live coverage of the senate now on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, who has ordained that we live our lives within the bounds of time and circumstances, use your omnipotence to accomplish your purposes on earth. through the labors of our

lawmakers, bring to pass the triumph of your sovereign will. lord, empower our senators to face life's challenges with the strength you so generously provide. let them not repeat the mistakes of yesterday in the life of today nor in the life of today set any bad examples for the life of tomorrow. fill us all with your joy and peace which no circumstance can take from us. we pray in your gracious name. amen. the president pro tempore:

please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 368, the shaheen-portman energy efficiency legislation. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 368, s. 2262, a bill to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry and for other purposes. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader the senate will be in morning business until 5:30 p.m. this evening. at that time there will be up to two roll call votes. the first on confirmation of the moritz nomination to be united states circuit judge for the tenth circuit and the next on

confirmation of mr. selfridge to be the chief of protocol in the department of state. mr. president, i send a resolution to the desk and ask it be now considered. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 434, electing andrew b. willison as a sergeant at arms and doorkeeper of the senate. the president pro tempore: is there objection to proceeding to the resolution? hearing none, without objection the senate will proceed. mr. reid: mr. president, this resolution sponsored by senators reid of nevada and mcconnell is important, and i ask consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the president pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i send two resolutions to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration. the president pro tempore: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 435 notifying the president of the

united states of the election of the sergeant at arms and doorkeeper of the senate. s. res. 436 notifying the house of representatives of the election of the sergeant at arms and doorkeeper of the senate. the president pro tempore: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? hearing none the senate will proceed en bloc, and the motions are agreed to en bloc. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent the resolutions both be agreed to that's been approved just now. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: motion to reconsider, no intervening action or debate. thanks, mr. president. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, today i wish everyone, especially mexican americans across the country and in nevada a happy cinco de mayo. all americans, regardless of background, join with the mexican american community in commemorating the causes of

freedom, liberty and hispanic heritage represented by this holiday. there are celebrations all over america today, mr. president. driving to work this morning, i saw a couple of people with huge, great big sombreros wanting to come to one of the celebrations in and about washington. this is a wonderful holiday that we all celebrate. mr. president, i would ask consent that this statement appear at a separate place in the record. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, we moments ago passed a resolution appointing drew willison as sergeant at arms for the united states senate. the importance of this appointment cannot be overstated. while senators and their staffs come and go, the office of sergeant at arms provides much-needed stability to support this great institution. to put things in perspective, drew willison is only the 39th sergeant at arms in the entire history of the senate.

mr. president, that's 230-plus years. by contrast there have been 1,950 senators to serve this body since its inception. drew's duty include the security and safety of the employees as well as the millions of visitors who come to the capitol every year. drew's predecessor terry gainer did a phenomenal job as sergeant at arms and drew is left with his big shoes to fill. terry gainer was not partisan and neither is drew willison. that is how this office should function. i know he is up to the task. as booker t. washington said -- quote -- "nothing ever comes to one that is worth having except by hard work." close quote. even though this -- even though drew did not seek this position, it has come to him because of

his hard work. he will thrive in the sergeant at arms office because of his work ethic. i know because i've witnessed his hard work over the years. he first came to my office a long time ago, in 1997. he was a fellow for the environmental protection agency. his talents were seen very quickly by me and my staff. so he then, mr. president, rather than going back to the e.p.a., became a member of my personal staff. again, his talents were recognized immediately, and i decide it would be important that he move to the appropriations committee. and he became the chief clerk on our energy and water subcommittee, and did a remarkably good job. mr. president, i mentioned his nonpartisan approach to what he did. during those years of his working for me -- i can't speak

because he was there after i became inactive on the appropriations committee. while i was there those many years, mr. president, i was either the chairman or ranking member of that committee for years, and the person that was opposite me was pete domenici, from new mexico. it didn't matter who was the chairman, quite frankly. we worked so well together in those days that we worked together. that bill, energy and water, we would finish that bill on the floor in one day. we would bring it out of the committee and finish it in one day. and we worked together. drew willison was a chief clerk, and when he wasn't the chief clerk, he was the second in command, whatever that is. and we just breezed through that subcommittee. billions and billions of dollars, the safety and security of the nuclear arsenal that we

have, and so many different issues in that subcommittee were important to the country as they are today. but now, mr. president, we can't even -- we have such difficulty getting a bill passed. we did it in one day, in just a few hours many times. so, mr. president, he is really a talented man, and he's a very, very quick learner. everyone who's worked with him over the years came to the realization very quickly, tell him what you want him to do. he did it with a smile, he did it well, and he did it right. during my tenure with this good man, now the sergeant at arms, his talents were invaluable to the success of my office. he's been five years as deputy sergeant at arms. chief gainer's right-hand man, and that is an understatement.

he has done such a remarkably good job because of his hard work and his diligence, and in the process he's helped make this united states capitol a better and a safer place to work and to visit. now as the mantle of leaving the sergeant at arms office falls on him, i have no doubt that he will once again prove himself. the senate and the many people who visit and work in the capitol are in good hands with him at the helm. i wish him the very, very best. and all i say to drew willison, continue being the person you have been, and you will be a success as sergeant at arms. mr. president, i would ask the next statement appear at a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, this week is national travel and tourism week. and as the senator from nevada, i know how important the travel and tourism industry is to this nation. las vegas alone attracts more than 40 million visitors each

year. eight million of whom come from, or across the globe. all told, travel and tourism generates $45 billion -- $45 million for the las vegas economy. this industry's impact is not unique in nevada. the presiding officer's state of maine, people go there year round. it slows down a little in the wintertime. people go there year round because of the beauty of the state of maine. i've only been to maine one occasion, but i came as a tourist. i wanted to see that beautiful state, and i was able to do that. it's the same in virtually every state in america. tourism is the number-one, two or three driving influence, economic influence of every state. so recognizing travel and tourism week is more than just simple talk. it's important that we do that.

annually, travel and tourism contribute more than $2 trillion to the national economy. it supplies 15 million jobs to americans. and, mr. president, these are jobs you can't ship overseas. in fact, tourism is the nation's number-one export. while it's important to recognize national travel and tourism week, just mentioning the industry's strength is not enough. as with any profitable business, investment helps. it will do the same in tourism, and we've proven that in the last few years. a small investment in travel business does great things for america. in 2010, congress passed -- mr. president, there were, as i recall, about five filibusters that we had to overcome on this legislation. but we did overcome them, and we finally passed in 2010. president obama signed this into

law. it's called the travel promotion act. this entity, after we passed the law, was led by a man named steven cluebeck. steven cluebeck is a businessman and he has been a successful businessman. he is now extremely successful in the time-sharing business and other things. but he was a, really a good leader of that entity when it was first created. and that wasn't easy. there were a lot of bumps in the road, but he being the exceptionally good businessman he was and is, it worked out well. his leadership was phenomenal. and now, mr. president, in countries all over the world, brand u.s.a. -- that's what it's called -- brand u.s.a. advertisements come at no costs to the american taxpayers, and these entice foreign travelers to visit america.

by any measure, the travel promotion act has been an incredible success. but, don't take my word for it. an independent analysis of the brand u.s.a. helped generate more than one million new visitors to the united states, and it's only going to get better, mr. president. those international visitors spent $3.4 billion last year, increasing international tourism, visitation in the united states create jobs. on average international visitors stay longer in our nation's hotels and they spend more money in our stores, restaurants and the domestic traveler. one out of every four visitors that come to las vegas come from outside the united states. nearly 20% of all visitors -- it's obvious from those numbers i just gave, mr. president -- come to las vegas from abroad. it is clear brand u.s.a. is helping our nation's tourism industry. it's helping our nation capitalize on this growing market for tourism. that's why the senate passed an

immigration bill. it's currently stuck in the house of representatives. this legislation includes a permanent reauthorization of the travel promotion act and brand u.s.a. unfortunately, mr. president, the house of representatives has so far refused to take up an immigration reform bill. we did our work. it was led by four democrats and four republicans. the four democrats, senators durbin, menendez and bennet. the four republicans -- rubio, flake, and graham. they did good work. couldn't have been done without them. our nation's travel industry, though, needs us to do more. it's so important, mr. president, recognizing the importance of tourism, how important it is that we proceed and help the tourism industry by passing the immigration reform bill. now, i mentioned the good work

done by these eight senators. the current president of the las vegas convention and visitors authority and former chairman of the united states travel association, his name is ross rollencutter, stressed the need for investment in our nation's infrastructure. as we invest in the airports, rail and roads, we certainly don't do enough, and when we do, we're effectively opening this nation's doors to our visitors. by providing safe, efficient travel for tourists, we can also ensure that the american travel industry has a reliable, full business. our commitment to bolstering tourism must amount to more than just concrete and metal. we must ensure that not only do we invite people here and they come from across the world, but that we are also facilitating the arrival and their departure. the senate immigration bill would make it easier for tourists to come to america by increasing the number of customs

and border control agents who process international visitors. we hope that as tourists from foreign nations become more comfortable with traveling to the united states, they will do so more frequently. we're fast approaching the anniversary of the immigration's passage in the senate. yet this bipartisan bill sits idly in the republican-controlled house of representatives. and republicans seem to be content to continue to idle. code word for doing nothing. there are many urgent reasons we must pass the immigration bill and travel promotion is one of them. we cannot be content to do nothing in promoting the united states to the world because ultimately travel promotion is job promotion. it's about creating jobs. it's about growing our economy. it's about keeping the united states competitive in the world travel business. so this week as we consider the incredible impact of travel and tourism on our nation's economy, i invite my colleagues in congress to continue to invest in this vital industry. and if we're successful, we'll

make sure that america remains the ultimate tourist destination for decades to come. mr. president, i see on the floor today the distinguished senator from minnesota, the senior senator from minnesota. her work on not only getting this travel promotion act passed was superb, but her efforts to make sure the immigration bill, to make sure that it's working well, no one has helped more than the senior senator from minnesota. she is a good legislator and she has proven that to me many times with her work on this legislation reminds me how tenacious she is. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. i would like to thank the leader for his superb leadership on tourism. anyone that represents the state

of nevada understands how important tourism is to our states and to our country, and i think one of the things that the leader knows, it's not just about las vegas. it's also about places like the mall of america in minnesota or all of those great bed and breakfasts and fishing operations in the state of maine or arkansas or missouri. senator blunt is the leader, the republican head of this bill along with myself, and we now have 56 authors on the reauthorization of the travel promotion act, brand u.s.a., in addition to, of course, the immigration bill which would allow us to not just reauthorize the travel promotion act but also the jolt act, which creates all kinds of new ways to add more jobs to america by speeding up the visa process, by creating some more visa waiver countries and other things. so we'll be talking more about

that later, but today i'm here, mr. president, on a very important matter. i rise today to discuss the outrageous be a -- abduction of 276 school girls by the terrorist group boco haram in northeastern nigeria. we have reports that these school girls, some as young as 15 years old, are being sold into forced marriages with militants. i know this sounds like something that might be in some kind of a late-night movie or a strange book, but, in fact, this really happened. this really happened this last month that these 276 school girls were abducted from their school by a terrorist group in nigeria. and with boco haram's leader now appearing on video, vowing to -- quote -- sell them in the market, let's call this what it is -- one of the most brazen and shocking single incidents of human trafficking we've seen in

recent memory. as secretary of state john kerry said this weekend, it's not just an act of terrorism, it's a massive human trafficking moment, and it is grotesque. this heinous crime demands that we take action immediately to help bring these girls home to their families and bring these kidnappers to justice. this is a test of our own country's commitment to fight human trafficking and modern day slavery, and we must step up and help nigeria with this challenge. on the night of april 14, mr. president, a gang of heavily armed militants attacked the dormitory of the government girls secondary school in chiba, a town in nigeria's borno state. they shot the guards, loaded 276 girls into trucks and grove them away into the forest. that was three weeks ago today, and since then, there has been disturbingly little action to

find these girls and to get their captors. local police say that around 53 of the girls have escaped, but that still leaves at least 223 held hostage in the hands of boko haram. that is almost as many people, mr. president, as were aboard malaysian airlines flight 370. that was 239 passengers and crew. which we all know about is a horrible tragedy and the subject of intense media coverage and a massive international search costing tens of millions of dollars. but i have a feeling that many people that are watching this right now or who are in this chamber probably haven't even heard about these girls in nigeria. in nigeria, no one seems to know where these girls are, and until this past weekend, no one seemed inclined to do much about it. the most determined pursuit of the kidnapper had come not from the nigerian military but from

the families of the abducted girls. some of the family members, armed only with bows and arrows to fight terrorists armed with assault rifles, rode into the forest on motorcycles to try to find their girls. that is the best the world could do so far, and that is shameful. now the situation is more desperate than ever. the girls are reportedly being married off or even sold for as little as $12 to be wives to boko haram militants. just this morning, a video surfaced featuring a man claiming to be a boko haram leader, taunting nigeria and the world with this shameless statement claiming responsibility for the attack. he said this -- "i abducted your girls. i will sell them in the market by allah. there is a market for selling humans. allah says i should sell. he commands me to sell. i will sell women. i sell women."

that boko haram would target these girls is actually not a surprise. the group's very name means, quote, western education is sinful, end quote, and it systematically targets schools and kidnaps and kills children, especially girls, who are guilty of nothing more than seeking a better life for themselves through schooling. the nigerian government estimates the group has destroyed over 200 schools. in february, 59 students were shot and hacked to death at the federal government college in the nearby town of buniyadi. the government had actually closed the schools in the region in the face of these ruthless attacks, but these girls wanted to go to school. they wanted to get an education. their school, which had been closed for a month, was reopened so they could just take their final exams. something my daughter is doing right now at college.

something that high school kids the age of these girls are doing all over the united states right now. they were just trying to take their exam. these are the girls who should be the next generation of leaders in their community and their nation, not sold off to a band of thugs. fortunately, after this weekend, the world is finally paying attention, and i hope this chamber pays attention. with the families reaching out through social media, using the twitter hashtag bring back our girls, protests have spread across the world calling for the nigerian government to take stronger action and for the international community to help. the united states should help lead that international effort. i was encouraged that secretary kerry said this weekend that we will do everything possible to support the nigerian government to return these young women to their homes and hold the

perpetrators to justice, but we need actions to back up these words, and i would like to suggest three actions we should take to help marshall a global response to this heinous crime. first, the united states should seek a resolution from the united nations security council condemning this attack and calling for member countries to extend all appropriate assistance to nigeria and neighboring countries to help locate the victims of boko haram's abductions and bring them home. second, we should move as quickly as we can to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets to contribute to the search for the missing girls. the countries of the region have limited resources and american support with aerial and satellite surveillance similar to what we have provided to the hunt for joseph kony and his so-called lord's resistance army in central africa could make a significant difference in their ability to liberate boko haram

hostages. finally, we should work to strengthen the capabilities of local authorities in nigeria yeah, -- nigeria, cameroon, chad and other countries in the region to counter boko haram, protect children, particularly girls in their education systems and combat human trafficking. i led a delegation last month to mexico focused on fighting human trafficking. one of the lessons that i took away was that was the critical importance of training local law enforcement, prosecutors and judges to recognize trafficking when they see it. a sharp-eyed police officer in one of these countries can make all the difference in finding these girls. make no mistake, mr. president, how we respond to the abduction of the school girls of nigeria will send a message about our nation's commitment to human rights and the fight against modern-day slavery. human trafficking is a stain on the conscience of the world.

it is one of the reasons that i got involved in this issue having been a prosecutor and seeing the devastation that prostitution and trafficking and sex trafficking wreaks on these girls. in the united states, we have our own problems. 83% of our victims in the united states are from the united states. we have had several prosecutions in my own state. we have had prosecutions in north dakota. it's one of the reasons that i introduced a bill with senator cornyn. we have multiple authors that go after this crime and looks for a smarter way to handle these cases which is modeled after a safe harbor law that minnesota uses as well as 12 other states. the idea here is to treat these girls as victims. their average age is 13 years old. not old enough to drive, not old enough to go to their high school prom. and it takes that concept, puts it into a comprehensive sex trafficking strategy and goes after this in our own country. it is now the world's third

largest criminal enterprise, human trafficking, right behind drugs and guns, so don't think this is just something that people are talking about. it's not. it's happening right now. nicholas cristov and his wife cheryl dunn wrote a book called "half the sky" named for the chinese proverb women hold up half the sky. it's about human trafficking. it uses examples from all over the world. in it, they argue that it is not hyperbole to say that millions of women and girls are actually enslaved today. they estimate that two million disappear each year. in fact, this book was written long before this happened in nigeria. one of the examples they used is a girl being abducted in nigeria. one of the examples they used are girls being abducted in moldova, one of the poorest countries in that region. senator mccain just went to moldova and came back, and when

he was there, he asked where are all the young girls and women, and the officials there told him, well, many of them have been trafficked to other countries, trafficked to russia. this is happening right now, and these girls in nigeria need our help. the girls abducted and apparently sold into forced marriages in nigeria are as young as 15 years old. they are being forced to endure what no one, let alone a young girl, should ever have to experience. simply put, this is a barbaric practice that must be extinguished from the world. in the book that was written, they likened this to what britain did in the early 1800's when they abolished slavery. they noted what mattered the most in turning the tide against slavery with the british public was not the abolitionist passion and moral conviction, as

important as that was, but instead what turned the tide was what they called the meticulously amassed evidence of barbarity. the human beings packed into the holds of slave ships, the stink, the diseases, the corpses, the bloody manicles. we cannot close our eyes to the clear evidence of barbarity unfolding before us in nigeria. this is one of our times when our action or inaction will be felt not just by those schoolgirls being held captive and their families weighing in agony, but by -- waiting in agony, but by victims and perpetrators of trafficking around the world. now is the time to act. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the note the absence of a quorum. a senator: woulthe presiding ofe snarl withhold her request for a moment, please? under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m.

with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i 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: .

quorum call: mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous

consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be given enough time to complete my speech. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i thank the president. mr. president, it's no secret that our nation faces a number of critical problems. we have a national debt that currently stands at $17.4 trillion. we are in the midst of an entitlement crisis that threatens to balloon our debt and swallow up funding for the rest of our government, and we have a still-struggling economy which was once again confirmed last week with the announcement of lackluster growth numbers. these are just some of the problems that we're facing, mr. president. there are numerous others. with all the challenges in front of us, you would think that the senate majority and the president of the united states would be focused on solving at least one or two of these problems. sadly, that's not just the case. in this heightened partisan climate, my friends in the majority are far more often than

not focused on two things -- shoring up their political base and marginalizing their political critics. in other words, madam president, it's all politics all the time. it's pretty easy to find examples of the democrats' efforts to solidify their progressive base. indeed, we have seen in just the last few weeks we have seen it. why else do you think we have had showboats on things like the so-called paycheck fairness act and minimum wage, especially since we already have laws that say that women should be paid fairly? why else did we have to endure an all-night speech fest on climate change a few weeks back? none of these efforts were rooted in any kind of policy justification. they certainly weren't aimed at benefiting our economy or creating jobs. if anything, they would do exactly the opposite. in fact, the c.b.o. confirmed that the democrats' latest

gambit here on the floor, the minimum wage, would actually cost our economy somewhere upwards towards a million dollars and at least a half million -- a million jobs -- at least a half million jobs. no, all of these endeavors were aimed at driving turnout for the democratic base in november. but that's just half of the democrat equation. the other half, like i said, is silencing their critics. indeed, over the past few years, we have seen a pattern coming from the other side, both here in the united states and in the white house of using whatever tools are available to intimidate critics and marginalize opposition. it started, of course, with the i.r.s. targeting scandal. i know a little bit about that being the ranking member on the senate finance committee. the i.r.s. has admitted that in the runup to the 2010 and 2012 elections, it was improperly, improperly targeting

conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for harassment and intimidation. now, for obvious reasons, president obama has tried to sweep this scandal under the rug, but the record is pretty clear on the matter. the i.r.s. singled out conservative groups, groups that were critical of the president and his policies, for extra scrutiny. they did not treat the 501-c-5's, the unions, equally at all, nor did they treat 501-c-6's equally. these conservative groups are subjected to delays in their applications. some still haven't gotten their approval after years of trying. and in several cases, they were asked a number of intrusive and harassing questions about their activities and goals. there's no getting around this. that's exactly what happened. this turn of events have left a black cloud over the i.r.s. as

an agency and seriously damaged the public's trust in government. but let's be clear about this. the i.r.s. did not engage in these activities in a vacuum. on the contrary, they were cheered on by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, rather than simply dealing with criticism they didn't agree with, urged the i.r.s. to apply more scrutiny to these conservative organizations. unfortunately, madam president, after the political targeting scandal, the i.r.s. wasn't finished. the pattern continues. late last year, the agency unveiled a regulatory proposal designed to limit the --quote, unquote -- political activities of 501-c-4 organizations. it finalized these -- if finalized, these regulations would effectively silence grassroots organizations across the country.

they would no longer be able to engage in activities as innocuous as voter registration drives or candidate forums without those activities being labeled -- quote -- political, unquote. the purpose of these regulations is very clear. the administration does not want grassroots organizations educating the public on the issues of the day. they certainly don't want informing people -- they don't want them informing people about candidates' positions on matters of public policy. this regulation is designed specifically to put a stop to all of that. it's no surprise that this proposal has been condemned by groups across the political spectrum. indeed, any objective or server would call this what it is, an affront to free speech and fair debate, but like i said, madam president, there's a pattern here. it is an ongoing effort on the other side to undermine free speech and impose limits on

americans' participation in the political process, and it has not stopped with the i.r.s. regulations. just last week, it was announced that the senate majority plans to hold a vote on a constitutional amendment that would limit the scope of the first amendment and allow congress to impose limits on political speech, just last week. it's difficult to imagine that we have come to that, madam president, but here we are. political speech is critical to our democracy. indeed, this principle is at the very foundation of our public. it is one that our supreme court has upheld time and again until very recently, yet when confronted with speech they don't like, my friends on the other side of the aisle are willing to use every tool at their disposal to even change the text of the constitution itself in order to silence it. in a marketplace of ideas like the one the founders intended,

this agreeable speech can easily be met with additional speech, and in the end, the truth will almost certainly prevail, but alas, my friends don't appear to be interested in the truth or marketplace of ideas. the only -- they only want one store that will sell ideas they happen to agree with. it's truly mind-boggling, but like i said, that's where we are. this isn't the end of the pattern, madam president. in fact, the pattern of hostility toward free speech and the effort to intimidate and silence critics continues virtually every day here on the senate floor. almost every day, democratic senators, including members of the senate democratic leadership, come to the floor to call out american citizens by name and demonize them for having the audacity to participate in the political process. they use the senate's time and

resources to single out individuals whose only crime is that they happen to have different views on public policy. i suppose there are other -- their other crime is that they are successful, which is more often than not enough to draw the ire of my friends on the other side. but when you couple success in the economy with criticism of democrats and their policies, it is apparently too much for my colleagues to bear. so like i said, day after day, democratic leaders come to the floor to call out these americans by name in order to attack them. they spread falsehoods about these americans and their intentions, and they malign the entire conservative movement and republican party as guilty by association. even if this type of demagoguery wasn't unbecoming of the united

states senate -- which it is -- these attacks would be shameful in their own right. after all, how are these unjustified attacks on american citizens going to help our struggling economy? are they making these attacks so they can get people off the consideration of our struggling economy? some think they are. how are these attacks going to create jobs for the middle class? how are these attacks on american citizens going to rein in our already out of control national debt? they are not, madam president, and they are not intended to. like i say, these days, democrats have two missions -- one, solidify their base, and two, marginalize their opposition. and when they come to the floor every day to make boogeymen out of individual americans, they're

doing both. they're not as they claim to be trying to take money out of the political equation. if they were, they would be just as concerned with those on their side who spend millions bankrolling liberal causes and democratic candidates. i'm talking, of course, about the labor union, the travel leaders and billionaire environmentalists who have pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the campaign cycle alone. instead, they are trying to scare up votes. apparently, they believe that if they can make scapegoats out of those who choose to participate in the political process, they can cover up the fact that their policies have failed to get our economy moving and that they don't have any answers to the real problems plaguing our country. and perhaps more importantly, they think that if they can attack certain individuals for their political activities, others will be afraid to get similarly involved. once again, madam president,

this is a pattern of hostility against both free speech and against any americans who speak out against the policies of the democrats. quite frankly, it's simply shameful that it has gone this far. we need to have a different conversation. we need to talk about ideas and proposals that will actually help the american people. i hope that in the coming months, my friends on the other side will be willing to have this conversation rather than simply relying on underhanded tactics that in the view of many demean our government and the senate in particular. that is the type of debate the american people want to see, madam president, and i think they are smart enough to see through anything the other side wants to offer in its place. madam president, i have never seen it this bad in the united states senate. i have never seen this body so ineffectual in my time, my 38

years in the united states senate. i have never seen such politics played in this, i have to say, awful manner. i have never seen people's free speech rights being criticizeed and demeaned as is going on right now. that is not to say that we haven't had some faults on our side, too, but i do have to say it is unbelievable what's going on here. once they broke the rules to change the rules, the senate has not functioned as a great legislative body at all and it won't be functioning until we get those rules back. and i believe some of our colleagues on the other side, many of whom have never been in the minority. when they finally get in the minority -- and i believe that's going to happen sooner rather than later -- they're going to realize that these rights were very, very important, and

they're going to realize that we should be doing more in the united states senate other than just trying to protect our side against any possible repercussions that could occur, which seems to be the major aim of our colleagues on the other side at this time, or at least the leadership of our colleagues on the other side at this time. madam president, this is a great body. we have great people on both sides of the floor, people that i deeply admire on both sides of the floor. people have gone that i deeply admire who are on the other side. never, though, have we had, at least as far as i can remember in my 38 years, this type of -- of free and fair and right to open debate and the right to bring your amendments to the floor that we have right now. it's a disgrace. i think they know it's a disgrace. they don't care. they are more interested in

power than they are in doing what's right. and the way they have singled out various conservative individuals by name on the floor is i think deeply troubling to anybody who is fair. the fact is the democrats have not liked money, and if you look at wall street, they try to blame wall street for everybody but wall street is run primarily by democrats. you do have an occasional republican up there but an awful lot of them are democrats who are giving big dollars to the democratic side. and they have a right to do it if they want to. without being demeaned here on the senate floor. i just hope we'll have not only free and open debate, but we'll have better and more honest debate in futur -- in the futur. and that we might be able to bring our amendments to the floor on these important pieces of legislation, if they are important. some of them aren't. we go through this almost every day so that our friends on the

other side can hopefully keep their majority. there's always going to be some of that but, my gosh, it shouldn't be the total mission of the majority in the united states senate. and we should be interested in freedom in the united states senate as well as in the rest of the country. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his quorum call? mr. mccain: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the proceedings under the quorum call be suspended and that i be allowed to address the senate as in morning business for such time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: as consideration of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015 proceeds in ernest and with the recent release and annual assessments of the department of defense major procurement programs by the

government accountability office and the pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation, we are once again reminded of the d.o.d.'s chronic inability to rein in costs associated with its largest and most expensive weapon and information technology systems. this is, of course, a problem that the d.o.d., the department of defense, has struggled with for years. and during every one of these years, i've brought this problem to the attention of the american people, both in the senate armed services committee and here on the floor of the united states senate. so i need not go over again the frustrating litany of costly procurement failures at the department of defense. at this point, we are all aware of the future combat system, the army's -- quote -- "transformational vehicle and communications modernization program," in which the military

and the united states army wasted almost $20 billion developing 18 vehicles and drones, only one of which actually went into production. in other words, they blew $19 billion. as had been done on other programs on future combat syst systems, the army held a -- quote -- "paper competition" to select contractors far in advance of fielding any actual prototypes. but it awarded control to two separate companies and let them, not the government, hold their own internal competitions to determine who would test and build the vehicles and systems. encumbering the program with a dizzying array of conflicts of interest and preferred supplier preferences that chipped away at the program from the inside out. as for the air force, its expeditionary combat support system, the ecss, program wasted

over a billion taxpayer dollars attempting to procure and integrate a -- quote -- "commercial, off-the-shelf logistics i.t. system." that effort resulted in no usable capability for the air force and taxpayers were forced to pay an additional $8 million in severance costs to the company that failed in its mission. the marine corps, in turn, spent 15 years and $3 billion on its expeditionary fighting vehicle before canceling program in 2012. another $3 billion down the drain. and while there's so many other failures, we shouldn't forget the v-871 program, in other words, the presidential helicopter program, with which the navy attempted to procure a new presidential helicopter. before that program's

cancellation in 2009, taxpayers were forced to pay $3.2 billion and got exactly zero helicopters. our joint service programs have also faced profound difficulti difficulties. even though the department of defense has not completed development testing on the f-35 joint strike fighter, that program is already well into production, exposing it to the risk of costly retrofits late in production. while today the joint strike fighter program is on a more stable path to succeed, during a recent air-land subcommittee hearing on tactical aircraft programs, i asked the head of the program, lieutenant general chris bogden, what lessons the d.o.d. learned from that program's costly failures. by the way, it is the most expensive weapons system ever, a trillion-dollar weapons system.

he identified three lessons. one, the danger of overly optimistic initial cost estimates. the importance of reliable technological risk estimates. and the complexity and costs of building next-generation planes while still testing them. that is, of course, a post-mortem that we're all very familiar with, including on some of the failed acquisition programs i just alluded to. for that reason, congress enacted the weapons system acquisition reform act of 2009. that law instituted reforms to make sure that new major weapons procurement programs start off right, with accurate initial cost estimates, reliable technological risk assessments, and only reasonable concurrency and stable operational requirements. well, the government

accountability office found that this law had a -- quote -- "significant influence on requirements x costs, schedule and testing and reliability for the acquisition of new major weapons systems, there is still much, much to do, especially on the so-called legacy systems already well into the development pipeline. according to the government accountability office, the costs of the pentagon's major weapons systems -- that's 80 systems in total -- have swollen to nearly a half a trillion dollars over their initial price tags and have average schedule delays of more than two years. i want to repeat that for the benefit of the pentagon, my colleagues here in the senate, and the american people. the government accountability office says the costs of the pentagon's major weapons syste systems, of which there are 80 in total, they have swollen to

nearly a half a trillion dolla dollars -- that's "t," trillion dollars -- over their initial price tags, their initial cost estimates and have average schedule delays of more than two years. against this backdrop -- and -- and that is not acceptable. that is not acceptable to the american people. it should not be acceptable to the members of congress. and it sure as heb shouldn' hece acceptable to the people who are responsible for these cost overruns. that is the pentagon and that is these manufacturers. against this backdrop, i'll briefly discuss two critical aspects of how the department of defense procures major systems, real competition and accountability. in my view, it is no coincidence that the period of remarkably poor performance among our largest weapons procurements

programs has coincided with a dramatic contraction in the industrial base due in large part to consolidation among the nation's top-tier contractors. for this reason, the department of defense must structure into its strategies to acquire major systems true competition, not like fake competition, like we saw on the future combat system, whereas proponents for an alternate engine for the joint strike fighter once advocated. according to the government accountability office, in fiscal year 2013, only 57% -- i repeat, 57% -- of the $300 billion that the department of defense obligated for contracts and orders was actually competed. in other words, only a little over half of the $300 billion, roughly $150 billion, in

contracts and orders that actually was there any competition for. unacceptable. competition should be driven through the subsystems level and it should be reflected in approaches that foster innovation and small business participation throughout a system's entire life cycle. especially within the navy's shipbuilding and conversion account and the air force's missile procurement account, costs associated with the ohio class replacement submarine and the evolved expandable launch vehicle -- that's our space effort -- those programs respectively will severely pressurize other procurement priorities within these same aspects of pentagon spending. so within these particular are areas, harnessing competitive forces to drive down costs and keep them down will be enormously important. there can, however, be no doubt

that during this in an era of declining budgets and, therefore, fewer opportunities to support to an already diminished industrial base, this will be extraordinarily difficult, so we should be embracing competition, even the prospect of it, wherever and however we find it. in the litoral combat ship program, the navy's strategy to bring competition into the construction of the follow ship sea frames successfully drove down those costs after the costs to complete construction of the lead ship's sea frames exploded. the cost exploded. while doing so resulted in a dual award block-by contract which i thought and continue to think was ill-advised and serious problems persist within the litoral combat ship's mission nodules. in other words, the ship's ability to carry out its assigned missions.

there can be no doubt that competition was just what the program needed. after having found in 2012 that competition for the evolved expendable launch vehicle -- ie., our space program -- could lower costs for the government, the government accountability office reiterated the importance of competition generally in a report released just today, stating that -- quote -- "competition is the cornerstone of a sound acquisition process." remember those words by the government account act office as -- government accountability office as i go on. "competition is the cornerstone of a sound acquisition process." exactly for this reason -- it is for exactly this reason that i have been concerned with what i've seen in the evolved expendable launch vehicle, a critical national security space launch program. in the absence of competition

and amidst a highly suspect effort to minimize internal pentagon and congressional oversight of the program which i corrected just a couple of years ago, the costs of this program have exploded. higher inflation costs for this program than any other program in the entire benefit -- in the entire program. only after that program critically breached the cost thresholds under federal law, the so-called nunn-curdy, in other words, after the inflation of the costs were so high federal law threatened its extinction, did the department of defense finally recognize the value, indeed, the need for competition. and yet despite a directive by the undersecretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics to the air force to aggressively introduce competition into the program, and just weeks before the air

force knew -- the air force knew that a prospective new entrant to the program would qualify as a bidder, the air force awarded a three-year sole-source, block-by contract to the incumbent contractor. now, just weeks before they knew there was going to be competition, they allowed and awarded a program to the one bidder, sole source, at a huge cost. and the air force did so in a way that exposed only those launches designated for competition to the greatest risk of delay or cancellation. just a few weeks ago, in connection with its budget request for fiscal year 2015, the air force proposed to cut the number of launches designated for competition in half. they cut the number of launches designated for competition in half, in part to satisfy the air

force's existing obligation to the incumbent contractor under the sole-source, block-by contract. why the air force made all these decisions in that program which so desperately needs competition is unclear but the evidence of incumbency, favoritism i have seen to date was strong enough for me to refer the matter to department of defense inspector general for investigation, that favoritism apparently extended to the department of defense's failure to ensure that the incumbent contractor's efforts to import rocket engines from russia -- we are importing rocket engines for our space launch program from russia in a noncompetitive contract. and the president's executive order sanctioning certain

russian persons in connection with russia's activities in eastern ukraine, it took a prospective bid perks not the pentagon, but a prospective bidder that is a possible competitor filed a lawsuit in federal court to ensure compliance with the president's executive order. we all look forward to the inspector general's findings. in addition to the eelv, i will also be monitoring the army's modernization program to build nearly 3,000 armored personnel carriers. this program, too, appears to lack any meaningful competition, having obtained a waiver to skip over building working prototypes and thereby ignoring the acquisition best practice of fly before you buy. way back many years ago when ronald reagan became president of the united states, our --

then secretary of defense, cap weinberger said fly before you buy. fly before you buy. it is clear, i don't think anybody builds anything in america today if they don't test it out before they purchase it in block or produce it in block and yet the pentagon continues to ignore the fundamental principle of fly before you buy. there is also clearly more that needs to be done to ensure accountability how the department of defense procures major weapons and information technology systems. ensuring accountability means having in place the right acquisition managers when large procurement programs start instead of bringing them in years after those programs have foundersered -- foundered. those managers must be willing to see and enforce affordability as an a operational requirement and know how to incentivize

their partners to control costs. also within a system that better alliance their tenure with key management decisions on their programs, those managers trained to be as competent and skillful a buyer as their industry industry counterparts are sellers need to make those decisions in their professional judgment and need to do so with an overall system that holds them accountable if they're wrong and rewards them if they are successful. regrettably, that's not our defense acquisition system. in our system instead of accountability, a systemic misalignment of incentives reign. incentives that assign a premium to overly optimistic cost estimates and technological risk assessments. in our system, what's all important is getting activity -- quote -- "uncontract, -- quote --"keeping the money flowing and

maintaining budgets." our system allows the department of defense to start programs that are poorly conceived or inherently unexecutable with the aim of getting them -- quote -- "on rails." into the development pipeline, if possible simultaneously into production. at that point given the extent to which they have been engineered so their economic benefits are distributed among key states and congressional districts, those programs become notoriously difficult to terminate or meaningfully change. why? because our system keeps them alive, often at an exorbitant cost and in the worst cases, without ever providing meaningful combat capability. my friends, it's called the military industrial congressional complex. dwight david eisenhower in his

last major speech warned us of the defense, the military industrial complex. it is now the military industrial congressional complex, it's a politically engineered, ill defined massive transformational procurement program with an unlimitedle tolerance for concurrency, largely funded on a cost reimbursable bases with a contractor allowed to maximize profit without delivering needed capability to our service men and women on budget or on time. to say that such a system is unsustainable is charitable. it is a system that if allowed to continue unabated will have us bestow on our children and theirs the de facto unilateral disarmament for which they will have no say and for our nation will have no recourse.

rather than wallow in discouragement, however, we must let that odious proposition motivate us to reform the current system with meaningful change, in particular to the pentagon's culture of inefficiency that has eluded us for a generation. one thing is clear -- today we have a choice. tomorrow we will not. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i ask that we have consent to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, we've had a severe act of mother nature in florida and a number of other southeastern states where skies of biblical proportions in dumping rain have occurred. there was in pensacola,

florida, close to 25 inches of rain that fell within a 24-hour period. the counties in florida, escambia and santa rosa county were particularly hard hit and just today the governor florida requested a major disaster declaration from the president and sought assistance for that part of florida. i've passed along the governor's request to the white house and asked that it be approved as soon as possible. right now, the state of florida government, local governments as well, are assisting people in need, and they are surveying the damage to assess the extent of the storm's impact. and we're going to do everything

that we can to make sure that the people have the assistance and the help that they need during this very difficult time. and, of course, it wasn't just in florida that these storms hit. it's a number of states. mississippi, alabama, georgia, and as the storm proceeded on upwards, it occurred in a lot of the southeastern united states, but particularly those states plus ours in northeast -- northwest florida is where it really hit the hardest. many people have worked around the clock to save lives and to provide support in the immediate

aftermath of the storm. thank goodness that there is a florida national guard that is as experienced as it is -- and it is experienced, because we are accustomed to storms, particularly hurricanes -- but we're not accustomed to 25 inches in 24 hours. and all emergency personnel are down there helping out. according to florida's request for federal assistance, in addition to the spin-off tornadoes, some parts of the panhandle received this enormous amount of rain, and another indication is that in just one hour, 5.68 inches of rain fell, in one hour, in the city

of pensacola. it brought floods, it destroyed homes, roads. it destroyed essential infrastructure. if you've seen any of the views on television, then you've seen the devastation. you've seen people being pulled out of the water, cars completely submerged, portions of roads taken out, and it has occurred in multiple states. so responding to a disaster like this is a critical responsibility for not only government in general but for the federal government and the unique things that -- and people and services that the federal government can provide.

it's one of the things that government is supposed to do for people. it's supposed to help out in times of emergency. the president has already declared a disaster in arkansas and mississippi and alabama, making federal resources available there. i hope the president is going to do the same for florida. sometimes challenges are just too great for any one local community or state to take it alone. the unique position of the federal government in a time like this is by coordinating resources and people across the nation -- attention to solve our big east challenges and a lot of that is done through fema, and who better to have the help ready than the head of

fema, who is a floridian and who was the head of florida's emergency department before president obama tapped him to be the head of fema. so with this terrible toll on people's lives, i hope that this will serve as an example of how we can all come together when people are in need. and clearly our hopes and prayers, our thoughts are with the people that are affected by these storms. madam president, i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida.

mr. nelson: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, while i have the opportunity here on the floor, i want to call to the attention of the senate the committee on aging, which i have the privilege of chairing, held a hearing last week on scams particularly affecting senior citizens but not limited to senior citizens in the selling of precious metals; in particular, gold. and, basically, the bottom line takeaway from the hearing is, if you are an american getting a cold call suggesting to you that you should invest in a precious metal like gold, more than

likely it is a scam, and you are about to be robbed of your money if you play along and start investing in this fictitious investment in gold, of which the testimony showed that most of the times that the scammers do not even purchase the gold and certainly are not storing it, even though they are charging the poor victim, often a senior citizen -- charging them storage fees for this fictitious gold. i was astounded. we are accustomed to getting telemarketer calls, unless you're on the "do not call" list, who, by the way, telemarketers still call through the "do not call" list.

that's another giveaway. if you are on the "do not call list" and you're getting one of these calls to invest, and they can make it sound so good -- we had a good who was about to be sentenced that was one of the tellltellly marketers, and why - telemarketers, and why do these scams ofn often end up being in south florida? but it's true. not only these scams but also medicaid and medicare fraud. it is concentrated in south florida. well, this guy was a part of this scam calling unsuspecting americans to get them to invest into something that sounds too good to be true, only it is the gold standard and people fall for it, and then they send the money. and he showed us.

they have four different stages. one who first e gets you interested, someone who comes in and closes the deal, another person who comes along and then gets up the deal, and then others who keep you hooked into the scam until you find out that you don't really have any gold that's being held in trust for you in storage, but, in fact, that it's all a sham. so, i wanted to share with folks what the senate committee on aging found out. if you get a cold call and they want you to invest in gold, chances are it's a scam and it's not real. it is -- a word to the wise:

beware; don't fall for it. madam president, i yield the floor and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. coats: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the call of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: madam president, all 100 of us, republicans and democrats, are concerned about our fell wil felt fellow citizee unemployed, struggling to find work. we're concerned about the need for more good-paying jobs across the united states. there are hoosiers and citizens across the country hurting in this economy and it seems like a new negative economic headline comes out every day. consider some of the just recent discouraging reports that we've heard about: according to a new "usa

today"-pew research poll americans by a 2-1 margin rate the nation's economic conditions as "poor," and just 27% say there are enough jobs available where they live. just a few days ago the commerce department estimated that between january and march of this year the u.s. economy grew just a shocking 0.1% in growth. that is .1% -- .1% from no growth whatsoever and just .2% for being -- racking up a first quarter of recession. it takes two quarters back to back to qualify for a recession. but we're in the recovery period from one of the deepest recessions since the -- world war ii. and now we're into the fifth year, close to the sixth year, of a stagnant economy, growing at half the rate it normaally

does after a recession, and americans are still out of work. in addition, the united states labor force participation rate is at its lowest point in 36 years. not since the days of jimmy carter has such a low percentage of americans abouten in th -- of americans been in the workforce. another shocking headline: over 800,000 americans dropped out of the labor force last month alone. let me say that again. 800,000 americans dropped out of the labor force in just one month. 800,000 ... that's enough to fill lucas stadium in innap list. that's enough to fill that a dozen times. the bureau of labor statistics coalesces many ostatisticscalls0

"discouraged workers" and they join over a third of the workers no longer seeking work. so it is not just those who are out there trying to find a job, any job; this is a staggering number of people that have simply given up, simply say it's not worth the effort. the jobs just simply aren't there. even those young americans just starting their careers, just entering the workforce are not entering tetradditional level, or the level that they've been educated for. they're being forced to accept positions that they're overqualified for at wages way below what they expected to make after all their efforts at preparing them self through their education and through their skills training to join the labor force in america. now, given years of growth at half the expected level and high

unemployment, it's not surprise bein-- it's not surprising but s very disheartening to hear this continue well into the fifth year after the recession. but real estate than point fingers or assign blame, i'm here today to seek hopefully a consensus that the senate needs to propose, needs to debate and support measures that will increase economic growth and provide economic opportunity for those that are seeking to join the labor force. it is time for us to start talking about maximizing opportunity. webster's dictionary defiance "opportunity" as "a good chance for advancement or progress. "quagclose quote. that's what american workers deserve. but many of us have introduced our own ideas about job creation and economic growth.

earlier this year i put forward a 10-point plan that i called "the indiana way." based on suggestions from who is hoosiers, these are commonsense solutions to some of our biggest problems. many of my proposals incorporate ideas that have gained bipartisan support. we're not here arguing against each other. we're here trying to find solutionsolutions to proposals,o debate together, to support together, to move this country forward. the indiana way includes commonsense proposals to reform our broken tax code, to reduce regulations that are crippling industries and businesses, to unlock american energy sources and to support industries, industrial growth, community banks, credit unions, those who are providing the tools for investment and the tools for growth. i welcome the chance to discuss how these ideas who help

hoosiers and americans who are struggling in this economy. and i know that many of my colleagues are also eager for the opportunity to discuss and debate real solutions to help our workforce. there are a number of proposals that are -- that have been brought to this floor by my colleagues. senator portman, who sits at the desk next to me, and others have put forward meaningful proposals that we ought to be debating. we shouldn't be talking about nothing can get done because it is an election year 2014. you know, let's put stuff out here that makes the other side look bad. we ought to set that aside and say for the sake of the future of this country and for all of those seeking work that they'll have it. let's debate the real stuff. let's work together to pass something that will make our country stronger and our economy better. one of my former colleagues once

said -- and i quote -- "our goals for this nation must be nothing less than to double the size of our economy and bring prosperity and jobs, ownership and equality of opportunity to all americans, but especially those living in our nation's pockets of poverty and especially those who are earnestly seeking work and simply can't find it. today that goal remains worthy of our time and efforts. let's join together and have a conversation about real solutions that will make our country stronger, improve the lives of all american citizens and build a better future for the next generation. madam president, this should be our goal. this is the goal that should unite us. it's long past time for us to get serious about it and take action. madam president, with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dust pensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so far democrats haven't been too

serious about helping the middle class but we have seen them pushing legislation that would cost 17,000 jobs. some of those jobs would be in kentucky alone. i'm hoping senate democrats are finally willing to turn the page. i'm hoping they're finally willing to get serious about helping the middle class because if they are there is an energy debate we should be having right here this week. we should be having a debate about how to develop policies that can lead to lower utility bills for squeezed families, policies that can put people back to work in america's coal company, policies that can help create the kind of well paying jobs our constituents want and deserve and policies that can lead to a more effect kwref use of northern -- effective use of north american energy supplies, that can help stabilize the world when energy has become a weapon of states that do not hold our interests at heart.

-- middle-class americans struggle every day to make ends meet. for many, the rising cost of energy is a big, big part of that. the price of electricity has been rising over the last decade, jumping by double digits in many states, and that's even after adjusting for inflation. so it's unacceptable that it's been seven years, seven years, madam president, since we have had a real debate about energy jobs, energy independence and energy security in the democratic-led senate. republicans have a lot of good ideas about ways to help alleviate pressure on the middle class, and we have a good -- we have good ideas about how to create new opportunities through the use of our country's abundant energy supplies. i'm sure our democratic friends have some good ideas, too, and we would all love to hear them because these days we haven't heard a lot of serious energy

talk from our friends on the other side. we haven't heard many concrete democratic proposals that would effectively alleviate the real concerns and anxieties and stresses that my constituents and theirs deal with on an everyday basis. that's what we'd like to hear from them this week, and that's what the american people deserve to hear. we know washington democrats tried and failed to push a national energy tax cap and trade through congress back when they had complete control of washington, and we know president obama hasn't given up on that idea even after the people's representatives refused to go along with it in a congress that was controlled entirely by his party. that's why we see the obama administration trying to do an end run around congress to get what it wants, to impose through the bureaucracy massive new regulations that would make things even harder for already squeezed middle-class families. so what republicans are saying is this -- our constituents

deserve a voice in what washington democrats are planning to do up here because they are the ones whose lives and livelihoods will be most affected by these decisions, and through legislation this very week, our constituents should be able to weigh in on these kinds of democrat plans. for instance, my constituency in kentucky should be able to weigh in on an e.p.a. rule that was negatively -- that would negatively impact existing and future coal plants. kentuckians deserve a say on ongoing regulatory efforts to tie up mining permits and the red tape that's stifling the creation of good jobs in coal industry and in coal country. and the american people deserve a debate on how we can best tap our own extraordinary natural resources to achieve energy independence here at home and how we can help our allies overseas through increased exports of american energy, too. these are the kinds of things we

should be voting on this very week, serious energy policy proposals that can jolt our economy, boost middle-class incomes and jobs and improve america's energy security in the world. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. dina new was sitting at her church in oakland, california. she was asked a question and she repeated it back, knowing there was really no way to really answer it.

she said what is it like to bury both of my kids? ms. new lost her two sons in episodes of gun violence nod more than three weeks apart in february of this year. her youngest son was an eighth grader. he was walking down the street one day. the description says that surveillance cameras actually show him almost skipping down the street. he was walking home from the bus stop. usually he called his mom to pick him up but his cell phone battery had died that day. on the video, you can see a gunman approach, carrying a semiautomatic rifle and shoots little lee, an eighth grader, 28 times. he wasn't in a gang. frankly, it shouldn't matter whether he was in a gang or not, but he wasn't in a gang. he was -- he loved to play

drums. his neighbors said he was a great kid. he stayed home a lot playing video games or he hung out often at the boys or girls club while his single mom worked as a social worker. nobody knows why lee was targeted. after lee died, his mom begged his older brother lamar to leave town, that it was just too dangerous, and not knowing exactly what went on, she didn't want lamar to get caught in the crossfire. now, lamar had had a little more difficult life but he straightened his life out after some difficult run-ins with the law. he was taking classes at a local community college. he had dreams of becoming a musician or starting his own business, but three days after his little brother's funeral on january 19, his mom asked lamar to go run an errand for her. so

doing a dutiful son, just days after the family grieving at their son's funeral, his brother's funeral, he went to blocks from home to do an errand. he was in his car and a suspect got up on top of the car and just started shooting into it, killing lamar. within three weeks, she had gone from having two sons to having no sons. those two homicides are amongst the 31,672 a year that happen through gunfire and gun violence all across the nation, part of 2,639 gun deaths every month, part of the 86 a day that happen all across the country. and my state is no exception. in march of this year, on the same night, march 24, two

half-brothers were shot, leaving one dead and the other in the hospital. students at -- the surviving brother was a student at hamden high school, and the principal there talked about the fact that this is now the eighth shooting victim at hamden high school in the principal's short tenure there. hamden is not a town that is known in connecticut for high rates of violence, but in just this one high school alone, this principal has seen eight shooting victims. they the funeral, which was attended by hundreds, for tajon. tajon was a great kid. all kids have troubles but tajon was trying to get his life straight. he had just enroll in the new haven job corps program. anybody who knows anything about job corps programs, knows it's

an avenue to turn kids' lives around, gives them real skills so they can go out and succeed. and tajon was really enthusiastic about starting this job corps program. but now we'll have no idea about tajon's life is going to be like because he's not with us any longer. and his half-brother, who was initially in critical condition, his life will be changed forever. and the funeral for tajon was especially poignant because for the family, this was just the latest tragedy. two of tajon's cousins, dallas and t.j., were also shot to death in new haven. and so in cities like new haven and oakland, the misery is just cascading, because it's not just one death with family members of that immediate family affected, it's multiple brothers, it's brothers and cousins, it's entire families being targeted and sometimes wiped out by this epidemic of gun violence.

an epidemic of gun violence that this body refuses to do anything about. and so, madam president, as you know, i try to come down to the floor every week if i can to give some voices to the victims of gun violence. because if these statistics won't move this place to action, maybe the stories of those young men and women, but mainly young men who are dying all across this country due to gun violence, maybe it's their stories that will move us to take some action. i know that we couldn't get the 60 votes required to pass an expansion of background checks in this senate, but maybe there's something else that we can do. maybe we can lend more mental health resources to these cities that are struggling to keep up with these high rates of gun violence. maybe we can fix the existing background check system just to make sure that the right records get loaded in and that there's actual enforcement of gun dealers who aren't actually asking their customers to go

through background checks. maybe there's something that we can do on a bipartisan basis. but the reality is, is that a lot of states are moving in the opposite direction. recently, there was a lot of attention on a piece of legislation that passed in georgia. this bill was dubbed as the most extreme gun bill in america. it allowed people to carry weapons in bars, in government buildings, in places of worship, in school safety zones, at school functions, on school-provided transportation. all apparently under the theory that if you put enough guns out in the public, both available to good guys and to bad guys, hopefully through a process of gun control darwinism, the good guys will eventually shoot the bad guys.

well, the problem is, that's not how it works. all of the data and evidence tells us that exactly the opposite occurs when you flood a community with guns. that more people die, not less. and we don't know all of the reasons why a 19-year-old fedex package handler walked into a facility in kennesaw, georgia, and injured six people before killing himself, but we do know is that that town has a law on the books that requires every single head of household to own a firearm. kennesaw, georgia, has a law on the books requiring every head of household to own a firearm. that didn't stop that episode of mass violence from happening inside of that fedex facility. more guns does not equal safer communities in the end. in my community of newtown, adam

lanza's mother had guns in the house because she thought it would help protect herself and her son, who lived alone in that house. in the end, it didn't protect her, it got her killed and it got 20 other people killed as well. think about what it would be like to be a seven-year-old gi girl, wake up in the middle of the night with your two, and four and five-year-old siblings still sleeping in the house, to walk into the living room and find your mother and father de dead. that's what happened just about two weeks ago in memphis, tennessee. a seven-year-old girl in memphis woke up to find that both of her parents had been shot and killed in the living room. three other kids were home at the time. the seven-year-old then called police, who responded and identified the victims. james alexander, her father, was described as a lan a landscapera

great father. her mother was described as athletic and very protective of her children. her parents were junior high school sweethearts and they had just married in february. a hundred people packed the coroner friday evening in front -- packed the corner friday evening in front of james and danielle alexander's home to remember the couple a day after they were murdered. a friend of the deceased says, "it just doesn't feel real. i still feel like they're just sitting in their house." another family friend said, "i don't wish this on my worst enemy but it happened and now we have to look out for the kids." that's the reality. parents gone in an instant. a brother and a half-brother in one night in new haven, connecticut. two brothers of a mother in oakland dying because of gunfire within 19 days. these are the voices of the victims that we're losing all across this country.

and maybe we don't have the votes to put together the big package that will provide some comprehensive approach to gun violence, but maybe between now and the end of the year we can show these families, we can show these communities that we can at least move forward a couple inches, a couple feet to send a message that silence will no longer be interpreted in these communities as complicit. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: 10 minutes is off. -- 10 minutes is up. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you. tonight we will be voting on the nomination of justice moritz. he's the nominee for the 10th circuit. during her legal career, justice

moritz handled a wide variety of cases both in the private sector and while serving as an assistant u.s. attorney for the district of kansas for over nine years. she also served on the kansas city courts of appeal and is currently a justice of the kansas supreme court. justice moritz has significant appellate experience and i expect that she will be confirmed tonight. before we vote on that nominee, i wanted to update my colleagues on where the senate stands in regard to judicial nominations. after tonight's vote, we will have confirmed 243 of president obama's district court and circuit court nominees. to put that in perspective, at this point in president bush's presidency, the senate had confirmed 235 district and

circuit court nominees, eight less than we have approved for president obama. during president obama's second term and including tonight's nominees, we will have confirmed 72 of president obama's district and circuit court nominees. by comparison, at this point in president bush's second term, the senate had confirmed only 32 district and circuit court nominees. so you can see a difference between 72 approvals for president obama versus 32 approvals for president bush, second term. despite this record, it seems to me that no matter how many judges we confirm, the other side, along with some confused commentators outside of the united states senate, can't help but complain about our progress.

last week one member from the judiciary committee accused republicans of obstructing and slowing the nomination process throughout this president's entire term. but as i just pointed out, the snaz hathesenate has confirmed f president obama's judges than we had at this point during president bush's term. another way to put it is, all but two of senate -- of president obama's nominees have been approved, so that's a 99%-plus approval. so these complaints just do not ring true. even "the washington post," who was never a friend of george w. bush, now recognizes how well president obama is doing on judges. a recent article entitled -- quote -- "obama overtakes george w. bush on judges confirmed."

noted that -- tongu continuing o quote -- "the senate has confirmed more obama nominees to the federal bench than were confirmed at this point in bush's second term." "the washington post" has also conceded that president obama's confirmation rate essentially matches that of president bush's and clinton's. i've also heard one of my colleagues complain about the president's vacancy rate. but the reason the vacancy rate is marginally higher than during president bush's term is because president obama has simply had more vacancies and more work to do of filling these vacancies during his presidency. there have been more judges retiring now than during the last administration, which obviously creates more vacancies. and as you've heard me say many

times on the floor of the sena senate, we can't deal with nominees until they come to the united states senate. in other words, the president has to do his work before we can do our work. the bottom line is that we're confirming judges at the same rate. it takes time to process and review each nominee that comes before us. this is simply the way the senate works in its role to advise and consent on judicial nominees and that isn't just lately that the senate has worked its will in making sure that these nominees are -- are good ones to approve. that's the way it's been done for a long, long period of time. in other words, you just simply don't have the president submit somebody and bring it before the senate but it takes a lot of homework to make sure that not just their qualifications but all the other evidence that comes from the white house is

reviewed adequately. so there is simply no basis to say that republicans are not giving this president fair treatment. in fact, just last week the senate confirmed nine judges. that is the most judges confirmed in one week this entire congress. in fact, we haven't confirmed nine judges in one week since december 2010, when we needed to vote on a sunday to get nine judges confirmed during one week. so i take this time just to remind my colleagues of the excellent work the senate is doing on confirmations and, of course, i do it to set the record straight, and i congratulate tonight's nominee on her anticipated confirmation, a confirmation i will vote for. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. hirono: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. officer without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary. nancy l. moritz of kansas to be united states circuit judge for the 10th circuit. department of state, peter a. selfridge of minnesota tosh chief of protocol. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the moritz nomination. without objection, all time for the debate is yielded back. question is on the moritz nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 90, the nays are 3. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the selfridge nomination. without objection, all time is yielded back. the question is on the 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 motion to reconsider -- 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. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the stopping -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the stopping tax offenders and prosecuting identity theft act of 2013. before we have another year, yet another year of criminal stealing the tax returns of

millions of hardworking americans, we need to pass this bipartisan bill. let me tell you from the start this is a bill that i introduced with senator sessions of alabama. this is a bill that made it through the judiciary committee 18-0 after a number of amendments were considered and rejected, this bill made it through the judiciary committee, of which there are people of many different ideological views 18-0. so what is this about, mr. president? we have a problem in this country, and it's a problem i think people would be pretty surprised if they knew how much money it involves. criminals are increasingly filing false tax returns using stolen identity information in order to claim victims' refunds. so what does this mean? how much money are we talking about here, mr. president? in 2012 alone, 2012 alone, identity thieves filed 1.8 million fraudulent tax returns, almost double the

number confirmed in 2011. the numbers in the documents in these cases may be forged, but the dollars behind them are real. a senator: may we have order. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, in 2012, there were another 1.1 million fraudulent tax returns that slipped through the tracks. and our u.s. treasury paid out -- are you ready for this, mr. president? -- $3.6 billion in fraudulent returns. $3.6 billion, at a time where we have a debt, at a time where we are cutting programs and doing everything we can to make the government more accountable. we paid out $3.6 billion in fraudulent returns. that is taxpayer dollars going down the drain. but when criminals file these fake tax returns, it's not just the treasury that loses out. everyday people are the real victims here, forced to wait months and sometimes even years

before receiving the refunds that are owed to them. and it can take years to fix the problems when you have your identity stolen. in 2012, allen stender, a retired businessman from the 5,000-person town of circle pines, minnesota, was working to file his taxes on time, just like so many americans did this past month. after completing all the forms and sending in his tax returns, allen heard from the i.r.s. that there was a major problem. someone had stolen his identity and used his personal information to fraudulently file his taxes and steal his tax return. just last month, 25 people were arrested in florida for using thousands of stolen identities to claim $36 million in fraudulent tax refunds. this included the arrest of a middle school food service worker who stole the identities of more than 400 students. those victims are just kids and

criminals are stealing their identities to get fake tax returns. the attorney general of the united states of america, eric holder, had his tax i.d. stolen. two young adults used his name, date of birth and social security number to file a fraudulent tax return. they got caught, they got prosecuted, but when our own attorney general of the united states is a victim of tax fraud, of people stealing identities, i think it's time to admit that we have a problem. from a retired man in minnesota to middle school students in florida to the attorney general of the united states, it's clear that identity theft can happen to anyone. we also know this crime can victimize our most vulnerable citizens, victims like seniors living on fixed incomes or people with disabilities depend on tax returns to make ends meet and cannot financially manage having their tax returns stolen. there's a lot at stake here and

bipartisan action is needed. that's why i put forward this bipartisan legislation with republican senator jeff sessio sessions, to take on this problem and crack down on the criminals that are committing this crime. the critical legislation which, by the way, a similar version passed in the house just last year, will take important steps to streamline law enforcement resources and strengthen penalties for tax identity the theft. the stop identity theft act will direct the justice department to dedicate resources to address tax identity theft. it directs the department to focus on parts of the country with especially high rates of tax return identity theft and boost protections for vulnerable protections such as seniors and veterans. we also urge the justice department fully and coordinate investigations with state and local law enforcement agencies. identity thieves have become more creative and have expanded from stealing the identity of individuals to stealing that of businesses and organizations. my bill recognizes this change

and broadens the definition of tax identity theft to include businesses, nonprofits and other similar organizations. this is something that came to us from law enforcement. this is a bill that passed through the judiciary committee of the united states senate, not an easy journey, 18-0. finally, we need to crack down on the criminals committing this crime. bill would strengthen penalties from tax identity theft by raising the jail sentence. i believe this bill would go a long way in helping law enforcement use their resources to more efficiently and effectively go after these crimes. it's time to pass it through this senate. it passed through the house of representatives. mr. president, in recent weeks, we have made significant progress by passing this bill out, as i said, of the senate judiciary committee. i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we have votes on amendments when we were in the judiciary committee. some you may hear

one of those amendments would be -- in fact senator hatch belonged -- said it belonged in the finance committee. but in any case, we came together on the judiciary committee, voted for this bill 18-0, and it is now time to get it through the united states senate. with an 18-0 vote, i should have been able to just bring this bilbill to the full senate, buti know my colleague from texas had some concerns, even though he is on the record for supporting this bill in committee. the time is now to pass this bipartisan legislation to crack down on eye did notty thieves and protect the hard-earned tax dollars of innocent americans. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 316, s. 149, the stop tax

i.d. theft act and the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. is this objection? mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, you i want to commend my friend from minnesota for her very good bill. this bill is good policy. it is supported by both democrats and republicans, as she noted. it passed unanimously from the judiciary committee. i was proud to vote in support of this bill. at the time, however, the judiciary took up this bill, it also considered amendments. in particular, two amendments that i introduced. that are both relevant and germane to this bill. this bill is addressing the i.r.s. and we have seen in the past year abuses from the i.r.s. that sadly this body, the united states senate, has been

unwilling to address. it has been the practice under the current majority leader to prevent the minority from introducing amendments to prevent the minority from having a voice, and so the only avenue for the minority to have a voice is to use tools such as denying consent to try to raise issues that are relevant to the american people. when 2 come it comes to the i.r. targeting of individual citizens, it was roughly 10 months ago that the inspector general of the department of treasure concluded that the i.r.s. had wrongfully targeted conservative groups, tea party groups, pro-israel groups, pro-life groups. the dhai that news broke -- the day that that news broke, the president of the united states said that he was outraged. he said that he was aing grands said the american people had a right to be angry. that same day, the attorney general of the united states, eric holder, said he, too, was outraged and indeed the president pledged to work hand in hand with congress.

well, mr. president, 10 months have passed. in the 10 months that have passed, we have discovered that not a single person has been indicted. in the 10 months that it passed, many of the victims of this illegal targeting have not even been interviewed by the department of justice. in the 10 months that have passed, we have discovered that one of the lead lawyers leading the investigation in the department of justice is a major obama donor who gave over $6,000 personally to support president obama and the democrats. and in the 10 months that have transpired, attorney general eric holder has turned down my request that he demonstrate the same impartial yacialghts the same fidelity of the law that that be the tra significance under both republican and democratic administrations. as pointed out to the attorney general, when credible

allegations of wrongdoing against richard nixon arose, elliott richardson, a republican, appointed archibald cox to investigate those free of political pressure. likewise, when credible allegations of wrongdoing against bill clinton arose, his attorney general, a democrat janet reno, appointed robert fiske as an independent counsel to get to the bottom of it. but, sadly, when i asked eric holder if he was willing to follow that same tradition of impartiality, of independence, of fidelity to law, of insulated the department of justice from political pressure, the attorney general gave a flat-out answer "no." he was perfectly content. he saw no reason why anyone should doubt the integrity of an investigation led by a major obama donor. mr. president, as i asked the attorney general, would you trust john mitchell to investigate richard nixon in of course you wouldn't.

and it is in the context of this abuse of bureau, this abuse of power that the administration rather than workin working handd as the president has pledged, has stonewalled. -- it is in that context that i introduce two amendments. the first amendment was simply to make it a criminal offense for an i.r.s. employee to target people based on their political beliefs. and i will note the text of the language i introduced made it a criminal offense to willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress or single out for the purpose of harassment any person based solely on the political, economic, or social positions held other expressed by that person or organization. now, mr. president, when the i.r.s. targeting was revealed, it was condemned in bipartisan language. if that language was real, this provision should pass this body unanimously.

to make the law reflect that it is criminal for the i.r.s. to willfully target someone based solely on their political beliefs ought to be a proposition that passes this body 100-0. i am sorry to tell you, when i introduced this amendment in the judiciary committee, it was voted down on a straight party-line vote. every democrat who had given speeches against i.r.s. targeting when given the opportunity to actually codify a prohibition against it, every democrat on the committee voted against it. likewise, the second amendment i introduced was an amendment to stop the i.r.s. from its attempted co codification of ths persecution of political views. the i.r.s. has promulgated new rules that would have put in place its targeting of political views. the response from the citizenry was record-setting comments from the citizenry. and indeed, mr. president, i would not note what the aclu sad

about the new rules. the aclu, not a pass chon of right-wing thought, said -- quote -- "the proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in america." the aclu went on to say, "most social welfare organizations on both the left and the right serving exact the function there's see it the promotion of social welfare and community good." based hon their respected visions, they advocate for the powerless and the voiceless. they promote fiscal responsibility and good government. they serve as a check on government overreach or as a cheerleader for sound public policy. mr. president, i can say in this respect i agree emphatically and wholeheartedly with the aclu. and so i am perfectly happy to assent to my friend from minnesota's bill if only the same reciprocal courtesy will be

sewed and the remainder of the body will assent to these commonsense bills knack it a criminal offense to willfully target people based on their political views and that keep the i.r.s. out of the business of persecuting people for their political views. i ask this body to stand with the aclu. i ask this body to stand with the words of president obama, if not the actions. and i ask this body to stand with the american people to protect them from being wrongfully singled out by the abuse of power in the i.r.s. accordingly, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 311, s. 2066, and calendar number 312, s. 2067, en bloc. i further ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be

considered made and laid on the table. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? to the request of the senator from texas. ms. klobuchar: i reserve the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, the bill that i put out on the floor is a bipartisan bill. it is a bipartisan bill that passed the senate judiciary committee 18-0. it is a bill that last congress passed on suspension in the house with the support of republican representative lamar smith and got through the house of representatives. the house of representatives, which tends to sometimes be a rather partisan place, they were able to pass that bill. we cannot let this bill, when we are bleeding $3.6 billion in fraudulent tax return payments, we can't afford to just let this die on the floor because of the fact that my friend from texas

is trying again to put these amendments on. i have no problem in having this amendment come up through the finance committee, which by the way senator hatch, the ranking republican on the finance committee, said on the record during the judiciary committee that s. 2067 should be considered first by the finance committee. that was in the finance finance committee's jurisdiction. yes, it volted for it in the end. that is what he said. that amendment failed. we had a full discussion about this amendment and in addition to that, there is a rule making on this issue with 76,000 comments before the i.r.s. that's the issue. as for the other amendment that my friend from texas has put out there as 2066 also considered by the senate judiciary committee, also debated in the judiciary committee. we can't close off the amendments. we had an amendment, we had a discussion, and that amendment

failed by 10-8. there are several laws as we know that are already on the books that could be useful in this case, and there may be further discussion of this in the future but this bill has nothing to do with that. just because it has the word "tax" in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the i.r.s. employees and the amendments my friend from texas has put forward. what is this bill about? how in 2012 identity thieves filed 1.8 -- 1.8 million fraudulent tax returns. 1.8 million americans having their tax i.d. stolen. in 2012 there were another 1.1 million that slipped through the cracks and our own u.s. treasury paying out $3.6 billion in fraudulent returns. our own attorney general of the united states of america having his tax i.d. number stolen.

if eric holder can have his tax i.d. number stolen and they're able to prosecute them, what happens to the guy in minnesota? that guy wasn't caught. what happens to the people who have their tax i.d.'s stolen and takes years to get back their identity? this is why this bill went through the house of representatives without messing around with these amendments,if, why this bill went through the judiciary committee where we had the discussions and votes on amendments. a now all i'm trying to do is take in 18-0 judiciary vote which i was very pleased that the senator from texas supported on the judiciary committee and said good words about this bill, all i'm trying to do is get this bill passed. instead of having a debate about an amendment that clearly should have gone through the finance committee as stated by the ranking republican on the finance committee. it is time to get this bill passed, and that is why i object to the amendments raised by the senator from texas and ask that this bill be passed.

the presiding officer: objection is heard to the request of the senator from texas. is there objection to the request of the senator from minnesota. the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, i want to note very briefly to my friend from minnesota, her bill is good policy. it is policy on which i hope this body can come together and i will note a path forward that if my friend from minnesota can prevail on the majority leader simply to allow a vote on the senate floor, on the two amendments i have introduced, then i will withdraw my objection. and the reason i have to make this request is under this majority leader, the minority of this chamber is shut out of the ability to even have votes. so i would note this request is less than what i asked in my unanimous consent. it's not a request that it pass. it's simply a request that there be a vote.

and if there's a vote that gives an opportunity for every member of this chamber, republican and democrat, to go on record and to see if every democrat in this chamber is willing to do what every democrat in the judiciary committee did, vote affirmatively against making it an offense for i.r.s. employees to willfully target americans based on their political views. because any democrat who votes that way can no longer stand up and say thish upset about the i.r.s.'s abuse of power. once you voted against prohibiting it, you have made clear that you're unwilling to do anything to protect the american people. the request from the republican side for the majority leader to have votes scheduled fall on deaf ears. perhaps my friend minnesota will have more sway with her party's leaders than we will. but in the interim, we are obliged to use whatever tools we can to press for the american

people to stop the abuse of power that is stifling their first amendment rights. and for that reason, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i'm rising this evening to urge my colleagues to support the energy legislation that weep to -- we hope to bring to the floor this week, we're working on some of the possible amendments on-on that as well. this is good legislations that been on the police officer before. we took it up on the senate floor, since that i've we've added about ten bipartisan amendments the bill. it's a bill that's good for jobs, for american energy security, therefore good for our national security. it's good because it's going to save taxpayers a lot of money and it's also good because it's a bill that actually helps to grow the environment while

improving the environment. i've been working on this bill for about three years now with senator shaheen from new hampshire. we also have other cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, six republicans and six democrats, who have been part of this process. we hope we'll able to get this legislation the to the floor this week. it's a good bill that deserves to be passed. when we've talked about it, we've talked about it helps manufacturers in ohio and around the country to take advantage of energy savings techniques, the best technology, allowing them to save more money so that they can invest more in plant and equipment and in people. adding more jobs. that's why, by the way, mr. president, over 270 businesses and business organizations from the united states chamber of commerce to the national association of manufacturers, a lot of other trade groups again on both sides of the political spectrum have endorsed this legislation. we've also come to the floor and talked about how provisions in

this legislation will save the equivalent of taking 80 million homes off the grid by 2030. cumulative energy savings of up to $100 billion. it's called the energy security industrial competitiveness act and, again, it makes a lot of sense. we've talked about how taxpayer dollars will be saved because we require the federal government to practice what it preaches. in other words, to make the federal government the largest energy user in the united states much more efficient in its own energy practices. the time for talking about this legislation, however, i think is passed. it's now time to pass it. when we do, we can then work with the other body, the house of representatives because they've already passed significant parts of our legislation earlier this year. we can bring together the legislation we would pass here on the floor with the house legislation and send it to the president for signature. at a time when people are understandably concerned about the partisan gridlock here in the united states senate and in washington in general this is an example of something we can actually get done.

again, it's been bipartisan from the start, it came out of the committee with a big vote, 18-3, it's one that we've added more bipartisan support to over the last six months by adding more amendments. let's do something that will surprise the american people. let's do something that will help move our country forward, create more jobs, help the environment be cleaner, also help in our energy security and our national security and save taxpayers a lot of money. some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are skeptical of any energy legislation. they have seen in the past that this united states senate and congress have passed proposals that are top-down proposals that impose mandates on the american people. they've also seen costly legislation that funnels subsidies to preferred industries, companies, technologies, distorting the market and ending up in what have been expensive failures. that is not this legislation. this legislation on energy efficiency contains no mandates.

the bill is about giving people access to information they can use, not about making the american people or businesses do something. not only does it have no mandates, it does not add to our deficits. every authorization contained is offset by savings elsewhere this the budget. the reforms made in this legislation will save taxpayers a lot of money. some of it can be scored. and there's a $10 billion savings for instance on the mandatory side by the legislative changes were making. lot of the it won't get a score because it's additional savings you'll see by having the federal government be more energy efficient which saves us all own as taxpayers. unlike some of these previous energy fish tifs that were costly and inappropriate, this relies on the market and the states, not the federal government to drive efficiency improvements. mr. president, there's a reason this legislation got this strong vote out of the energy committee, 19-3. i said 18 earlier, 19-3, even

stronger. it's been improved with the addition of 10 bipartisan amendments. it's going to help with regard to the environment. by the way, our economy is going to be helped because we rely on affordable and reliable energy from in this country and it's our responsibility to do everything in our power to secure more affordable and reliable energy by adopting what a lot of people talk about, is an all-of-the-above energy strategy. to me that means producing more energy, yes, including oil, natural gas, my own state of-ohio we have a great opportunity there. it also includes being sure we're using the coal resources we have, nuclear power, renewables. we should be making it easier to take advantage of these resources, to bring more of these resources to market and lower costs. but at the same time we should be telling steps to reduce waste. this is complementary, not something that should be either you're for producing more energy

or you're for efficiency. we should be for both. we should be producing more and use legs. that helps grow the economy and makes us more competitive in the global economy. energy efficiency the lowest hanging fruit, the less expensive form of energy, the energy you don't end up having to use. it's a commonsense approach that should be able to be debated here on the floor in an honest way with other energy-related amendments and then after that process pass here in the senate, get over to the senate,, -- the house, work on a compromise with the house, get it to the president for signature and actually move on. when opportunity -- an opportunity to truly begin the process of putting in place a national strategy that has this all-of-the-above approach, producing more and using less. i look forward to working with my colleagues this week on engaging in this debate,

passing this legislation, and helping the constituents that we represent on an important issue to them. jobs, saving taxpayer money, making the environment cleaner, ensuring america has a secure energy future which is important to our national security. i thank you for allowing me to speak this evening, mr. president, and i note that no other colleague is on the floor, so i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: