quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i've come to the floor today to discuss the opportunity we have as a nation to truly take a leadership role when it comes to responsible development of the arctic region.

and as we discuss about the great opportunities and the challenges that face us, i think it is fair to say that i will also be expressing some disappointment with the general lack of resources that our federal government has invested in this important issue, including just mote most recently through the president's annual budget request. back in may of 2013, the obama administration released its national strategy for the arctic region, and the national strategy was really designed to set forth this government's strategic priorities for the arctic. pretty important to recognize what our priorities are going forward. and while that might sound impressive, an arctic -- a national strategy for the arctic region, what we ended up seeing was just an 11-page document,

really hard to describe it as strategic, are perhaps a more accurate description was that it was a glorified memo, a general outline, but there were a lot of gaps that needed to be filled in. and recognizing that this is a new area for us in terms of opportunities, and really for visioning, i was prepared to sit back, listen to what the administration had to say here and work with them as they built out this strategic vision. so when they released their implementation plan for the national strategy in late january, i was looking forward to it. i was looking forward to what had been gathered in meetings not only up in alaska, which alaska, the state of alaska is what makes the united states an arctic nation. but it was broader than just alaskans input, it was input

from so many of our agencies, so many of the departments, and yet when that national strategy, tim plementation plan was released, i have to admit that again i was underwhermd. -- underwhelmed. so, again, i made certain that the president, members of the administration knew my concerns and i told him -- these were my words when i wrote to him -- my concern was that his plan does not offer a vision to make the united states a leader in the arctic, particularly as we prepare for the chairmanship of the arctic council in may, 2015, nor does it suggest that the arctic is a national priority. instead, the plan provides a snapshot of existing arctic-related programs and projects with numerous assessments to be undertaken, but no real path of action.

so, mr. president, it was important for me as someone who cares very, very deeply about our role as an arctic nation, our role not only within the -- the confines of the federal government but our role going forward in the world among the other arctic nations, and truly, all of the nations throughout our planet here in terms of where the united states sits when it comes to our vision and our view for the arctic. the administration's plan would maintain our rather meager status quo in the arctic while the other arctic nations, the rest of the international community seem to be devoting increasing amounts of resources to the region.

it would also leave the residents of the far north, u.s. citizens up there in alaska, out in the cold when it comes to the u.s. government's own priorities rather than advance an agenda that will benefit those who live in the arctic, they are instead relegated to being part of a science project for observation and conservation. so let me give you an example of that. one of the proposed initiatives within the implementation plan is to -- quote -- "improve arctic communities sustainability, well-being and cultural and linguistic heritage." i have to say that is a pretty laudable goal. we certainly want to maintain, we certainly want to pass down the culture of our indigenous populations to future generations. we certainly want to improve their quality of life. and yet, within this initiative,

the administration has designated the smithsonian institution to be the lead agency for this particular initiative. it's as if the people of the far north, it's as if the inuit, the eskimo, the aleut, the upik are somehow or other people to be observed as part of a museum, exhibit, or perhaps placed under a glass bubble. now, combine this with the implementation plan's heavy emphasis on conservation, research into climate change and preemption on development on state, native and federal lands, and it's difficult for me to see any support by this administration for economic development, for job creation or really for a better quality of life for the people who live in the far north. so again, when we talk about the

national strategy for the implementation plan, climate is absolutely an issue that needs to be discussed and addressed. absolutely. development issues clearly need to be addressed. conservation clearly needs to be addressed. but we have to remember that there are people who live and raise and raise their families and work up in the arctic. and so making sure that we are thinking about them as we advance an implementation plan is key. but even with the implementation plan being rolled out in january, i thought, okay, there's still not enough meat on the bones here for me to really understand how we move forward

with a set of priorities, a real vision for the arctic. but, i knew that the president's budget was going to be coming out in march, and that's the opportunity for any president to establish his or her priorities when it comes to the budget. so i held out hope that when we saw the fy 2015 budget request that is where we would see some sort of coherent strategy come together. i expected that it would at least demonstrate the administration's desire to show some level of leadership in the arctic. my office was told that part of the purpose of the implementation plan and the designation of lead and support agencies was to gain an ability to propose jointly supported arctic projects that o.m.b.

would then deem important enough to be included in the budget request. but again, we looked through the budget, and i am disappointed, sorely disappointed, my immediate reaction to the budget request was we're seeing so much spending here through the budget proposal, but yet so very little attention paid to our needs and our opportunities in the arctic. a search of the 1,400-plus page detailed appendix for the administration's budget reveals only five requests, five requests for arctic-related act activity. two or for long-standing programs that have been funded for many years. one is the u.s. arctic research commission, very, very important. and then of course the north pacific research board. another is for international fisheries work done through the arctic council.

and the last two or for climate change-related activities. that's it. that's it, mr. president. five references, five references out of the 1,400-plus page appendix for the budget speaks to any arctic-related activity. you may ask why i'm disappointed, underwhelmed, perhaps a little bit agitated about where we are with advancing an implementation plan of strategic vision for the arctic. mr. president, in just about a year from now the united states will take over the chair of the arctic counsel. that chairmanship is held by canada now. i have had opportunities to sit down with the chair of the

arctic council who is from the nunavit area and talk about what canada is doing to really lead in so many different areas when it comes to arctic policy, arctic strategy not only for their nation, but all the arctic nations and beyond. and i look with a little bit of longing at how canada has truly embraced their leadership role as antarctic nation not only with statements of intention that are backed up by real resources, but an appreciation for what the future can hold for the arctic. so over the last several weeks we've had our prapgss subcommittees that are really starting to kick in to gear

here, and i've had the opportunity to ask several cabinet members, secretary johnson from the department of homeland security and secretary jewel from department of interior, i've had a chance to ask both of them about the department's budget priorities for the arctic. and specifically the program for which their departments have been designated as the lead agency within this implementation plan for fy 15, and both cabinet members have assured me, they said, yes, the arctic is a priority. it is important to the united states. but neither one of these cabinet members could tell me what their department's budget request contained for the arctic. they assured me they are going to be going back and seeing if they can't fill in those details for me. but to me, mr. president, that

is symbolic of the arctic's overall standing within the administration. there's lots of good words when asked about it. everyone is saying yes, it should be a priority. but yet, it doesn't seem to be important enough to be proactive on or to even be familiar with without prompting. now we all know that any president's budget request, regardless of party, is not likely to be enacted word for word and, quite honestly, recognizing politics more likely than not it is not going to be enacted at all. but if a budget request does signify something, it is the message, it is the signal of what the administration's priorities for that fiscal year and beyond are. and so it's apparent, at least in my view, that this administration is not willing to devote the resources necessary to make the arctic a true

priority. and that, to me, is very, very shortsighted. i think it's a failure of leadership, a failure to think ahead and to take the long view. and, mr. president, i recognize, as we all do, that we are at a time of budget constraint and restraint, that there is competition for all, all dollars as we look to make wise decisions here. but as we are setting priorities, as we are thinking towards the future and a longer-term view, we have to ensure, we have to ensure that the arctic is placed as a priority. some people would ask why we should care about it. is this just an alaska-specific issue? are these just alaska projects that we're talking about? why should the arctic really

matter to the united states? and the first is the reality that the arctic is a relatively blank slate right now. it is not presently an area that is subject to long-standing disputes or entrenched views. think about the significance of that. and when you look at the arctic, you've got your eight arctic nations around it. but whether it is, whether it's finland, norway, canada, the united states, russia, the area that occupies the arctic is not one that is known for conflict. think about the role that secretary kerry has. he doesn't have to worry about hot spots here in the arctic in the sense of political hot spots because you don't have those

long-standing disputes. it is not a hot spot for potential conflict. it is, however, a region that is garnering increased international attention and recognition because of its tremendous potential. and it's generating cooperation amongst arctic nations. isn't that a concept, that something is actually generating cooperation. let me give you an example. i was at the 2013 arctic council ministerial meeting in sweden, and i was there with secretary kerry. and when you think about the issues in front of our secretary of state, at that time back in may, there was no shortage of differences and disagreements with the russian government at that moment. and yet, at that ministerial

meeting, we had secretary of state kerry and russian foreign minister lavrov side by side signing a binding agreement on oil spill preparedness and response capability in the arctic. but this was all going on while differences over syria and u.s. embassy spy charges were hanging over their heads. so despite all the other issues that those two gentlemen were dealing with, they were able to come together in sweden and join on to a joint document of cooperation among arctic nations as it related to oil spill preparedness and response capabilities. in a foreign policy perspective, the arctic is an area for cooperation and relationship

building. and that's a good and a positive that we should look to build on. from an economic perspective, our nations, russia to the west and canada to the east, continue with aggressive national plans that include state investment to develop northern resources and advance commerce in the region. they know, they know all too well that this will help create jobs and economic growth in areas that face stroert challenges. a recent report by the norwegian ship owners association shows the regions bordering the arctic ocean are experiencing higher annual economic growth than the rest of their respective nations on average and are considered drivers for economic growth in the arctic countries. and russia's territorial claim to a large swath of the arctic seabed received a boost when an

area in the okosk was recognized as part of its extended continental shelf by the same commission examining its arctic claims. these are the territorial claims that russia is able to make because they are a party to the convention of the law of the sea while the united states is not. and i will just make a particular aside at this point in time. that i have long been a proponent of the united states senate ratifying the convention on the law of the sea as we engage in the arctic, as we not only work on areas of cooperation, i think we need to ensure that we as an arctic nation have a seat at the table on the issues that face the arctic.

and while we sit on the sidelines because we have failed to ratify the law of the sea, we miss out. we miss out. even as non-arctic nations are embracing the opportunities that come with diminished polar sea ice, reaping the transit benefits, conducting scientific research and moving ahead with resource exploration and development activities, we're seeing nations like china, south korea and japan, each one of these have icebreakers. china is in the process of constructing a second larger icebreaker, and even india intends to have an icebreaker by the end of 2016. think how far away india is from the arctic. you may ask the question, well, so where is the united states when it comes to its number of

icebreakers? we have one heavy icebreaker, the polar star. we have a second, the polar sea, that is going to effectively be moth-balled. and we have a medium icebreaker, the healy, that does research missions primarily. but we are looking at the useful life of the polar sea to be concluded in less than ten years. excuse me. the polar star, useful life of the polar star in less than ten years. and right now, mr. president, as i talk to those within the administration about the plans to move forward on a polar icebreaker, right now it's pretty -- it's pretty dismal.

the proposal thus far in the president's budget is that there will be $6 million to advance as far as studies go. we know, we know that we need a heavy polar class icebreaker. in fact, we know that we need three. but it's a big capital investment. it hasn't been made the priority. and it is yet one of those initiatives that i think we look at from a shortsighted perspective by failing to place an imperative on it now. even singapore, mr. president, not exactly synonymous with the arctic, has designated an arctic ambassador and is actively participating in the arctic council and other arctic related forums around the globe. so you have other non-arctic

nations that are building ice-capable ships. you have other non-arctic nations that are asking to be observers in the arctic council. you are having non-arctic nations stepping forward and saying we want to have an arctic ambassador, somebody that is there as part of the discussions on issues in an area of the globe that is evolving so quickly, where there are so many opportunities, where there are challenges, yes, but where there are so many opportunities. we want to be part of that. and you would think that the united states would not only jump in and say me, too, but that we would be leading as one of the eight arctic nations. this activity by other nations

is going to continue, in fact accelerate, regardless of whether or not the united states engages, but if we do engage, we will also benefit and we will also be in a better position to ensure that any development, that any commerce, that any activity is carried out safely and responsibly. there is a lot of discussion about the energy potential, the potential for natural resource wealth and what that might bring to the arctic. this is a map here that shows the extent of the year-long ice in the arctic. setting aside the natural resource potential, which is in the range of 30 billion barrels of oil and 220 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the united states arctic o.c.s.

alone, we recognize the natural resource potential is significant. but, mr. president, it's not just about the natural resources. let me give you an example of the activity that is already under way in the arctic. its impact here on us in the united states and the opportunity that our nation has to embrace that potential. with the decreasing amount of sea ice in the arctic, we are seeing a corresponding increase in maritime activity, so again this is -- this is a chart that shows the extent of the sea ice in -- in the year 2000, so your sea ice is the wider with your opportunities for maritime activity limited as you're moving through canada here and even through russia there. this next chart shows the extent

of the sea ice and vessel activity in the arctic in 2011. so as you can see, increased activity is taking place where the sea ice used to be. so here is your sea ice now, but notice the passage that you have transiting through the bearing straits -- bering straits, through the northwest passage and out over to europe. notice also going through the northern sea route from russia over to -- to the baltic states. the lines, the colored lines that you see are not necessarily oil and gas exploration ships. they are cargo ships, they are

tankers, they are icebreakers. it's fishing vessels, it's research vessels, it's passenger vessels, it's cruise ships and others. so in a decade, what you are seeing is a level of maritime traffic that is -- is really unprecedented and unprecedented because we haven't had the ability to transit in these waters because they were locked by ice for -- for almost, almost the full extent of the year. so here is a closer look at the vessel activity in the bering strait region in 2013. so this is going to look like just a maze and blur of colors, but here you have alaska, here you have russia. where all of these lines seem to

be converging at the center here is where you have little diamide and big diamide. big diamide is owned by russia. little diamide is held by the united states. two and a half miles separate the two islands. in truth, mr. president, we can see russia from little diamide, and i was there last summer. when you appreciate that the distance between alaska and russia outside of the very narrow area between big and little diamide is just 57 miles, we've got a 57-mile choke point here in the bering straits where you have incredible amounts of maritime commerce coming through. again, tankers, cargo, tugs,

towing, towing passenger, fishing vessel, search and rescue, military, law enforcement and others. and this is what we are seeing in -- in the year 2013. transits have doubled in the past five years. now, the next two charts come from the recently releaseed u.s. navy arctic road map. this map here shows the predicted sea ice coverage by the year 2013. so here we are -- here we were at 2012 with the sea ice covering all of this. by 2020, it's shrinking, by 2025. by 2030, this is the predicted model for our sea ice coverage by 2030, and you can see that an even larger portion then of the

arctic is expected to be open to maritime commerce. the navy now predicts that the traffic through the bering straits will double again in the next ten years. and again, mr. president, that's going to happen whether or not the united states participates or not. foreign vessels, if not american vessels, will be traveling across alaska's western and northern coasts. that -- that is a given. that is just a given. the last chart that i have here shows the bering straits as the gateway between the pacific and the arctic oceans. and again, when we talk about alaska, we talk about its

strategic geographic location, where it sits on the globe. we're very, very proud of the military opportunities that we have for amazing training ranges in alaska when it comes to our assets on the ground but in the air. but look, mr. president, at where alaska sits in terms of its strategic location to not only asia, we're sitting halfway, literally halfway between nagoia, japan, and seattle, washington, when you're out here at adack. halfway. it's just as easy for me to get to japan as to get to seattle if you go as the crow flies. unfortunately, i don't have anything that will take me as

the crow flies. but i think it's important for us to recognize that whether it's passage over the northwest passage, which is still relatively problematic, the increased traffic that we're seeing from the northern sea route coming over russia or potentially the transpolar route at some point in time, everything funnels through the bering straits here, the 57 miles between russia and the united states. and then has to exit or cut through the aleutian chain here. so when we think about where -- where alaska sits, we truly are the gateway between the pacific and the arctic ocean. with the navy predicting a doubling of vessel activity in the arctic via the bering strait in the next ten years, the time to develop the infrastructure and support capacity to handle this growing amount of traffic

is now. actually, it was yesterday. this is not a region that is devoid of activity, but it is a region that lacks adequate levels of investment, government resources and attention. deep water ports, navigational aids, search and rescue capabilities and icebreakers are all needed now. in addition, the basic charting of many of our arctic waters, which some of us have recognized is -- is seriously lacking. and this is going to take very collaborative effort across all of our agencies and working with our arctic neighbors to achieve that. but with a vision, it is not difficult to see how we could have a transshipment facility developed in the aleutian chain

to capitalize on the intersection between the north pacific great circle route and the three arctic sea routes. imagine that you have got cargo that is transiting the arctic from europe, so coming from the northwest passage or coming over the northern sea route, imagine that cargo then being offloaded here at adak. adak is a former navy base and quite honestly, mr. president, the infrastructure that is there, while it's a little bit old, is pretty amazing. but you could then offload in either adak or in unalaska here and load that cargo then on to ships transiting to the north pacific and to the west coast here and vice versa. ice strengthened ships could be used entirely then within the

arctic rather than traveling all the way, say, singapore or hong kong but it would save time, it would save money and it would allow for an increased number of transits. i'm looking at it and saying this would be could be a real win, a win for consumers, for business, for national security by being able to keep a closer eye on commerce traveling to the united states. mr. president, i think it's clear. i hope it's clear that people recognize that we have such opportunity, we have such capacity for -- for opportunity and growth within the arctic. but we have to be careful. we have to be considered, we have to -- we have to ensure that the necessary resources and infrastructure are there. mr. president, the united states has never been last in a

race to the future. but absent visionary leadership and meaningful resourcing, we will continue to take a back seat and fail to capitalize on all that the arctic has to offer. we'll miss out on resource development and shipping efficiencies and in turn, new opportunities to create new jobs and generate needed economic growth. i don't believe that we can afford to sit idle any longer which means it's time for our federal government and this administration to really start taking the arctic seriously, dedicate the necessary resources to the region. and i don't mean -- i don't mean to suggest that the efforts that have been made to date are not important. we have come quite far in the

past few years. but you have to remember, we were starting from ground zero. there was nothing, really. and we have made some strides, and it is important that we have these documents coming out of our agencies, and it's important that we have frameworks because it is on these that we will build. but i feel like i need to lend an air of urgency, that it's not just about methodically chipping away year by year with yet another document, another strategic plan that will sit on the book shelf. i've got a lot of those on the arctic. i think many, many do. it's how we are true -- a true participant in a level of engagement in a region that

holds such excitement and such potential that nations around the world are turning their eyes northward with excitement and enthusiasm. the united states should be leading with equal enthusiasm about what our opportunities hold. with that, mr. president, i thank the chair and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana.

mr. coats: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, i come to the floor today to discuss the passage and the vote that's about to occur on the unemployment insurance extension bill. i have repeatedly said that the senate should have a full and open debate on this important issue, and that that debate should include the opportunity for those of us in the minority and perhaps those in the majority to offer amendments, changes that would in their view represent their people's view that they represent here in the congress, amendments that could strength ten bill, make it something better, something perhaps the house could consider since they have not taken up this legislation. clearly, for those truly in need, for those who have played

by the rules, the issue of extended unemployment is a legitimate issue for debate and for many here, for passage. i have worked with not only my colleagues here on the republican side of the aisle but also with my democrat colleagues to secure two things that would give me a better sense of where we're going and i think provide for a better legislation and legislation that perhaps could work its way through the congress and on to the president's desk. those two things were a legitimate pay-for, clearly we're in a situation fiscally we can't offset new spending with spending on programs that have not proven their worth, then we're going to continue to spend more than we take in, we're going to continue to add to our national debt, going to continue to trod down the precipitous road to fiscal

crisis. $17 trillion plus ciewntding in terms of -- and counting in terms of everacliewm lating debts. you can only run a business, only run a family, only run a government so long when you do not make ends meet by having your revenues there to pay for your expenses. and so having a legitimate pay-for was one of the criteria that i was trying to address along with my colleagues. and secondly, it was reforms rft program. it was the president himself that acknowledged publicly that the unemployment insurance program needed reforms. there were abuses of the program, it wasn't reaching the people -- all the people it was intended to reach, it had some flaws, it needed to be fixed. yet once again all those attempts not only by me but by a number of my colleagues in order to provide what have been deemed i think even on a bipartisan basis as reasonable reforms,

they've been rejected, rejected not because we had a vote, debate, and it didn't achieve the requisite number of votes for passage, but rejected because the majority leader simply used procedures once again to deny the minority any opportunity -- of course, that includes the majority also -- any opportunity to stand on this floor, offer up an amendment and debate that amendment, have it voted on, accept the result and then move forward. so the two that i had mentioned, the two reforms which i thought made eminent sense, i didn't find much opposition to either one of them, one was simply to end a process that was resulting in a waste of taxpayers' money by violation of the law. the law requires that if you apply for unemployment benefits, you must prove that

you are able to work and thawblg -- sthawblg -- that you have been seeking work but most importantly that you're capable of working. the social security disability insurance program requires by law that you are unable to work. and therefore, cannot be eligible for those benefits unless you can prove that through medical process or evidence of the -- your inability to work. and yet the government accounting office has found that a significant number of those here in our country are receiving checks from both programs. now, you can't have it two ways. you can't say you're not able to work and therefore receive a disability payment at the same time in the same mailbox receive a government check for unemployment insurance where have you to prove you are willing to work.

i don't know what amendment -- what provision might be more logical than that in terms of reforming the program. it saves taxpayer money, it eliminates the fraud, and it simply puts the program on a better footing. given our fiscal plight today, it's the least we could do. but yet i have been denied, my colleagues who tried to offer the same amendment have been denied the opportunity to do just that. now, had we had that opportunity to come down here and offer that amendment, we could have had the debate, those who sought another way or didn't agree with what we were saying had every opportunity to vote no and turn down this amendment. they would then be accountable for their no when they went back home or accountable for their yes, one way or another. there are people on both sides of the reform issues. but that is how the senate is designed to work. the senate is not designed to simply shut off a debate, to

deny the minority the opportunity to offer amendments. we're not asking for passage, we're simply saying give us a chance to make our case and we'll have to accept the outcome. and then every member of this body will be responsible for how they voted and they'll go home and tell their folks this is why i did such and such, and that's the way the system is designed to work. and yet we find ourselves here in a dysfunctional situation where there is no opportunity to have this debate and no opportunity to vote and let people know where we stand. maybe it's designed that way. maybe we don't want people to know where we stand. i don't think anyone this body here could go home and tell the people that they represent, their constituents, oh, we're not going to tell you how we really feel about that. i didn't want to put my vote on record and therefore we're not going to have an opportunity to even do that. so it's a black mark on the senate. it's a dysfunctional situation. it's no wonder that the american

public holds us in such low regard. this body which was created by our founding fathers, enshrined in the constitution has been labeled as the greatest deliberating body in the world, has simply turned into something totally different and totally opposite from that. we're a rubber stamp senate depending on what the majority leader decides he wants or doesn't want. swrt it's a great -- i think it's a great disservice to the american people, it's a great disservice to this institution. having had the opportunity to serve here in two different occasions, the contrast between my two tenures here in the united states senate couldn't be more stark. when i first came, the rights of the minority were recognized by a variety of majority leaders who simply said this is the senate, you take tough votes, you have the debate. you allow the minority their rights. and as a consequence, we

functioned as the senate has functioned for nearly -- well, for more than 200 years. suddenly we're now in a situation where that is not the case. and we have turned this into simply somewhat of a fiefdom here where the majority leader has the full power to deny the minority their rights. i think we'll come to rue the day when this practice was first initiated, rue the day it has been accepted because it denies those of us who have had the great honor and privilege of representing our states the opportunity to do just that. so, mr. president, along with the amendment i had for suitability which simply gives states more flexibility in terms of providing suitable work for the unemployed which if it's provided to them they have to accept it or they don't receive the unemployment checks, those two amendments, two of the many

suggested reforms here i think that would make sense but whether you agree with that or not, shouldn't we have the opportunity to present to the american people an honest, intellectual, rational debate on legislation so that whether it fails or it passes, we have a full understanding and they have a full understanding of how to measure us in terms of whether or not we were true representatives of those that sent us here? mr. president, having said that i will yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i hope for and expect a strong bipartisan vote today for legislation to extend emergency unemployment benefits through the end of may, and applies

retroactively from the point that emergency benefits expired in december. this is an important victory that i wish had come much, much sooner. sooner for the 80,000 michiganians who have gone without unemployment benefits and the thousands more who stand to lose them if congress fails to act. these benefits keep food on the table and a roof overhead for families affected by job loss through no fault of their own. the idea that some of our colleagues have advanced that unemployment insurance gives workers an excuse not to find a job is as inaccurate as it is insulting. for all but a handful of recipients, unemployment benefits are not a free pass from working, but the economic lifeline that keeps them going while searching for the job they so desperately want and need. i want to commend senators on

both sides of the aisle who have not given up on this issue and who work so hard to forge a compromise, led by senators jack reed and dean heller. republicans have joined with democrats on the procedural votes necessary to move this bill forward, and i hope the bipartisan support for this measure in the senate will prompt speaker boehner to bring it to a vote in the house. there is a strong bipartisan majority for passage in the house. it is now up to speaker boehner to respond to the will of the american people who understand that people who are unemployed don't want to be unemployed. oh, there may be a few exceptions and a few stories and a few anecdotes, but that's about it. the unemployed in this country are suffering. they suffered for too long. the job growth that has come as a result following the recession has been weak.

and the least we can do is respond. there's a bipartisan majority to do that here. it will be strong. my hunch is it will be well over 60, perhaps over two-thirds of the senate. and there is no excuse for speaker boehner not to bring this bill to the floor of the house. i hope that he does so. it is in all conscience essential that he do so and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

calendar number 688, 706 and 549, that there be two minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each. mr. durbin: upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominationings in the order listed. that any roll call votes be 10 minutes in length, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that no further action -- pardon me, no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 3979 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 333,

h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that all time be charged equally if there be a quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, all postcloture time is considered expired. under the previous order, the clerk will read the title of the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 333, h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the passage of h.r. 3979 as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 59, the nays are 38. the bill as amended is passed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, department of homeland security, francis xavier taylor of maryland to be under secretary for intelligence and analysis. l. reginald brothers of massachusetts to be under secretary for science and technology. department of state, mark bradley childress of virginia to be ambassador to the united republic of tanzania. mr. reid: mr. president, i would yield back all time on those nominations. the presiding officer: without objection.

under the previous order, the question occurs on the taylor nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear toe have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the brothers nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the childress nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are

considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. reid: mr. president, i now move to proceed calendar number 345, s. 2199. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 345, s. 2199, a bill to amend the fair labor standard act of 1938 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. 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 motion to proceed to calendar number 345, s. 199, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 and so forth and for other purposes signed by 18 senators as follows -- reid of nevada, mikulski,

murray, durbin, yibled, schatz, heinrich, baldwin, boxer, stabenow, hirono, hagan, landrieu, mccaskill, shaheen, feinstein, klobuchar. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, thank you very much. for that recognition. i come to the floor today to talk about jobs and about one sector in particular, -- maybe we should should have a job sector to fix this desk but

that's not what i'm here to talk about. one job sector that's created tremendous job growth in colorado and across the united states and that's wind energy and the jobs that it's brought to our state. during last thursday's markup in the finances committee, we worked in a bipartisan fashion to include a two-year extension of the production tax credit known as the p.t.c. any -- and the investment tax credit known as the i.t.c. for wind energy. the wind credit has enjoyed broad bipartisan basis over a number of years ranging from its original champ, cons to be a champion, senator grassley from iowa to my friend and colleague from colorado, mark udall, a hireless and relentless supporter over the years for our wind energy jobs in colorado. and i know he'll be a -- a supportive avid cat when the extenders bill reaches the floor. if enacted into law the

extension of the production tax credit and the investment tax credit will continue to drive job growth in my state of colorado. mr. president, i sometimes hear people around here say the government shouldn't pick winners and losers in their critique of the wind energy tax credits and i actually agree with that notion but what by say to people listening to this on the tv is that when you hear someone in washington say you shouldn't pick winners and losers, that's when you should hold beyond your wall. he they say that as if those decisions haven't already been made as if winners haven't been produced in the tax code somewhere deep in the last century or the regulatory code or the statute books. it's a reminder to ask yourself who is more likely to have benefits in this town? is it the incumbent industries working on these for decades, decades, and decades or is it the innovators in our economy and of course it's the legacy firms that have the upper hand in these debates. time and time again.

and i don't blame them for fighting for that advantage. but i also know they're not necessarily going to be the industries that are going to create the 21st century jobs that we need and that is fundamentally the debate that we're having, whether we know it or not, it's not a left-right debate in this town. it's the future versus past debate and it's criminal critally important to the next generation of americans that we get this right. this is an updated version of a chart i've been bringing down here, mr. president, for the last four years that shows some interesting relationships of lines relating to our economy. the top chart is g.d.p. growth in the united states. that's the green line. and here's the recession right here, you can see that we're actually producing much more as an economy today than when we went into the recession, much greater gross domestic product. this is the unemployment level and you can see at the depths of

the recession that -- the destruction in jobs the presiding officer saw in his home state and we saw in mime my home state, you know, in that very difficult period we were in. but we actually have begun to add jobs again and we're almost back to where we were, i think we are about back to where we were in terms of job creation. but this is a very stubborn and difficult issue for the people at home. for the people that i represent. this shows what's happened to median family income, median household income over periods of economic growth and over periods of economic decline, a way of thinking about that line is what is happening to middle-class income in this country, and what's happening is middle-class income, the growth in middle-class income has decoupled from our economic growth and that among other things has produced the worst income inequality we've seen in this country since 1938 and i -- 1928 and by argue with the educational outcomes we see for

kids the most significant opportunity gap in our lifetimes, mr. president. why has this happened? there are a variety of reasons but let me call your attention to this line. this is the productivity index in the united states. this shows how productive and efficient our economy has become. and it hag has become incredibly efficient, partly because of the use of following, that's true, partly because of the reaction to competition from overseas, from china, and india, partly because of the recession which drove the line straight up because firms had to figure out how to get through with fewer people. that's our challenge. that's our central economic dilemma as we move into the second decade of this 21st century. and it's my view that there are two principal answers to that challenge. the first is education, i'm not here to talk about that tonight but just as a reminder, we're not going to recognize ourselves in this new century if we continue to perpetuate a set of outcomes in our k-12 system

where if you're born poor in the united states your chances of graduating with a college degree or the equivalent of a college degree are roughly nine in a hundred. that's completely unsatisfactorily tri. completely outrageous, particularly for the kids we're talking about. but the other thing is innovation. we have got to make sure we have the most innovative economy in the united states and whether we're willing to lead the world because it's the companies started next week, the week after that, the week after that, the venture-backed companies that today are somebody's bright idea in their garage but tomorrow could become the next apple or google, this is where the job growth will come from. where the wage growth will come from. and in my view the wind credits cut right to the core of whether we're going to compete in a global economy. we're not talking about some fly-by-night experimental industry here. this credit has triggered tremendous economic growth in colorado across the country. in colorado alone these tax

credits support directly 5,000 jobs in colorado. vestus, which manufactured wind turbines employs 1,400 workers in four factories in our state from pueblo all the way up i-25 to windsor. they have already hired 400 new workers this year with another had 50 projected to be added before the end of 2014. mr. president, this is it right here, bricks and mortar, real jobs. made in america, mr. president. made in america. and it's not just manufacturing and it's not design jobs near urban centers. it's also construction and operation jobs at the actual wind farms. one thursday night, i left this floor as i do almost every week. it was a friday morning, i guess. i flew back to colorado. i got in the car. i drove up to peaks where we have a wind farm up there.

i climbed up to the top of a wind turbine. i thought that was it. i was in the pod at the top. that's not the technical term but that's what it was. i thought i could then go home. mr. president, i got up there, they opened up a trap door in the ceiling and then i had to climb out on the roof of this thing, swaying over the wyoming border, in the very shoes i wear on the floor of the united states senate. that was an uncomfortable feeling, even though i was clipped in. but there was a guy up there who is one of the operators, one of the workers there. he said i would never have this job in this community if it were not for this wind farm, if it were not for something that somebody imagined several years ago but was unimaginable a decade ago, i would not have this job in this community. this industry drives economic growth across our state from the conference rooms of tech start-ups in boulder and denver all the way to the 6,000-acre kit carson wind power generating

site just west of the kansas state line. and these are good jobs, mr. president. in 2012, median household income for a single male in this country was just under $37,000. compare this figure to jobs in the wind industry, and these are all from the bureau of labor and statistics. crane and wind tower operators have a median annual wage of over $47,000. electricians on -- these are jobs that can't be exported overseas, mr. president. they can't be exported overseas. electricians on wind projects average nearly $50,000 annually. land acquisition specialists who secure the land where wind projects are located have a median salary of $74,000 and site managers for wind projects make over $100,000 per year. so if you were looking for a way to say you know what, we like to see median family incomes start to rise again in this country instead of going down, whether we're in a period of economic growth or a period of economic decline, you might start to look

at things like the wind industry. these are good-paying jobs, and we're seeing more and more of them in colorado and all across the country. the production tax credit has driven $105 billion, $105 billion in private investment. opened up 50 -- 550 industrial facilities. and provided $180 million in lease payments to farmers, to ranchers, to landowners who host wind farms. wind power accounts for more than a third of all new u.s. electric generation in recent years. it's moved our state toward a more diversified and cleaner energy portfolio. colorado is in the lead in many ways, and we're proud of it. most important, 70% of the u.s. wind turbine is produced right here in the united states, and

that creates 80,000 american jobs. if you travel the highways of my state, you will see these component parts of these wind turbines moving from one plant to another reflecting manufacturing jobs right here in the united states of america. so i am delighted, i'm glad that we're moving to restore the wind credit that expired at the end of last year. we have seen this before where the p.t.c. expires without a prompt extension and it doesn't end well. each time the credit has expired in the past, new installations fell between 76% and 93%. dealing with a blow to the industry and its employees. and a reminder once again that what we do here or what we don't do here actually matters out there in the real lives of real people. i know i sound like a broken record, mr. president, but the world is not waiting for us to get out of our own way. we can't keep going through this

unnecessary political boom and bust cycle. i'm pleased the senate finance committee took an important first step last week by reporting out a two-year extension. we need to follow that up with good work by bringing the extenders package to the floor and passing it into law. that outcome will give us much-needed certainty to our industries and help secure the economic future for colorado families who work in the wind industry. with that, i thank the president for allowing me to speak tonight, and i yield the floor. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, the nomination of hamid abualabi to

be ambassador from the republic of iran to the united nations is a deliberate and unambiguous insult to the united states. mr. abualabi was an activist participant in the terrorist group that took 52 americans hostage on november 4, 1979, and held them for 444 days. there are no circumstances in which the united states should grant such a person a visa, and our immediate concern is to prevent mr. abualabi from ever setting foot on american soil. but this nomination is not an isolated incident that is taking place in a vacuum. it is part of iran's clear and consistent pattern of virulent anti-americanism that has defined their foreign policy since 1979. given the larger strategic threat to the united states and our allies represented by iran's nuclear ambitions, this is not

the moment for diplomatic niceties. we need to send tehran an equally clear message the united states senate is not going to just ignore this most recent insult, but rather is going to give our president the authority to affirmatively reject it. unanimous passage of the bill that i have introduced which specifies that engaging in terrorism against the united states is a basis to deny a foreign u.n. ambassador a visa to enter our country will do just that while also signaling to other unfriendly nations that we see this kind of offensive behavior for what it is and we will not tolerate it. mr. president, i want to in particular thank senator coats, who is a cosponsor of this bill, senator graham, senator mccain, senator kirk, for their leadership on this bill, and i want to thank my friends across the aisle and in

particular senator schumer and senator leahy and senator menendez for working together with my office to reach bipartisan agreement. i am proud to join with all of my colleagues on both sides of this aisle in this effort, and i am encouraged that we can all come together in a bipartisan matter on this national security issue that transcends political politics. mr. president, i am encouraged that the united states senate can speak unanimously in a bipartisan voice defending the interest of our nation. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the dmeet on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 2195 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee

is discharged and the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2195, a bill to deny admission to the united states to any representative to the united nations who has engaged in espionage activities against the united states and so forth. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the cruz amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the cruz amendment to the title be agreed to and the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: mr. president, i know my colleagues and good friends are waiting, i will be very brief. i will say i agree with the gentleman from texas that it is very inappropriate that

mr. abutilabi was nominated in the first place. he was a member of the group that seized the u.s. embassy on november 4, 1979, and held american staff hostage until 1981. there were new yorkers i knew among that group. while i believe that mr. abutilabi's actions would have made him ineligible for a visa under the immigration and nationality act, i believe it is worth it to clear up all doubt about our ability to deny him a visa under u.s. law by passing this bill. i'm fully aware that now is a sensitive time in our negotiations with iran regarding the future of the nuclear program. nevertheless, it is exactly for this reason that iran's leadership should not have unnecessarily escalated tengz with the -- tensions with the united states by seeking to appoint an ambassador to the united nations who materially aided terrorists who abducted american citizens. we should not further aggravate the pain of the individuals and families who surd suffered

through the hostage crisis by allowing this individual to have a visa and diplomatic immunity within the united states. so i support this legislation, i'm glad it has moved forward in a bipartisan way. i want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation and yield the floor. mr. graham: mr. president, if i could just have one minute? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i would just like to recognize this is a very important moment for the united states senate to speak with one voice at a time when i think it matters. to the hostages, former hostages and their families, we heard you. senator cruz heard you, i heard you, our friends on the other side heard you. so it's good to note that the senate is listening to people who suffered in the past from this regime in iran. to senator leahy, menendez and schumer, thank you very much for working with senator cruz so we could have this moment. i will do everything i can to get the house to act accordingly. at the end of the day, it's very important that the iranians not

mistake how we view them. we have had our differences about syria. we have had foreign policy disputes between the administration and republicans and sometimes democrats regarding how to move forward in the world, but this is a unique moment when all 100 senators support the following statement to the iranians. we remember who you are, we remember what you have done to our country and to our fellow citizens, and we're not going to forget, and if you're listening in iran, we have a very clear-eyed view in the senate of who we're dealing with. so this is a very appropriate time to speak with one voice. i hope the iranians will understand that we're resolved, republicans and democrats, to make sure you never possess a nuclear weapon. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: as a cosponsor of this legislation, i want to

applaud my colleagues who are here tonight and say this is the right message to send. this is a sensitive time, therefore we need to stand up and be recount counted. i hope the house will act swiftly on this legislation. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i rise tonight at a time when we face a quiet crisis in this country. president obama and many on the other side of the aisle tell us that the economy has improved. we have turned the corner. we're out of the woods. but i've got to tell you, too many americans are being left behind. in fact, historic numbers of americans are disconnected from work. it's a quiet crisis that's affecting them and their families. it's affecting our economy. i think in very fundamental ways. it's one of the reasons we haven't seen the kind of economic growth we hope for because not enough americans are involved in productive work because so many are out of work. the unemployment numbers, by the way, don't show the degree of the problem. the unemployment number around 7% doesn't show the fact that a lot of folks have left the work

force altogether. this crisis includes also 3.7 million long-term unemployed. these are people who have been out of work for six months or more. this is also at historic levels. during this recent recession and during this week recovery over the last -- weak recovery over the last five years, we have had numbers of long-term unemployed over six months at historic levels. in fact, the number of long-term unemployed right now is higher than it's been during any recession in our nation's history, except for the most recent one five years ago. second, we have a lot of people who have left looking for work altogether, so a lot of these folks were long-term unemployed. they have now given up looking for work. 10.5 million americans aren't even counted in the unemployment numbers because they have given up looking for work. the economists called this the labor participation rate. it is at historic lows for men going back to the 1940's. in other words, more men are out of work.

that means not working or not even looking for a job than we have ever had as a percentage of our population since we started keeping track of these statistics in the 1940's. for men and women combined, you can go back to the 1970's the numbers are so low, the participation rate in work. that goes back to the carter era when we had double-digit inflation, double-digit inflation rates. you have to go back to that economy that was cratering in order to see these numbers of people who are out of work, not looking for work, not even trying. so we have a real problem in this country and we're not addressing it. to make matters worse, people are saying, well, rob, this is actually the baby boomers and it's people retiring early, so it's not that bad. that's not true. to make matters worse, it is a lot of young people. there's a recent brookings study that came out a couple weeks ago that indicates that a lot of the problem is young men, single

men, who are choosing not to work or cannot find a job. therefore, they drop out of the workforce altogether. this is not reflected in the unemployment numbers much this is not even reflected in the long-term unemployment numbers. disappointment after disappointment for many of these workers leads to them giving up looking for work altogether. these americans feel like what we're doing here in washington doesn't really affect them and their lives, that they feel like we're not dealing with this issue, so the underemployed, the unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the folks who are so disconnected from work they're not even looking for a job, they're looking at us in washington saying, what are you going to do to help? they are the reason that i supported tonight this extension of unemployment insurance. now, this was not exactly the legislation that i wanted, but also it's not exactly the legislation that was brought to the floor. the other side of the aisle, the democrats, brought legislation to the floor that was long-term

extension. on an emergency basis -- this is for people who have been out of work for over 26 weeks. this is the federal edition to the state unemployment insurance that is generally in place for people up to 26 weeks. the democratic version was long term over a year. it also was not paid for, which takes us further into debt and deficit, which hurts the economy. it also did not have any reforms. the legislation that passed tonight with my vote and some other republicans had three things: one, short term, five months instead of a year. two, it is paid for. so it doesn't make us further into debt and deficit. and, three, it does have some reforms to try to make the unemployment system work better to help these people who are long-term unemployed who otherwise have very little prospect of getting gainful employment and being productive members of our economy. in fact, there's some studies out there saying that only 10% or 15% of them would normally be

likely to get a job once you are out of work for six months or more because of the resume and skills gap. so we got into this legislation, that i'll talk about later in more detail, some reforms that add some skills training for the long-term unemployed. the notion here is that there are jobs available out there and there are a the although of people, because we -- and there are a lot of people, because we talked about long-term or unemployed in this case. but they don't have the skills to match the jobs out there. the notion is to bring the skills and the jock jobs togetho deal with the skills gap. i think sixen our side o six one aisle was against this because they argue that we need pro-growth policies to tbet this economy moving. i totally agree with them about the pro-growth policies. the ultimate solution is not another extension of unemployment insurance. rather than just another check to add the skills training, we

also have got to do what jack kennedy used to talk about. president kennedy said, a rising tide lifts all boats. we need a rising tide. we need to create more economic growth and opportunity and there is a plan to do that. it is called the jobs for americans plan. it has seven elements, all of which makes a lot of sense. one is to ensure that on health care we reduce the cost, increase choice, which is hurting the economy now because the costs are going up, not down, and sometimes dramatically. all-of-the-above energy strategy. living within our means. the reason this insurance unemployment extension was paid for is because the deficit is like a wet blanket over the economy. we need to keep ourselves from going further into debt. the tax reform is necessary to spur economic growth on the

individual and business growth. it will help to give the economy a shot in the arm. -- if we can r reform the tax code. regulations -- on tackling job creators. helping to ensure that regulations are sensible, that they are not making it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs and opportunity. this is something we should be doing on a bipartisan basis. increasing exports -- that means jobs. this president and this administration has not been able to move forward with any export agreements because the president has not been able to get trade promotion authority. in fact, some on the other side of the aisle have said he won't get it. that would be tragic for america's workers, farmers, for the people that provide services. we want to push more exports because they create good-paying jobs and good benefits. finally and significantly, part of this republican plan for jobs is to create a competitive workforce to close the skills gap. that's what we're talking about here with the unemployment insurance issue. we need to ensure that our --

that our workforce is meeting the needs of the 21st century, meaning a los lot of technology jobs, bioscience jobs. those jobs are out there, as i said earlier. but, unfortunately, the federal government has not done a good job in providing the skills, giving people the tools to access those jobs. so we've made some steps in this legislation. the legislation we passed tonight ensures that job-training reforms are part of long-term unemployed insurance. the reforms require officials to connect with the unemployed early in the process and provide important information they're now not getting about the skills and cree engs dids tha -- the sd credentials that they are not getting. we ensure that the long-term unemployed have an idea of the skills necessary to become

employed in the job market. that assessment is really important. a lot of folks are starting to give up hope. the assessment is important to help them understand where they can and where they can be. these measure measure help indis achieve the skills that are available so they can access jobs not only in their area but around the country. there are some places in the country that have unemployment as low as 3%. other places it is as high as 9%. so people do know what the opportunities are should they be willing and able to move. so that's part of this unemployment extension that we did tonight. that's something that was put in place because of a negotiation between republicans and democrats alike to ensure that, yes, it was paid for, yes, it was not long term but short term, and we did put some training in place. folks, that's just the

beginning. we've got to do a lot more. in terms of ensuring that our workforce programs in the federal government are meeting the needs of the 121st century. so part of the republican jobs plan is to say, let's take the next step. and, by the way, there's a commitment from both sides of the aisle, from the people who worked this out, to work during their short-term 12e7bg short-to try to provide people the tools they need. we have big problems, as i said. we have a lot of people who are long-term unemployed, historic levels. we have historic levels of people who are disconnected from work altogether. yet we have jobs that are out there and vaiblg. they say there are 3.th.9 millin jobs available that are unfilled. that means about 25% of those out of the workforce could have an opportunity for a job, if they had the skills and had the aabilitability to meet the requirements. in ohio we've got over 100er,000

jobs available. you can go on the web site and see them. these are not just parttime or minimum-wage positions. ohio is behind only texas. the problem of chronic unemployment is holding back our economy. by not having the people to fill those jobs, the economy is not reaching its potential. in fact, some of those jobs are going overseas to find those skilled workers. the manufacturing institute recently concluded that 74% of manufacturers are experiencing workforce shortages or skills sufficiency that keeps them from expanding their operations -- 74% of manufacturers aren't expanding plant and equipment and creating more jobs as they could because they don't have the workforce. so i view this unemployment insurance debate as an opportunity, an opportunity to talk about this issue, an opportunity to put in place some

initial reforms, some first steps for more skills assessment, more training to encourage people to get the credentials they need to get a job. but it is only a first step. we should do much, much more. the federal government is already very involved, by the way, in worker retraining, not in a very productive way but very involved. there are 47 different workforce training programs spread over seven, eight, or nine departments or agency, often overlapping. often the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. about 15 billion a year is going into worker training yet look at the results. record numbers long-term unemployment, record numbers of men disconnected from work. something is not working. one of the things that the government accountability office found is that very little is known about the effectiveness of these 47 programs. they have said, unbelievably,

that only five of these federal programs have conducted an impact study of their efforts since 2004. 47 programs. only five have conducted the find of performance measures you would expect for the government to do to be sure taxpayers' money is being spent right. the g.a.o. i think is kind of generous in its assessment because the millions of unfilled jobs and millions more struggling workers are as incriminating an indictment as any impact study could ever before. this is the story i hear all the time. back home in ohio when i talk to workers, when i talk to businesses, when i talk to educators, people are frustrated. people are seeing these federal dollars being spent but not for actual training. what's unbelievable to me is recent data shows us that the number of credentials people are getting through these federal workforce training programs is actually going down, not up, at a time when it is dleer credentials are -- when it is

clear that cree engs dids are a key way -- when it is clear that credentials are a key way to get a job. it is unfair to taxpayers who send money to washington believing the government will be a good steward of those funds and it is not. and of course it is unfair to the millions of americans who want to build a better life for them avenues understanthemselve, but need a better set of tools. a lot of jobs were lost in the recession. a lot are not coming back. other jobs are being created but require a higher level of skill. we need to provide people the skills that they need to get the job. a small step was taken tonight with the unemployment insurance extension. i don't think we necessarily explained it very well to all of our colleagues. but it was part of what happened tonight on the floor of the united states senate. and i'm hopeful that over the next few months we'll take the next important step, which is actually to change the way these

federal programs work so they are more effective at dealing with this quiet crisis we have in this country. i have a expect proposal that i like. it is called career afnlgt you ca-- itis called the career act. go to portman.senate.gov. my colleague from colorado, a former education superintendent, understands that we need to change these programs to incentivize success. we have performance measures in our proposal, for instance. we do need to streamline and consolidate these programs and reward job-training providers that produce measurable results and actual job placement. seems like a pretty simple concept. but it is not happening now, as the g.a.o. has told us. the unemployment extension, in my view, buys us a couple more months, but that's time we ought to be going to work to do the harder work, to ensure that workers have the skills they need to compete in this global economy.

and, again, qups look globally for workers these days, particularly larger companies. if we're not providing the skilled workforce here, our economy is not as productive as it could be, not meeting its potential, the risings tide is not lifting all boats because it is not rising, but we're also going to lose jobs overseas where there is more fobbing -- s more focus on the stem disciplines, on skills training. we have got to do a better job at the federal government level working with the states and the private sector. one thing we do is connect the federal funds with the actual private-sector jobs that are out there to ensure that we're getting a better result, not training people for jobs that aren't even available. so let's spend these next few months working on more strategies to help folks get more jobs. let's work on all of this because we need to have a growing economy. with regard to the training part, let's fix a system that isn't serving the unemployed.

it isn't serving the taxpayer. let's deal with this quiet crisis. let's restore hope and opportunity to america's workers. mr. president, with that, i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. hagan: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to join with my colleagues in addressing an issue that affects women and families across america every day and that is wage discrimination. over 50 years have passed since the equal pay act was signed into law to require that men and women earn equal pay for equal work yet the wage gap between men and women remain persist the presidentially wide. tomorrow, april 8, is equal payday, the day that congresswomen's earnings finally catch up to what men earned during the previous calendar year. women across our country have

had to work more than three months into this year to match what their male colleagues made in 2013. it is time to end gender discrimination in pay. and that's why i am proud to again stand here on the senate floor as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the paycheck fairness act. this important bill would close loopholes in our existing equal pay laws and ensure that gender-based pay discrimination cannot happen in the first place. some still question why we need this legislation. well, the numbers make it pretty clear. more than 50 years after the equal pay act was passed, women in america still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. in north carolina it is a little better but still far from equal. women earn 82 cents for every dollar end earned by men doing the same work. to be sure, we have seen

remarkable progress among women in north carolina over the last 20 years. women have higher levels of education than men of the same age and the share of employed women in my state who work in managerial and professional occupations has increased from 26% to 40%. while increased education has improved women's pay, it has not reduced the pay gap. men are earning more money than women across all major sectors of the economy and at every educational level. in fact, women in north carolina who have some college education or and associate's degree still earn less on average than men who have only received a high school diploma. in 2014, that is simply unacceptable. i'll never forget a constituent that i met at an event back home in north carolina. a woman had her young son with her and they both had t-shirts on that had a number on the

front. the mother's shirt said 94, and the son's shirt said 50. if earnings continue at the slow pace at which they are growing now, those numbers, the 94 and the 50, signify the ages that those two individuals will be when pay equality is finally achieved. sadly, at the rate we're progressing, most of us in the senate will not live to see that day. we cannot afford to wait another few decades for this change. this wage gap has real consequences not just for women but they for their families too. in north carolina alone women head over 500,000 households. women had and families' economic security is put at risk when they are paid less than men for performing the same jobs. in north carolina women who are employed full time lose

approximately $9.8 billion each year due to the wage gap. once again, just in north carolina these women employed full time lose approximately $9.8 billion. that's real money. that's money that could be spent on a down payment or a mortgage for a home, put away for their child's college savings or invested in a secure retirement. also in north carolina shall there are 108,000 households with incomes below the poverty line headed by women. and closing the wage gap would help put food on the table for them, gas in their car and pay basic necessities like rent and utilities. in fact, closing the wage gap would allow a working woman in north carolina to afford 63 more weeks of food, six more months of mortgage and utilities payments, 10 more months of rent or 2,200 additional gallons

of gas by changing that wage gap. addressing these disparities are critical to promoting the well-being of local economies across north carolina and nationwide. when women thrive at work, their families and communities prosper as well. later this week i will be voting for equal pay and to end wage discrimination. i'm hopeful that partisan gamesmanship doesn't get in the way of a bipartisan issue that democrats and republicans, women and men across the country overwhelmingly support. congress needs to come together and pass the paycheck fairness act because we need a stronger equal pay law to prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss salary information with their coworkers. we need a stronger equal pay law to empower women to better negotiate their salaries and wages, and we need a stronger

equal pay law to provide businesses, especially small ones, assistance with equal pay practices. on this eve of the anniversary of the equal pay act, we need to close the loopholes that allow pay discrimination to happen in the first place. the paycheck fairness act would do just that, by helping women successfully fight for the equal pay that they have earned. in today's tough economic landscape, equal pay is about more than just principle, it is about ensuring an economically sound future for all of our families. thank you, mr. president, and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i've come to the floor to speak to two issues, both in the western hemisphere that i think are incredibly important. i come to the floor to speak about labor rights in colombia and labor rights of workers around the world. three years ago today, the u.s. and colombian governments

announced the creation of a labor action plan that identified concrete steps to address the challenges faced by colombian workers, threats that -- deadly violence and widespread informality that opens the door to worker abuse. both governments said that the implementation of the plan would be a precondition to enacting the free trade agreement between our two countries. at the time, i advocated that the standards laid out in the labor action plan should have been part of the formal free trade agreement. and should have included provisions for monitoring the plan's implementation. now, it's true that the colombian government initially made impressive steps but, unfortunately, other aspects of the plan have not been fulfilled today, the afl-cio and colombia's national union school have released reports evaluating the labor action plan and identifying key areas where implementation has fallen short.

and i come to the floor today to share these key findings. in february i traveled to colombia and met with colombia union leaders and representatives of the national labor school. i had a chance to meet with president santos and minister of labor rafael pardo. we had the opportunity to review the important steps the colombian government has taken and what still needs to be done. shortly after the labor action plan was established in april, 2011, nearly overnight colombia established an independent ministry of labor. to date anyone minnesota industry has hired foreign 280 new labor inspectors and created a formal complaint mechanism for workers and unionists. the colombian government reformed its penal code to strengthen sanctions against employers violating rights to free association, the ministry of labor has opened nearly 400 investigations of violations and issued nearly 70 sanctions, and the government has directed its

protection units to concentrate efforts on labor activists who are under threat. as a result of these steps, colombia has made progress. according to the colombian government's own statistics, more than 530,000 jobs have been formalized in accordance with government standards. now, while it's important to acknowledge the progress that has been made, the reports released today by the afl-cio and colombia's national union school remind us that much more needs to be done. aspects of the labor action plan remain unfinished and risks to colombian workers continue, speak speckly in the palm oil industry, issuing are a sector, and port sector. both reports point out while some trade unionists have seen better protection from the government, others continue to face threats and violence. in 2013, 26 trade unionists were murdered.

equally troubling is the fact that in the cases of murdered trade unionists, 86.8% go unresolved in terms of the cases. the two reports recognize that in response to the labor action plan, the colombian government took steps to address irregular contracting practices, specifically focusing on associated work cooperatives or c.t.a.'s as they're known who. given the new loopholes in new regulations that have come to light, the government has been unable to stem the rise of alternate hiring, like simplified joint stock companies that keep workers from being directly hired and entitled to benefits and collective bargaining rights. there has been progress but clearly more needs to be done. a report rightfully applauds the creation of the ministry of labor but also notes that the hiring of labor inspectors did not comply with national labor organization standards,

severely affecting these inspectors' autonomy and technical capacity. as further evidence of the challenges of informal labor arrangements, a majority of labor inspectors are provisional hires. and when it comes to finding those guilty of violations, the colombia government has levied millions of dollars in fines against companies violating labor standards, but both the afl-cio and the national labor school point out that not a single dollar of those millions of fines has been collected. not one. fines hardly constitute a deterrent if companies no they will never have to pay the bill. as the u.s. and colombian governments along with organized labor and the u.s. and colombia look forward, it's important that everyone come to the table, identify targeted goals, and establish benchmarks that will bring the kind of change we all are looking for. lasting change that protects workers and worker rights.

mr. president, given that the united states and colombia renewed the labor action plan to the end of 2014, now is the time to renew political commitments. now is the time for collective action. having met with minister pardo and knowing our colleagues in the department of labor, i know the political will is there. now is the time for swift action. lessons from colombia should be lessons for all of us as the u.s. continues to engage in trade negotiations around the world. our trade agreements must include the highest labor standards, concrete benchmarks for guaranteeing compliance with these standards and a clear plan to monitor implementation. anything less will leave the most vulnerable around the world at risk. we're moving in the right direction when it comes to protecting workers and worker rights in colombia and around the world, let's keep moving forward and aspire to the highest labor standards in every

nation. mr. president, i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, as the attention of the world has been focused on on the pre-1991 soviet behavior of president putin in crimea, i come to the floor to remind the american public and members of this body that there is all a full-fledged humanitarian rights crisis

ongoing in our own hemisphere, just 90 miles away from our shores in cuba. as ukrainians courageously fight to protect the democracy they won when the berlin wall fell 25 years ago this summer, the cuban people continue to suffer from the oppression of a soviet-style dictatorship that denies them the most basic rights. when the soviet union dissolved in 1991, millions of people from kiev to budapest, africa to asia were given their first chances in decades to build their own governments, a first chance to organize democratic elections, the chance to begin to determine their own futures. since the end of the cold war, peace, prosperity and progress has largely been the order of the day. hundreds of millions of people, but not for the people of cuba. not one of those core principles of democracy can be found on the island. fidel and raul castro have been the only names on any ballot for over 50 years. not one free election has been

held. not one cuban has been allowed to own their own company. not one legitimate trade union has been allowed to be organized. not one peaceful protest has occurred without being brutally squashed by the regime. no, this is the reality of cuba today. it was the reality when the berlin wall fell and it has been cuba's reality for almost 60 years since fidel castro began taking control of every aspect of cuban life. this reality in cuba, the decades-long brutal oppression of simple human and democratic rights with total disdain for the aspirations of a people by -- by the castro regime, its military and communist lackey thugs who penetrate and control people's lives at all levels should not be overlooked, it should not be romanticized, and it can never be explained away. but unlike the ukraine where we have watched in horror as people

have been ruthlessly beaten and killed for simply aspiring for democratic and transparent government, the castro regime does not allow images of its oppression to be broadcast around the globe, let alone at home. just because we do not see those images streaming across television sets and in the newspapers does not mean that the world should not be watching. it does not mean that we have turned the other way, and it does not mean that we have overlooked the brutal and oftentimes lethal oppression of the castro regime. the number of people the regime has murdered or abducted is in the tens of thousands if not the -- is in the tens of thousands. hundreds of thousands of children have been separated from their parents. maybe hundreds of thousands of families have been torn apart. we don't even know how many have died in the florida straits in search of freedom.

millions of men, women and young people have been forced into fields to cut sugar cane and perform other hard labor against their will. the average cuban worker lives on an income of less than $1 a day. the castro regime has been most adept not at spreading education and prosperity. i listened to some of my colleagues recently on the floor and oh, my god, what a paradise, paradise that people are willing to take makeshift rafts to flee from and die on the high seas. a paradise that has long lines at the u.s. interest section waiting to be able to come to the united states. such a paradise that there is well over a million cuban americans in the united states and others in spain and throughout the world. it's not a paradise that i think people flee from. but they are great not at

spreading education and prosperity but at instilling a penetrating fear and terror in the style of a stalinist police state. there has been going on since 1959, unfortunately these are all the realities. it is not a thing of the past. let us not overlook the fact that arbitrary and politically motivated arrests in cuba reportedly top a thousand for a third straight month. this february, according to the cuban commission for human rights and national reconciliation, a group inside of cuba formed and founded by alexander sanchez cruz whose mission is to bring this to the world. arrests have in the past three months nearly doubled from the month in the average of the previous two years. we must remind ourselves every day of the continued oppression

and human suffering that's happening, not halfway around the world but 90 miles from our own shores. the ongoing oppressive behavior of the cuban regime we saw for the last half of the 20th century still haunts our hemisphere today. while putin has annexed crimea, while one wonders what is next, while assad continues to kill his own people in syria, while the world is watching the taliban and afghanistan and violence continues in the central african republic taking countless lives, the oppression of the castro regime keeps rolling along unabateed. if there is a single symbol of that oppression, of the longing for freedom in cuba, it is the ladies in white, damas del blanco, and their leader, berta sole.

she has served as an extraordinary example for all of us and everyone around the world who longs to be free. every sunday, they protest the jailing of their relatives by attending mass and quietly marching through the streets of havana, praying for nothing more than the freedom of their relatives and respect for the human rights of all cubans. but as we see in this picture, often arrested, roughed up. let's go to the previous picture . these are part of the women in white. all they do, mr. president, they dress up in white, they march with a gladiola quietly towards church. and the response of the state regime is to detain them, beat them, jail them, hold them for days, maybe weeks, released, then jailed again.

ladies in white are the symbol of freedom. one who represents the story of thousands is a schoolteacher who was living with her husband hector, the leader of the outlawed cuban liberal party. they were living in a small house on neptune street in havana. early one morning, there was a pounding on the front door. the police came in, searched everything. there was a sham trial held in cuba. hector was imprisoned, sentenced to 20 years in jail and accused of acting against national security. his crime was dreaming of a free cuba and putting that dream in writing. since i last came to the floor to speak about cuba, i met rosa mariah paya, daughter of the political activist oswaldo paya.

he was a roman catholic and head of the christian liberation movement who collected 25,000 signatures under a project called the baella project, a peaceful effort to petition the regime under the existing cuban constitution for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. for his peaceful efforts, he was awarded the sakarov prize by the european parliament. his peaceful efforts were seen as a danger to the regime, a threat for which he was detained and arrested many times. many times he suffered at the hands of the regime, and last year he died in cuba, killed as cuban state security ran his car off the road. what we know is that the car driven by a spanish politician from spain, angel caramello, a citizen of spain and a party

activist of sweden was involved in the fatal automobile accident that caild paya and his cuban colleague. the circumstances surrounding paya's death lead any reasonable person to conclude what really happened on that road in eastern cuba that took the life of oswaldo was an assassination. his daughter rosa maria immediately challenged the regime's version of events, stating that the family had received information from the survivors that their car was repeatedly rammed by another vehicle. so she said it was not an accident. they wanted to do harm, and then they ended up killing my father. miss paya was in washington not long ago accepting a posthumous award from the national endowment for democracy on behalf of another young cuban activist who died alongside her father. at the time, the new ambassador to the united nations, sam an a power, had -- samantha power had some before the foreign relations committee during the nomination process and assured

me she would reach out to miss paya when confirmed. since then, she has not only met with rosa maria but also directly challenged cuba's foreign minister to prevent an independent international investigation into mr. paya's death. i want to depend ambassador power for standing with those still suffering in cuba and with oswaldo paya's family who died for advocating peaceful democratic change and christian values. cuba's reach doesn't end with the detention or the death of dissidents like paya. it doesn't end at the water's edge. it goes much further. cuba is the head of a new and dire crisis in our hemisphere that we cannot ignore, and now we see the same oppression of peaceful activists in cuba on the streets of caracas. venezuela's political crisis is growing. 40 dead, hundreds injured, the nation's economy deteriorating, inflation at record levels, a scarcity of basic foods and

goods. mr. president, it sounds like cuba to me, but behind venezuela's economic crisis, we can see cuba's failed policies, ex appropriation, fixed prices in the consumer economy, criminalization of business leaders and their companies, currency manipulation and rationing of basic foodstuffs. behind venezuela's political crisis, we can clearly see familiar cuban tactics, the demonization of dissent, intolerance, oppression of any form of opposition, politicizing of the military and judiciary, the silencing of independent television and radio stations, the shutting down of newspapers, the arrests of political opponents doing nothing more than exercising basic rights to freedom of assembly. we see cuba's destabilizing presence is deeply intertwined in venezuela's crisis. not simply because of the actions but because of these

facts. it started with the discovery of 29 cuban spies in marguerita island in venezuela. it grew steadily and insidiously throughout the chavez years with the cuban presence, and key advisors from havana in almost every institution of national government in venezuela. from the military to intelligence agencies to the health sector to industrial policy, and the results -- democracy subverted and innocent people dying from bullets fired by the government and its thugs, just like in cuba. and yet, knowing the instability that the cuban regime continues to spread, amazingly, amazingly, european nations, nations in latin america, then the caribbean, some of my colleagues in this chamber are seeking new opportunities to engage the cuban regime by easing sanctions at a critical moment and

fundamentally redefine our relationship with cuba, and i couldn't disagree more. we can never turn our back on what has happened and continues to happen inside of cuba. we can never have a wink and a nod and say well, it's been almost 50 years, that's long enough, things are changing for the better in cuba so we should ease sanctions when, in fact, that's not the case at all. as i listened to these human rights activists who finally have been able to come from cuba and visit with us here to a person they have said to me when i have asked them is there change, and they laugh and say senator, no, of course there is no change. is there a change in the economic system? no, there is no change. is there change in your ability to organize? no, there is no change. and they call for some of the most significant measures that i could imagine based upon them being in the belly of the beast.

not some romanticism from outside. so no, we should not ease sanctions. that's not what they are calling for. we should not let up and we should not reward the castro regime for its human rights violations. for the suffering it continues to cause the people of cuba. we should not real estate ward the regime for the long, dark years for the brought to the island. we should not ease sanctions same i. simply because the clock is ticking. those who want to pursue that with cuba must not forget cuba's history, but also its systematic curtailment of the freedom. recent events tell us a different story than those who have a sense of romanticism about the castro regime. it is a story about two terrorist states: cuba and north korea. there is unshakable, undeniable,

incontrovertible proof that the cuban government, colluding with north korea, violated united nations security sanctions regimes. in july of last year a north korean ship was docked in cuba's new mayocuba'smario port facili. the ships left the dock and it wasn't long afterwards that it was seized by the pa panamanian government when it attempted to enter the panama canal. what did authorities find? there in the cargo bays under some 200,000 bags of sugar authorities discovered 240 tons of weapons bound for where? for where? north korea, another terrorist state. and yet apparently this evidence to some of my colleagues is not

of concern. but that's not the end of the story, mr. president. when authorities inventoried the 240 tons of weapons hidden behind two -- beneath, i should say, 200,000 bags of sugar that they found on the north korean ship, they found two mig aircraft, several sa-2, sa-3 surface-to-air missile systems, radar and missile components and a cache cache of small arms. this is a picture of what was found. i ask my colleagues, is this the kind of behavior of a tired, old, benign regime, one that deserves our sympathy? is there a misunderstanding that does not check enough terrorist boxes? is this something we should justifiably ignore, falling into the category of, well, castro

will be castro? or is this, at et cetera core, the act -- a much its corks the act of a terrorist player that we would not tolerate from any other nation? it seems to me that supplying a rogue nation like north korea with a secret cachet of weapons demands something more than the loosening of travel restrictions and the opening of trade t demands exactly the opposite. we should treat cuba and the castro regime as we would treat any other state superio superiof terrorism u yet here i am to point to picture of a north korean ship in a cuban port smuggling mig aircraft and surface-to-air missiles and ask, why should we turn a blind eye to what we clearly would not accept from iran, syria, or sudan? and why in god's name would we

want to take this opportunity to reward the regime with cash throws so that they can continue to oppress their people and subvert knack countries? why should we accept the lame excuses given by the cuban regime that somehow, despite the fact that many of the arms were still in their original packaging, despite the fact that others had been recently cal brailtsed, disspite the fact that there was a fresh coat of paint over the insignia on the side of the mission t the of the their origin, despite the ship was covered by 100,000 bags of sugar to hide their mission, cuba claimed this was an innocent business transaction and that the arms were being sent to north exrea for maintenance and would have been returned to the island. does anyone actually believe

such a ludicrous claim? can we and should we simply ignore it and move on, even though united nations weapons inspectors found that the shipment was a clear violation -- clear violation -- of u.n. sanctions, that cuba was the first country in the western hemisphere to violate international sanctions related to north korea and that the shipment constituted the largest amount of arms shipped to or from north korea since the adoption of security council resolution 1874 in 2009 and resolution 2094 in 2013? i repeat, the largest amount of arms shipped to or from north korea. if that's not food for thought when it comes to easing restrictions against a terrorist state to our state, i don't know what is.

now, that said, in some recent years some would have us believe dish listened to some of my colleagues -- that reforms led by rulby raul castro plays cubae path to economic progress. but if we look at a law that could you bucubajust passed, wer look. under cuba's new foreign investment law, investment projects will be allowed to be fully funded by foreign capital. business taxes and profits would be cut by 50%. foreign companies would be exempt from paying taxes for the first eight years of operations in cuba. and many foreigners living in cuba would be let off the hook from paying income taxes at all. think it. the question is, how wince? who wince? -- who wins? not the people of cuba. instead of receiving new

investment opportunities or benefiting from tax cuts, although cubans don't make enough to really benefit from any tax cuts, they'll continue to live under restrictive laws and regulations unable to start their own business, unable to follow a dream, build a better life. they are left to live under the most restrictive laws, presting them from ever realizing their dreams for themselves and their feassments in fact, the cuban regime has permitted people to work for themselves but only in 200 types of jobs that the government officially sanctions. they have a list of authorized jobs that includes building cigarette lighters, street performing, not exactly lucrative start-ups that can build an economy. these authorized jobs bear more resemblance to a futile economy than anything we would recognize as economic opportunity.

at the same time, the government has moved aggressively to close in-home movie theaters, secondhand clothing markets, fledgling private markets that it considers too long or too successful. why? because anything that allows cubans to meet legally, lawfully afned as a group is seen as a threat to the regime. simply allowing people to come toght together for what we take for granted in our country and most countries in the world is seen as aphlet to the regime. -- as a threat to the regime. because god knows what those cubans would know if they start talking to each other in place in which they had no fear. while the cuban government offers new incentives to foreign investors and continues to clamp down on self-employed workers, the real economic change in cuba is the growing role of the cuban armed forces and the country's economy. under the watchful eye of raul

castro's son-in-law, a general in the cuban armed forces shall the military holding company has amassed control of more than 40% of cuba's economy. through companies like this, government and the armed forces, those who is loyal to the castros, are laying a foundation for its future control of cuba and the economy. on the economic front, i think it is important to make the point that when people argue for travel and trade with cuba, they're arguing to do so with who? with castro's monopolies. let's be clear, regular cubans are prohibited from engaging in foreign trade and commerce. so we want to trade with castro's state-loaned monopolies, montana monopoly miss largely controlled by the armed forces of few about a. do we really wnts to reward a

regime that sends the biggest amount of weapons in violation of security council resolutions? the u.n.'s own report of u.s. agricultural sales to sue about a states how every single transaction by cuba by hundreds of american agricultural companies have only unone and jaun counterpart only. castro's fruit man monopoly threw a called called al import. that hasn't helped the country one by the. do we want to unleash billions to castro's monopolies? every current traveler that state at a hotel or resort is owned by whom? the cuban military. no exceptions. so, mr. president, how does that promote the independence of the cuban people from the regime, as president obama's policy

statement upon releasing this regulation states 1234 they should be compelled to stay what the we call a private home that used to be able to allow to make it a visitor but taking at the military facilities owned by the military or copartnering by the military with some foreign private sector contravenes the president's own policy statement. this hardly constitutes an economic opening for the people of cuba. by wit way you can't -- if you are an individual cuban, you can't go to a foreign company. you can't even go to the hotels in your own country unless for invited in by a foreigner. you can't -- you work there, if the state sends you there. so those of us who get to work here, we actual live would only be here because the state would send us here, not because

through our abilities and competency we would have eed the opportunity to be -- earned the opportunity to be employed here. that's not possible for the average cuban. so in their own country, they can not go to a hotel unless they are invited in by a foreign. imagine if you could visit this throughout our country and not go into a hotel unless somebody from some other country tells you you could come into it. however, if there is one positive trend to be found in cuba today, that is after decades of fear and ^se self-imd siecialtion there is a growing number of cuban citizens speaking out crit dpli public. in june of 2012, jorge luis s umpett. s testified before the foreign relations committee via skip. as you can see in this

photograph, as he testified he was beaten and dealted for his testimony on human rights abuse ogee the island that. din the didn't stop him, didn't stop the sloggers from the cuban deasenator a about getting the words out. after decades of being manipulated, the people of cuba no longer identify with the government. while the government still holds power through its security operations, its legitimacy is plummeting in the opinions of its people. after 55 years of dictatorship, it is our responsibility in the international community to encourage this independence and help the people of cuba reclaim their rights, rights to freedom of expression, rights to organize unions, rights to freedom of assembly, rights to freedom of the press, rights to freedom of religion, universal human rights. rights rand and freedoms that will of a new democratic imbue

in the future. roberto solin, the ladies in white i showed you earlier, is now allowed to visit the united states after an enormous amount of pressure. when she returns to cuba, there is no change in the status of the ladies in white. the pictures that i showed ow of the beatings and arrests is still their reality. every move she and her courageous parntion make is monitored by the castro regime. they are physically harassed, intimidate and arrested. for simply wanting any mother mn any country on the face of the earth wants: to learn of the fate of her husband, to son, or daughter who has been harassed, beaten, and jailed by an age, ill legitimate regime. there were more than 15,000 cases of ash terror, politically

motivated detention since the start of 2012. in january of this year, when 30 heads of state from latin america and the caribbean came together as well as the secretary-general of the united nations and the secretary-general of the o. as., there were more than 1,050 detentions over the course of one month. in a prominent case, a leading political cubist and known leftist, manuel questa mora was arrested after attempting to do what, to organize a parallel civil society summit during the visit by the heads of state. this simple practice, a practice that is not uncommon and, in fact, ubiquitous throughout latin america and the world is not tolerated by the cat retroregime. instead, mr. questa-mora faced

wife days of interrogations and has been charged with disseminating false news against international peace joining prominent actis jorge luis perez antunas. simply because they knew that there were heads of state throughout latin america and major international organizations wanting to hold a parallel meeting, peacefully doing so to promote their vision of what human rights, democracy should be inside of their country, and their result was to ultimately be jailed and faced with charges that can lead them for many, many years in jail. and, unfortunately, except for one or two, most of the leaders of the hemisphere who went to that meeting didn't even try to meet with human rights

activist, political dissidents or independent journalists. they did not want to insult the castro regime. here is farenas being taken away by police. these activists have faced repeated brutal acts at the hands of the castro regime, no less violent than the regimes of any other terrorist state. finally, it's important to note that the harassment will not reserved for political actors alone but also directed at labor rights activists at well. in early march of this year, afl-cio president trunka called on the cuban government to end harassment of questa-mora and all activists advocating for labor rights to protect cuban workers like maria elena mir and her colleagues. american workers ran turning a blind eye to what the cuban regime is doing to limit worker rights and we should be should

not turn a blind eye either. we mist support those like marcha and maria who are willing to step forward in the face of a repressive regime that will not stop at anything to silence them. as the people of cuba look to cast off the shackles of five decades of dictatorial rule, we must stand with and speak out in support of all those who seek to reclaim their civil and political rights and promote political pluralism and democratic values. we cannot turn our back on cuba's human rights violations record for decades simply because enough time has passed. if that's the case, mr. president, enough time has surely passed in places like syria, sudan, iran, and north korea. to me and to the thousands who have suffered at the hands of this regime, the clock has nothing to do with our policy options.

engagement and sanctions relief has to be earned. it kidnap be timed out. it must come through real change, not x's on a calendar or the ticking of a clock and the clock is ticking for alan gross. on december 4 of 2009, alan gross, a private subcontractor for the u.s. government working to bring information to the jewish community inside of cuba was arrested in cuba. mr. gross, a 64-year-old development professional who worked in dozens of countries around the world with programs to help people get access to basic information was doing nothing different. that's why i am amazed with this uproar that exists by some who want to paint this picture that my god, we actually were trying to assist the cuban people who have greater access to the internet through a twitter program. that's what we do throughout the

world. even before -- the foreign operations legislation talks about tens of millions of dollars, if not several hundred million dollars to be promoting internet access in closed societies. it seems to me that freedom of information is one of the most fundamental elements. and yet we have this bit of a firestorm going on over simply creating the possibility for people to have access to that information so that they can speak to themselves and hear unfettered what's happening in the outside world. we all condemn what's happening in turkey, when the head of turkey ultimately tries to shut down twitter but somehow it's okay to shut down the people of cuba. now, since 2009, alan gross has been detained in villa

marista, notorious for its mistreatment of prisoners. this is not a minimum security prison where foreigners are routinely held. it is a harsh, repressive prison reserved for cuban dissidents. he's still being held at villa marista and it's its time for the castro regime to let this american be released. he did nothing wrong. after serving four years now of a 15-year sentence, this 64-year-old american's mental shelt reported could be deteriorating and his life may well be in danger. the case of alan gross is only one example of why we cannot let up until the dead weight of this oppressive regime is lifted once and for all. mr. president, we have supported democracy movements around the world. i've been a big advocate of that in my 21 years in the congress and the house and the senate,

serving on both foreign policy committees. i'm a big advocate because freedom and democracy and human rights when they are observed means that we deal with countries in which we will have less conflict and more opportunity. it is the idea upon which this nation was founded, and it is who we are as a people and what we stand for in the eyes of the world. we cannot no longer condone through inaction and outright support, even from some of my colleagues in this chamber, the actions of a repressive regime 90 miles from our own shores simply because of the passage of time or because of some romantic idea of what the castro regime is all about. so to my colleagues let me say i know i have come to the floor many occasions demanding action. i've come to this floor demanding that we live up to our rhetoric and to our values. i ask that we hold the castro brothers accountable for the suffering of the cuban people,

not only the years of brutality and oppression that has deprived the cuban of the human rights we so proudly claim to support around the world, but also for the continuing reality of the suppression of those human rights today. and i will come to the floor again and again and again to ask for nothing less. to ask that we never allow the castro regime to profit from increased trade that will benefit the regime, thak use these dollars for repression but not put one ounce of food on the plates of cuban families. let me end, mr. president, with this photograph of a man being arrested in havana and flashing a sign, recognized across cuba and throughout the world. the sign is l for liberty. libertad, libertad, libertad.

that's all we ask for the people of cuban and i -- cuba and i will not arrest until we achieve it. thank you, mr. president. with that i yield the floor and observe serve. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate

proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 92 which waters received from the house is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 92, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the national peace officers' memorial service and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the current resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today -- s. res. 414, s. res. 415, and s. res. 416. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the

measures en bloc. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i understand that h.r. 2575 has been received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 2575, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. mr. menendez: i would ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, april 8, 2014, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal be

approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. and that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. further, that the majority control the time from 2:15 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. and that the republicans control the time from 3:15 p.m. until 4:15 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: new england proashed was filed on the equal pay bill. under the rule that vote will be wednesday morning. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

>> guest: you have a bigger station that is selling ads on behalf of the smaller station and taking a cut of the revenue. >> host: when you say cutdown, what do you mean by that? >> guest: well, they are

proliferated because there is ownership among the stations which led to instances where one company was in violation of owning a station in every market so they set up sidecars to get them. they find an entrepreneur who they have a connection with and sign an agreement and according to tom wheeler, that sidecar serves as a way for one company to control both stations handling the sales and such and the fcc believes this is a violation of rules. >> host: has there been a lot of c conso consolidation? >> guest: