them so someone else doesn't start taking them and potentially get hooked on the drugs. now why did i mention 2010? well, 2010 was the year that the president, president obama, signed this bill into law. it has now been four years -- four years -- as we've awaited the rules. and i'll describe why, but i think it is time to put this law into action.

the d.e.a. issued a proposed rule in december 2012. unfortunately that took two years and there were comments then about making sure the rules work for our long-term care facilities. you can imagine there are a lot of prescription drugs at long-term care facilities and the department of defense and veterans affairs. that these issues should be addressed in the final rule. and it's time now to get the rules done so that we have more options to easily and safely dispose of our prescription drugs. i know that the final rule is now at the office of management and budget for their approval. i have spoken to them about this rule and i'm also aware they have only had the rule for 35 days, so they are not really the ones that have been holding this up. they have 90 days to get this out, and they pledged that they hope to get this done. we need to get the rule done and let me tell you why. as a former prosecutor, i've seen firsthand the devastating impact that drug addiction has on families and communities.

during my eight years as chief prosecutor in hennepin county, the largest county in our state, drug cases made up about one-third of the caseload. most americans know that we have a problem with serious drugs, but what most americans may not know is that it is one of our most serious drug problems is in fact drugs that are in the medicine cabinet, drugs that are prescribed legally. within those cabinets are some of the most addictive prescription drugs out there, like painkillers and beta blockers. prescription drugs like these are some of the most commonly abused drugs, and people are surprised by this but they're ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine in many states. teenagers abuse prescription drugs more than any other drug and the majority of teens who use these drugs get them for free. they get them in that medicine cabinet or more likely a friend gets them from their mom or dad's medicine cabinet often without the knowledge of the

person that has it. i think we all know many leftover drugs are lying around. you go to see the dentist for surgery and they prescribe you something for pain. you feel okay, you only take one or two and then you have ten left, and they're just sitting in the medicine cabinet. we used to tell people, madam president, to flush these drugs down the toilet. this is not a good idea for our water supply, and i think most people know that. some people will tell you that the proper way to dispose of your drugs is to crush up your extra pills, then mix them with -- and this is what they say -- kitty litter or coffee grounds. now we need to do all we can to keep these dangerous drugs out of the hands of teens, but i'm just not sure, especially if someone doesn't have a cat, that kitty litter is a realistic solution. and not everyone these days makes their own coffee. so we're dealing here with a very serious problem and all we're hearing about is kitty litter and coffee grounds, and that is why we passed this bill.

one option parents have is to dispose of leftover drugs at a national take-back day. over three million pounds of prescription medications have been removed from circulation through seven national take-back days that have been housed since 2010. i participated in one of those days in brooklyn park, minnesota, last fall. while these events have been incredibly successful, one-day events held a few times each year do not fully address the problem of how we're going to dispose of our drugs safely. for instance, let's say you heard about a take-back day right after you had your dental surgery. great, you can bring over those pills and safely dispose of them but then you remember your kid has a soccer tournament and you can't make it that day to dispose of the drugs. looks like those pills are going to stay sitting right where they are in the medicine cabinet, and i doubt many people have the time right then and there to call and ask when the next take-back day might be and put it on their calendar in a red

pen. we have to be realistic. these take-back days are great and under my district under the leadership of the sheriff we have permanent facilities in places where they can be brought permanently, the drugs, in the libraries and places like that. so we really have gone the extra step. but the reason our law enforcement is such a big fan of this law, they know that we could take so many more drugs in if, for instance, long-term care facilities were able to simply bring the drugs to one location each and every day. if, for instance, and some of the -- some of our drugstore have been open to this, some of the national chains would be willing to take these back and they bring them somewhere. to do that they need certain legal protections, they need protections about how they transport them. that is why we have been awaiting these rules. given the food and drug administration's recent approval of some very powerful drugs, i think it is even more important

that we make sure when these drugs are out there they be able to be disposed of. offering more ways for people to dispose of their unneeded prescription drugs is also a crucial component of stopping the recent rise we've seen in heroin. that might seem counterintuitive. you would say why would that help with heroin? that is not a prescription drug. how could that reduce the amount of heroin out there when we know we've seen huge increases in the amount of heroin. we have seen it in our city. the heroin epidemic in minnesota and all across the country is deadly. in the first half of 2013, 91 people died of opiate-related overdoses in the twin cities in hennepin and ramsey counties, compared to 129 for all of 2012, just to give you a sense, six months compared to a year. hospital emergency department visits for heroin nearly tripled from 2004 to 2011. in a 7,000 person community of

st. francis, minnesota, three young people died of opiate overdoses since may. another three young people have been hospitalized for heroin overdoses. one was only 15 years old. experts blame this rise in heroin use to, first of all, some coming, pure heroin coming from mexico. but secondly, an increased use of prescription drugs likeocracy con continue -- like oxycontin and vicodin. that's because as many as four out of five heroin drug users got their start by using prescription drugs. i think people think of heroin like from the 1970's and people shooting up. it is not like that anymore. they can take it by pills, they can take it by different ways. what happens is when they start with these prescription drugs and they have access to them, they get hooked. they get addicted. then when they can't get the prescription drugs, which does happen, then they turn to heroin. and heroin right now is much

easier to obtain. so the answer here, because those drugs are similar in how they make them feel, the answer is to stop them from getting addicted in the first place. i think oftentimes when people see a drug in the medicine cabinet or know it's okay to take one of these types of drugs, oxycontin, other things for pain, they don't intend to get addicted. i had a round table at hazelton, one of the nation's premier treatment centers. a lot of times people that end up dying from a heroin overdose might be casual heroin users, not doing it every single day. that is because the heroin was a replacement for the prescription drugs they started getting addicted to when they got them out of a medicine cabinet or maybe they were prescribed them. we know this isn't going to fix everything, but certainly making it easier and empowering people to dispose of these drugs will, number one, clearly cut down on the use of these prescription drugs and then we believe lead to less heroin use in the long term. americans all across the country

in cities, suburbs and small towns need options to get rid of leftover pills before they fuel addictions and claim the lives of their loved ones. the secure and responsible drug disposal act provides these options but we can't take these crucial steps in the fight against drug abuse until the d.e.a. issues its final rule. after four years, madam president, it is time to make these rules official. four years that families in long-term facilities have lost out on safe and easy options to get rid of unused prescription drugs. four years those plastic amber bottles piled up in medicine cabinets across america. four years dangerous pills have been left vulnerable to misuse, potentially falling into the hands of our loved ones fighting addiction or criminals or being accidentally consumed by an innocent child. we need the final rules. we must get them done right. but with so much at stake, we must get them done now. thank you, madam president.

i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas.

moremr. moran: madam president, thank you. it is april fools day but it feels like groundhog day because we're here considering an extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of americans who have been out of work for months and some of them even years. mr. moran: while assistance for those without work serves an important purpose in helping americans transition, we are failing to address the underlying and more important issue, how do we grow the economy and create jobs for all of our citizens? a growing economy creates new opportunities for americans to find meaningful work and for meaningful work comes an opportunity for americans to improve their economic security and advance up that economic ladder. it's one of the reasons that senator wyden and i started the economic mobility caucus. we wanted to study the facts and explore policy improvements that could make a difference to increase the likelihood that all americans can do just that. improve their standard of living and move up that economic ladder

to a better life. according to the monthly bureau of labor statistics, their report indicates that 10.5 million americans are unemployed. 7.2 million americans are working part time because they can't find full-time work. 2.4 million americans want to work but have stopped searching. what a sad circumstance that is for those folks. and our labor participation rate is hovering around its 35-year low at 63%. and while these statistics and the lives that these numbers represent are pretty discouraging, i want to talk about a piece of good news. we know we can create jobs and we can create a growing economy, and we know from the facts, from the studies that entrepreneurship, starting a business, giving americans the chance to pursue the american dream is the key.

the coffen foundation in kansas city studied entrepreneur and they made clear most new jobs comes from businesses created by entrepreneurs. since 1960 nearly all the net new jobs created in our country have been created by companies less than five years old. it kind of makes sense. big businesses often looking for ways to cut costs reduce their workforce. new businesses wanting to succeed increase their workforce. and in fact, these new businesses create on average three million jobs each year. unfortunately, the number of new business start-ups, those businesses formed each year, is around its lowest total since the bureau of labor statistics began keeping track over 40 years ago. so while we know that start-up companies have a great opportunity to create jobs, we're creating the fewest number of start-up businesses in nearly 40 year.

a couple of authors that john deerey and courtney cadaouldi give, they're authors of a book called "where the jobs are," they point out in that book that the vital signs of america's job creating entrepreneurial economy are flashing red alert. john and courtney spent an entire summer travel the united states. they met with more than 200 entrepreneurs in dozens of cities to learn about the challenges those entrepreneurs are facing. what they found is no surprise to anybody in this chamber. they are the same issue i hear whe -- issues ihear when i'm ba, capital, regulatory burden, and, boy, a lot of uncertainty, most of it, much of it resulting from actions or lack of actions here in washington, d.c. a few years back i set out with a bipartisan group of senators to address the challenges that

entrepreneurs face. together we developed legislation called "start-up act 3.0" to create a better environment for those whose dream to the start a new business. senate majority leader is frequently talking about allowing votes on legislation that have bipartisan support and this bill, start-up 3.0, is such a bill. spent time working with senator warner and senator coons, senator kaine and senator klobuchar as well as senator blunt and senator rubio and we introduced what i would say is a very commonsense approach to addressing the factors that influence an entrepreneur's chance of success -- taxes, regulations, access to capital, access to talent. this legislation has been introduced as an amendment to the unemployment insurance extension bill that the senate is now considering. unfortunately, at least so far we've been denied the

opportunity to have a vote on what is clearly a job-creating measure. i've offered this as an amendment to other bills before the senate floor -- on the senate floor, but if the past is any example of what the -- what will happen on this bill, the chances of us being able to offer the amendment, have it considered and voted on doesn't look very probable. start-up 3.0 makes changes to the tax code to encourage investment in start-ups and provide more capital for those who already -- are ready to grow and to hire. to address burdensome government regulations, this legislation, now this amendment, requires federal agencies to determine whether the cost of new regulations outweigh the benefits and encourage federal agencies to give special consideration of the impact proposed regulations would have on a start-up business. as any entrepreneur knows, a good idea is essential to starting a successful business and so start-up 3.0, an amendment now to this bill, improves the process by which

information that is funded by federal research, information that is garnered by federal research, is more readily available to those who want to start a business so that tax-funded innovations can be turned into companies that spur economic growth. and finally, start-up 3.0 provides new opportunities for highly educated and entrepreneurial imgroonts stay in the -- immigrants to stay in the united states where their talent and new ideas can fuel economic growth and create jobs in america. for more than two years, start-up act 3.0 has earned praise from business owners, from chambers of commerce, from economic development officials, entrepreneurs, economists and elected officials. recently the california state senate passed a resolution calling on congress to pass start-up act 3.0 and the president's council on jobs and competitiveness when it was in existence had voiced support, strong support, for several of the bill's provisions. unfortunately, none of that support from across the country

has progressed in a way that in the halls of congress this legislation has been seriously considered. i can tell you that the reason congress has not been able to address our economic challenges isn't for lack of good ideas. in my view, it's a lack of leadership in the senate and within the administration, within washington, d.c., to address the challenges that americans face. there are plenty of good ideas that can provide immediate relief to americans. many ideas, in addition to start-up 3.0, some of those examples are a 40-hour work week. the house is poised to pass legislation -- some of my colleagues are proposing legislation and amendments here in the senate -- to change the full-time employment from 30 hours, as outlined in the affordable care act, back to the 40 hours. small businesses, restaurants, school districts and community colleges across kansas and around the country are already cutting hours to comply with the employer mandate of the

affordable care act. by fixing this provision, we can make certain that americans, hardworking americans have the opportunity to work more hours, earn a bigger paycheck, or find full-time employment. many of us believe -- in fact, a large majority of the united states senate in a bipartisan way -- believe that approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline will help us in two ways -- reduce energy costs in the united states -- a very important factor in new jobs and expanding the economy -- as well as increasing employment during the construction of that pipeline. a recent poll by "washington post" and abc news shows that americans support this 3-1. and, again, 80-some senators voted in favor of moving forward with the keystone pipeline and yet it hasn't happened. and the president has not made a decision in regard to the keystone pipeline, has stalled this issue out and nothing in the senate would suggest that

the leadership of the senate is ready to move to move this ball. president talks about trade promotion authority, spoke about it in one of his state of the union addresses and yet that's another issue that has not been considered by the senate. the president apparently has backed off of this issue out of deference to politics and yet we know -- i certainly know this in kansas -- that the airplanes that we make in south central kansas, the wheat we grow in western kansas, the cattle we grow in our state -- that we raise in our state, clearly they are much of the activities that comes from -- economic activity that comes from those activities occurs because we're able to sell those agriculture commodities and manufactured goods around the globe. millions of americans can be better off if there's greater opportunities for e things that we manufacture, the agricultural products that we grow have a wider market. the president and this congress, i'm sorry, and particularly this senate, not this congress, the democrat majority here has

focused much of their attention on, for example, the bill we're on, extending the unemployment insurance time frame. apparent until the near future, increasing the minimum wage. consider these facts. there are 3.6 million americans at or below the minimum-wage level. minimum-wage workers make up 2.5% of all workers and 55% are 25 years old or younger. so it's a relatively small portion of the work force and a young portion of the work force. and i'm certainly willing, happy to have a debate about the need to increase the minimum wage, to extend unemployment benefits, in part because i want this senate to operate. one of my greatest complaints since my arrival in the united states senate is the senate no longer functions as it has historically in which issues of importance to the country, whether they are republican issues, democrat issues,

american issues, the middle of the road, this place takes up those issues very rarely. and i'm willing to have the debate about the things that are proposed here. but what i'm thinking we're doing is that we're missing the real issue if we only deal with those, the minimum wage and extension of unemployment benefits is really a symptom of a larger problem. it is that americans want and need jobs, and in my view, this senate, this president has done nothing to increase the chances that americans have a better shot at finding a better job. we've got to grow the economy and by growing the economy -- and i think that sounds like something that's far removed from the everyday lives of americans -- but growing the economy simply means we are creating greater opportunities for american men and women, for husbands and wives, for sons and daughters, for families to have the opportunity to pursue a

career that they feel comfortable in, that is satisfactory to their economic needs, and gives them the hope that they can improve their lives financially in this economy. so growing the economy is about creating a greater opportunity for every american to pursue what we all have grown up calling the american dream. unfortunately, the facts, if you believe the congressional budget office, indicate that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. and, in fact, the numbers that i saw -- this wasn't the c.b.o. score but a texas university study indicated that raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour or more would reduce jobs in my home state by 27,300 jobs. and i -- i doubt that voters care much about c.b.o. reports or about a texas university study, but they are keenly aware, they see it every day in their own lives, about the lack of opportunity, the dearth of jobs, the reduction in hours,

the reduction in opportunity. and these reports make clear they are happening because of failed policies and the refusal of the senate and the president to address the broader issue of what can we do to create jobs for americans. i thought the message of 2010, the election that i was brought to the united states senate on behalf of kansans, i thought the message that we all would have, should have received, the message of the election was the desire for every american to have the chance to improve their lives through a job, through a better job, and through a secure job. and in my view, it's time for us to focus on growing the opportunities for all workers everywhere, of all nature, and with a willing congress, including leaders who understand these challenges and are willing to address them, i am certain we can create greater opportunities for millions of americans, including those who no longer or who currently have no meaningful work. a lack of a job is a terrible

thing othing. i think there's a certain moral component, a sense of well-being, a sense of who we are as human beings when we have a job that not only fulfills us financially but gives us a sense of purpose in our daily lives. and as the senate considers a short-term extension of unemployment insurance, we must not lose sight of that longer-term goal of creating an environment for job creation. again, i would offer start-up act 3.0, a bipartisan amendment, a bipartisan piece of legislation offered as an amendment, as an opportunity to do that as part of the consideration of the extension of unemployment benefits. there is no better way to create jobs than to support entrepreneurs and to foster the development of new businesses. small business is, as we always say, the backbone of american jobs. so let's stop having this grou groundhog day moment every few months and let's start tackling

the challenges that entrepreneurs across the country are telling us about, that americans are telling us about, that we learned in the 2010 election means to much to every american. unfortunately, this president and this senate has done nothing to improve the chances that every american has a better job and a brighter future. please, madam president, this is so important, there is so much that we can do. too many times we focus on what we are unable to agree upon, but there is so much that we can agree upon, so many things that we can do and the american dream depends upon us doing so and doing so now. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i'm here now for the 63rd 3rd

consecutive week we've been in session to ask my colleagues to finally wake up to the threat of climate change. the evidence mounts of unprecedented and changeous changes from the latest -- and dangerous changes. from the latest inte intergovernmental report to the report from the academy for the advancement of science. congress continues to sleepwalk, lulled by special interest influence and polluter propaganda. the influence and propagandaer spread through an apratt us of -- apparatus of denial. this apparatus is big and