liberated iraq. they killed and maimed countless americans. however, thanks to the assistance we provided the iraqis were able to put that group on a defensive posture. after the united state -- after the united states left iraq, this dpriewp was able to reorganize with new leadership and they were able do it in parts of syria that became largely u ungoverned after the assad regime lost swaths of land. they grew stronger when foreign fighters from all over the world who sympathize with their islamic jihadist cause began flowing into syria providing them new fighters and over the last few months, as i warned, by the way, in a hearing that we had late last year when we debated on the use of force in syria, this group, based largely now in syria, began to conduct operations in iraq.

initially to limited success and then limited operations that had some success. but now over the last 72 hours they've begun to make dramatic gains in iraq. in fact, they have overrun the second-largest city. and there are expectations that they are on the way towards baghdad. the goal of this group is pretty straightforward: to establish what would be known as an islamic caliphate. basicallyings an islamic -- basically, an islamic fundamentalist, country, a terrorist government. and, by the way, this group doesn't necessarily respect any borders. they are looking to carve out pieces of land that they can use to train terrorists and to plan operations. and if we look at the situation in iraq are over the last 72 ho, we have legitimate concern that in fact that is what -- that

they are on the verge of doing, if they have not done so already. when you aped the land they now control in -- when you add up the land they now control in syria and now in iraq. by the way, in many parts of the towns that they're now taking over in syria, they've already begun imposing sharia law. they've banned music. they've forced women to wear full veils. that is radical islamic group. it has shown what it is capable of in its conflict in iraq when americans were there and thereafter. this is a brutal, murderous group who has shoarc shown whate capable of doing those who oppose them. and this is a military-capable group who has made dramatic gains over the last few hours in iraq. most startling of all, by the way, has been what's happened to the iraqi military, which we spent money to train and equip. in many instances, the reports are they just abandoned their posts. they took off their uniform, put on civilian clothes, and just walked away.

and our fear should be that even as i speak to you now, emerging in the center of the east, in this area of the world, is a caliphate controlled by the most radical group in that eafort world today, and that is saying a lot. why should this matter? well, first, as when pointed out earlier, because americans sacrificed greatly so that iraq could be freed from tyranny. now those gains seem to have evaporated almost overnight. but the most concerning long-term aspect of this is that in this part of the world, using territory in what was syria and now iraq, is the emergence of a safe haven, a safe haven is what made 9/11 possible. al qaeda was able to go into afghanistan, then controlled by the taliban, another radical islamic group, oon and use it as

place to train and plan 9/11, and other terrorist acts against the united states. perhaps one of the greatest successes in the post-9/11 efforts has been the denial of safe havens where terrorists could do this. but suddenly, rapidly, a new safe haven is emerging, where radical jihadist fighters from all offer the planet are able to go and be trained. and they will not simply be satisfied with conducting efforts in that part of the world. but, rest assured, that their target and ambitions include us -- including right here in the homeland, right here in the united states. if in fact they are able to hold on to this territory, jordan, an extraordinary ally of the united states in the region, is directly threatened. they are the next country right next-door. and already jordan is facing tremendous challenges because of the conflict in syria.

beyond jordan you could see where israel could be threatened by the existence of the safe haven for a terrorist organization right next-door. but ultimately us here in the united states, the goal of these groups is to carry out wherein operation -- western operations. goal is a tack americans here, to terrorize. they believe and know that perhaps the most effective way to terrorize americans is to not strike us in remote areas of the world -- although they will do that as well -- but to strike us right here in the united states. and if they have an area where they are able to do this, a piece of land where there is no government to drive them out, where in fact they are the government, where they can attract the most radical people on the planet to come, to train, and to prepare to carry out these attacks, it puts in grave danger the security of every american living here in the united states. this is the risk before us now emerging in iraq.

it is not simply the fact that we have lost the gains that were once made. that's important and worthy of outrage, but what's most startling and concerning of all is the emergence of the safe haven and what it can mean to the long-term security of every single one of us. what can we do about it is the next question. question. and i must say that while national security issues should never be of a partisan nature, i am concerned that despite the emergence of this, we have yet to hear a cohesive policy pronouncement from the white house with regards to this and in fact a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, democrats, have shared the same frustrations. i want to make a couple of brief points with regards to the creation of a safe haven. this group is not invulnerable. this group is vulnerable. they have not proven to be good at controlling territory for long periods of time. here's the other point -- this

is a sunni-muslim group. but they are not popular among the sunni population of iraq. beyond that i would say the first thing we need do is make sure our personnel are protected, particularly in baghdad and in the green zone in baghdad, the international area, which is vulnerable to suicide attack. we must sthiern our personnel there is protected and i understand that steps have been taken and continue to be taken to do that. i'm encouraged about i that. we need to make sure that that happens. that the men and women who are representing us or work on our behalf in baghdad are protected. the second thing is we need to -- one of the reasons why this is happening is because the maliki government has been so terrible. and it is not just corruption. it is the way this government has created no space for sunnis living in iraq that has created the possibility of this occurring. and this maliki government must

be worth saving. and right now the maliki government is a dysfunctional government, as evidenced by the collapse of their military forces. but also as evidenced by the wait they've treated their sunni population. giving them no space or voice p their government. that must change. that must change. the third thing is, if in fact that begins to change and conditioned upon that change is the u.s. must continue to provide lethal assistance to the extent possible to help these iraqi forces, particularly those concentrated in baghdad, to rye pell and push back -- to repel and push back against this group. it is my opinion based on everything i know that they are not capable of doing that and in many instances are not willing to do that. without our assistance, they will have no chance of doing that. but ultimately, while the use of force is never popular around here, i want to be blunt and clear about something. we are going to have to take some sort of action against this

radical group. that is not the choice before us. the choice before us will be whether we take action now or we take action later, because what we can never allow u is for another safe haven to emerge anywhere in this world where terrorists are planterrorist ca, and conduct attacks against us. we should not rule out and in fact conduct to the effect they are effective military action from the air against this group wherever they are located. i don't take that lightly. i am not one to come to this floor and call for military engagements as a response to every conflict. i have opposed them in the past when they've made no sense, where ness no clear plan -- where there is no clear plan moving forward.

but this issue rises to that he level of urgency. we must never forget the lessons of september 11, 2001, where a group of radical jihadist traift terroriststerrorists murdered ns americans and carried out the most devastating tac in the history of our nation. it was not that longing that this happened. and thrur groups around the world that aspire to that now. whoa they need is a place to do that from. we cannot allow that place to me merge. there is no greater responsibility on the federal government of this land than to provide for the security of our people and the choice buffs will be whether we prevent it now or whether we deal with the consequences of it later. and i urge the white house to take this matter for the importance that it deserves and to come to this congress as soon as possible with a clear and

concrete plan on how we are going to deal with and engage in this emerging emergency situation that we now face that threatens the national security of the united states now and places a grave threat to the national security of our country in the years to come. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. begich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: mr. president, thank you very much. i appreciate an opportunity to speak on a bill we passed out of here yesterday, the vernts access reform bill. we passed it 93-3, which is an a. amazing thing when you think about it. in this body as we struggle to get issues in front of us to work on it, what we saw was an incredible bipartisan piece of legislation basically saying we are for vets. we want to make sure veterans have the best care that they deserve, they earned fighting wars -- not only the recent ones but in the past. when you look at the piece of

legislation -- and i want to talk a little bit about the piece of legislation. then i am a going to talk about some pieces that are important to alaska. i'll show some examples here in a second. but i also then want to talk about what's still ahead of us as a member of the veterans' committee, it the no just about passing one bill and saying we're done, we're completed, we've done our chore, we've done our job. no, there's a lot more work ahead of us. this bill that we passed -- again, a bipartisan bill, democrats, republicans coming together because veterans is not a partisan issue. it is an american issue. my state of alaska an american issue. it is important for all of us to step up to the and do the right thing. this provides the v. secretary the thoort to dismiss those executives that aren't performing. but also it ensures that if there are situations, as we've heard and seen and been shown to us, that there are people who falsified data, then they're going to be held accountability.

and as you know, recently we've heard the f.b.i. now is reviewing some of those situations. whoever is at fault needs to be held accountable and brought to justice. but it also brings out an issue that we have been doing in alaska for several years, an issue that when i ran for office i remember i called the hero's health card because i thought it was important, no matter where you are as a veteran, you should be able to go and access health care all throughout alaska. as, mr. president, you know, my state is a very rural state, very vast in its size, where people are and where they live is not easy to describe until you see or be there. and just,,here in anchorage, flying up here to barrow, 75000 miles. a long distance. but if you live in barrow and you are a veteran, you couldn't get health care at a v.a. facility. it didn't exist.

you have to come down to anchorage. we don't have a v.a. hospital in alaska. so then if you need hospital services, you would have to go to seecialghts long distances. so for several years we worked on this issue and i continue to push -- i brought general shin keekcy out to alaska to show him the impact of veterans who lived in rural alaska but yet across the street medical services provided by indian health services through our native health clinics were being delivered by our tribes. incredible health care, but veterans could not utilize t so i tried to show him that the care there is incredible, high-quality. we need to be able to access this. it is not awed paid with federal dollars. why not figure out how to being accessit? why not figure out to maximize our public resources for the betterment of not only our alaska natives but also our veterans? so we worked on an idea that

today we have now agreements with 26-plus tribes -- all these black dots on the man sho map sl the new areas where they can access care. if they want to stay close to their home, be part of their own health care system there, they can. and the v.a. will reimburse them. reimburse the clinic so it's no pocket, no money oust pocket for the indian health services or tribes that deliver health care. for example, in nome, i was very proud when we debated a big issue a few years ago, trying to figure out how to deal with the stimulus bill and how to bring economic revival to our economy. and one of those in that bill that i voted for brought a new hospital to nome, alaska, run by a tribe, $170 million hospital. but, again, 800 veterans in nome, alaska, could not access that hospital. they still had to fly to

anchorage or seattle, but now those 800 veterans, native or nonnative, can access that hospital, get care and end up staying closer to home. all throughout alaska now people can access indian health services run by our tribes and delivering incredible services. along with that, in anchorage we have a federally qualified health center that now also allows access for our veterans. the bill we passed, the veterans access reform bill, took some of these examples that we have been doing in alaska and showing great success -- not perfect but improving and giving example of this next item. and these numbers fluctuate a little bit but i want to give you a general understanding of where we were and where we are. before we had all this integrated system with the indian tribal system within alaska, the alaska tribal system delivering health care, it used to be 1,000 people, almost 1,000 people on the waiting list,

today a few dozen. and this changes. this fluctuates. when people call me and say that's not 10, it's 50 or it's 5. it does fluctuate. but it is no longer the 1,000. in the wait period, the audit just done, on 140 facilities they audited throughout the country, we, alaska, our v.a., was tied for first in the best response in regards to appointments on the waiting list. because that was the big debate, how to improve people who are on the waiting list. it is appalling what was happening in arizona and other places. i've seen the list now. people, 1,000, 2,000, in some cases 3,000 on the waiting list waiting for care. the bill we passed yesterday will help improve that and the numbers for alaska show that we have an example, not perfect but yet improved significantly in the care for our veterans.

number one when it comes to appointments. appointments scheduled within 30 days or less. when you look at a couple of other pieces, for example, mental health, which is a new issue, growing significantly, new patient mental health average wait time in alaska is in the top 6%. again, a great record for us, but we would love to be number one in that category, to be frank with you, and we're going to continue to try to do that. but the way we have improved the system was to make sure we have more opportunities to access. the bill we passed yesterday, again, takes some of the great things that we're doing in alaska to show access. i think this will enhance the capacity for veterans all around the state. this is something that, again, when i campaigned on the heroes health card, i just believed that we had this resource that we could maximize, that we could move forward on, that we could make a difference for our veterans. and we're seeing it. when we look at this issue a

year from now, we hope that the model that we've laid out in alaska is not only in alaska, but across the country. now, i will say we need to also keep track, because when you deliver health care through our indian health services programs -- in our case the tribes of alaska -- or through our federally qualified clinics, they can provide the health care per patient at a cheaper rate. no disrespect to the private doctors that are out there, that we do contract with -- the v.a. does. they're just more expensive because they work on a different business model. that's understandable. but this is a more cost-effective way. hopefully by passing the bill we don't just say pass the bill and we're done but six months from now we review the cost of delivering this health care to make sure we deliver the best cost benefit but also delivering quality care to our veterans no matter where we live. as a matter of fact, 25% of

veterans live in rural america. that means we have to make sure our federally qualified clinics have the right resources they need so when that veteran walks in that door, they can get the care. i will say the anchorage ones, again, for people who don't know alaska, the federal clinics there, the one anchorage neighborhood health center, when you're enrolled as a veteran to utilize that facility for your primary care appointment, almost same day. most cases same-day service. incredible. the same thing with our south central facility, south central health services. these are incredible clinics run by the alaska native tribe in the south central region. again, same thing. same-day service if you are on the list. and we want to make sure that's clear, that once you're on the list, you can get pretty good service and really direct service. let me put that aside for a second and give a general comment about veterans and

veterans services we need. i'm going to leave this up so people see it. but the veterans access reform bill was just another step for us to improve the services for veterans. this is just one of many things. one thing we did do on health care, the president and other members, remember when we had the shutdown, government services all stopped except v.a. health care. because when i first got here, there was a bill that i cosponsored that gave advance appropriations. why was advance appropriations important? so when government shutdowns occur, health care still gets delivered to our veterans. they shouldn't be subjected to the politics of this place. and we made sure of that. but to be frank with you, we still have more work to do. i heard some members come down. they started talking about disability claims, which still is a challenge for us. we still have a lot of work in this area to make sure that we increase the capacity. i know as an appropriator, we put more money into this system

so we can have more capacity to shorten the time of disability claims and making sure we get these done in a fast manner. but that, we have to keep in mind if we don't have advanced appropriations on that side of the equation, the benefits side of the v.a., in these government shutdowns, guess what happens? g.i. benefits stop. disability payment claims may not be processed timely. other benefits may not get processed. there is another bill pending which i'm proud to be cosponsor of in the house and senate. it is a bipartisan bill. every single veterans group supports it. it is important to improve the delivery system of the benefits side. the health care side, we did some work yesterday. we've been doing work in alaska for the last few years. now we need to work on the benefits side. there are many different bills that are out there and a long list of work -- stuff, working

on homelessness that we need to keep working on and making sure our g.i. bill continues to move forward in working our veterans. but i want to give you an example of a couple people, and i want to say these case stories and then i'll end on this. i think it is important to remind people of the work we did yesterday, the work we had been doing for years in alaska, the result we're getting, the example this is now woven into the veterans access reform bill we passed yesterday. and i think alaska is a great example. but here's a couple of cases i received in anchorage. one anchorage veteran was in touch with my office, was trying to get in touch with the v.a. since 1995 for an undiagnosed condition related to jet fuel exposure. yesterday my office was able to get him an appointment immediately. he called to thank us. he's getting care and he now appreciates the appointments and the appointments he needs.

it is the job of our offices to do everything we can for veterans. but we want to make sure this veteran when they walk into that clinic or facility they don't have to wait this long. another veteran with a back condition, about 150 miles away from anchorage which, again, is where we have the clinic for the v.a., about a three-hour drive in the mountains needed to be seen closer to home. again our office helped arrange so he could get service right there, so he could get service closer to home. it is important that we look at these. and i see these examples all the time. i run into veterans all over alaska to thank us for the work we do to make sure they have the capacity to get their benefits or their health care. mr. president, i'm going to end by saying there is no better job here than working with the veterans. it's something i enjoy. 77,000 veterans in alaska, highest per capita in the nation. every day i run into a veteran that may have an issue or just

thanking us for the work or thanking this country for the service of what they get and the benefits they receive. what we did yesterday was an example of what the senate can do and has done before with veterans. come together unified, negotiate, but never forget our principal job here is to take care of the american people as best we can and the services that we should render. in this case it's for our veterans. again, alaska is an incredible example. not perfect. let me be clear about that. the numbers fluctuate, but at the end of the day the trend lines are the right trend lines. we're moving the right way. to know the bill we passed yesterday has some aspects of what we're doing in alaska put into that bill makes me proud to say that alaskan veterans should be proud that we not only are doing the best we can but we're using our examples to help veterans all across this country, and i think that's a great statement. we have more work to do and it is just an honor to be here and be able to explain once again what we're doing in alaska and

also knowing yesterday being able to vote on that piece of legislation and i know the house bill is very close to ours. we'll have a compromise bill. we'll pass it for veterans and give better care tomorrow than they got today. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i'm here today on the senate floor, but i should have had the opportunity today to be at an appropriations committee meeting. at the meeting of the appropriations committee, we were scheduled this morning to

mark up -- that means to consider and vote on -- the labor, health and human services bill for the next fiscal year. labor-health-human services-education; one of the most important pieces of education we have here. it's the bill that spells out the priorities of the american people as worked out by elected officials on everything from national institutes of health to grants and loans for college students. passing an appropriations bill is an appropriate and important check on executive spending. it is one of our most important constitutional responsibilities. it is one we haven't been exercising very well over the last four years, even though the appropriations committee has approved most of the bills for the floor, the majority leader has not brought most of the

bills to the floor for our consideration. so we haven't been appropriating. in two of the last four years we considered zero appropriations bills on the senate floor. one of those years we considered one. on another year we considered five. i wasn't at the committee meeting this morning because our markup was indefinitely postponed. and i asked why, and i couldn't get a clear answer. but apparently it was because senators -- some senators don't want to vote on difficult or tough amendments. now i've repeated a certain line here a couple of years. i'm from tennessee, and i've said that being in the united states senate and not being allowed to vote on amendments is like being in the grand ole opry and not being allowed to sing. that's what we do. i mean, this body, described as the one authentic piece of genius in the constitutional system of the united states was

created to have 100 men and women who come here and who have the opportunity to have extended debate on important issues until we come to a consensus. sometimes we do that in a terrific way. even recently we've done that in important ways. for example, on the student loan agreement that we had last year which cut in half, nearly in half interest rates on all undergraduate loans, which are 85% of loans. that was the result of an extended debate here, working with a republican house and a democratic president. the government worked the way it was supposed to. so coming to the senate floor and having a say and offering a bill and offering amendments and having a vote is the job of the united states senator. it's not so important that it's my say or my vote. it's the fact that that's what i

was hired to do by my constituents. each one of us is. we have a right to have our say on whether it is iran, student loans, ukraine, iraq. all of those is what we're expected to do. so i've objected to the fact that we have fallen into a pattern in this body of not having amendments. senator barrasso, the senator from wyoming, has actually counted the number of roll call amendments since last july. he has discovered that republicans only offered nine amendments that actually had a roll call vote in that entire period of time. then he counted what the democrats have offered and the democrats have offered more than 600 amendments, our friends on the other side of the aisle, and they have only had seven roll call votes. but today we have reached a new level of obstruction because it seems like our friends in the democratic majority are moving the gag rule that has existed on the floor of the senate from the senate floor to the committee

room. because they have said we're going to cancel a markup of one of the most important subcommittees in the senate to decide how to spend several hundred billion dollars, apparently because senators -- some senators don't want to vote on difficult amendments. these aren't extraneous amendments. these aren't political exercises. these are relevant amendments. critical to the process of setting spending priorities well within the scope of the bill. so i i have no alternative but to bring my tough amendments, the amendments that i propose to offer this morning at the canceled hearing to the senate floor, at least to talk about them, and to hope that soon we'll have a chance to offer them in the committee. i'm going to talk about four amendments that i had planned to offer this morning, important, relevant amendments, part of what we are supposed to do.

senators shouldn't be afraid to vote on them. if not, we shouldn't be here because that's what we do. amendment number one. my first amendment would reverse the trend toward a national school board. a national school board for elementary and secondary education by protecting a state's control over its academic standards and tests. my amendment does this by prohibiting the democratic -- by prohibiting the united states department of education where i used to be the secretary from exercising any influence over the academic standards states use to define what students should know and be able to do, as well as the tests states use to determine whether students have met those standards. it also prohibits the department from requiring or incentivizing states to adopt common standards and tests. as a condition of an award, a federal grant or a contract or by providing additional points or preference in the competitive grant program or as a condition of approval for waivers of

requirements under no child left behind or any federal law. in other words, this amendment directs the federal government to keep its sticky fingers off state standards and not to interfere with the hard work states are doing to raise expectations for our students. this is not a new issue. in 1992, 22 years ago, when i was the united states secretary of education for president george h.w. bush, which is celebrating his 90th birthday today by jumping out of an airplane once again, a remarkable event -- happy birthday, president bush -- democrats in congress wrote an education bill in 1992 that would have set federal standards not only for academic content but also for how that content should be delivered to students. as education secretary, i wrote a memo to the president. i advised him to veto the bill when it came to his desk because i said then it -- quote --

creates at least the beginnings of a national school board that could make day-to-day school decisions on curriculum, discipline, teacher training, textbooks and classroom materials, a federal recipe dictating how to operate the local school board does not make schools better, i said to president bush in 1992. the president told the congress he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. unfortunately, it never did. the amendment i plan to offer today that i would like to have offered this morning should not be necessary because federal law already includes a number of specific limitations on the federal government's involvement in education standards and curriculum. for example, section 9527 of the elementary and secondary education act prohibits any employee of the federal government from mandating, directing or controlling a state, local school district or school's curriculum, program of

instruction or allocation of state and local resources. the department of education is prohibited from using any funding, says the law, to endorse, approve or sanction any curriculum instruction used in the elementary or secondary school. that is the law today. furthermore, the law today prohibits requiring any state to have academic content or student academic achievement standards approved by the federal government in order to receive funding under the law with the exception of the requirement that states must demonstrate that they have adopted challenging standards in their title one plan. by including these prohibitions prohibitions, -- these provisions, congress has made it clear that it does not want a national school board, that primary responsibility for decisions relating to educating students rests with states, local communities and parents, but this administration have

used the combination of no child left behind, race to the top and waivers from no child left behind to in effect convert itself into a national school board, making decisions that states and local communities ought to make for themselves, particularly decisions about standards and tests. under race to the top, the department gave additional points to states which participated in the development of and adopted the common core standards using the prospect of receiving federal funds to coerce states into joining the common corps. now, the department might say it didn't write the words common corps into their applications, but then common corps was the only game in town that could comply with those points. more recently, the administration has used its waiver authority under no child left behind to impose on states new requirements about standards that are not contemplated in and i believe are prohibited by federal law. so this amendment would strictly prohibit that overreach.

my second amendment would avoid the creation of a taxpayer-funded popularity contest by preventing the department of education from developing a ratings system for our nation's 6,000 colleges and universities. so it would -- my first amendment would prevent the secretary from becoming chairman of a national school board, and my second amendment would prevent the secretary from claiming the role of czar of higher education in the united states. it's a simple amendment to end what i see is a misguided errand initiated by the president and under way at the department of education, and that is the rating of our colleges and universities by the federal government. this amendment would prohibit the department of education from using any federal funding to develop, refine, publish or implement a college rating system. in august of 2013, president obama directed the department of

education to rate each of our nation's more than 6,000 colleges and universities based on the affordability and outcomes such as graduation rates and earnings. i'm all for ensuring that parents and students have the information they need to make good college choices, but picking winners and losers with a rating system is not an appropriate role for the federal government in washington, d.c. here's what an expert in education policy at the brookings institution -- not exactly a hotbed of right-wing propaganda -- had to say -- quote -- "there is a clear case to be made for the federal government using its authority to gather data like these for postsecondary institutions that receive taxpayer funding, but little precedent for the government producing ratings. the securities and exchange commission, the scholar at brookings goes on to say, regulates stocks and bonds but leaves it to private

organizations to rate them. the department of transportation sets standards for the calculation of cars' gas mileage, but it doesn't opine on whether it's a ford -- whether a ford is better than a toyota. the food and drug administration decides which pharmaceuticals can be sold in the u.s., but it doesn't say where advil is better than tylenol. in other words, it's not the job of the federal government. mr. president, we don't need the federal government making these judgments for 22 million college students. what we need is the information so americans can make these judgments for ourselves. i have a serious practical concern with the department's ability even to begin this effort. i believe it will fall on its face when they try to write it. we already know the department is struggling. they have had to delay the release of the draft ratings from the spring to sometime in the fall if they ever do move forward. i have little confidence in their ability to get it right.

the federal government simply can't develop ratings that account for the diversity of our higher education system. we have 6,000 institutions of higher education of all kinds, national auto diesel college, notre dame, randolph macon, yoshiba, harvard, all of these are different. we need information. we don't need the government making those ratings. my third amendment would rein in the obama administration's out-of-control national labor relations board by stopping it from requiring employers to give labor unions their employees personal email addresses and cell phone numbers or forcing employees to let employees use employer-owned and operated young people systems to campaign for a union. since 1966, the nlrb has required employers to provide a union with a list of names and home addresses of employees eligible to vote in a union

representation election. this is called an excelsior list. in february of this year, the nlrb reproposed expanding the excelsior list in the ambush election's proposed rule. the ambush elections are another obama administration initiative which would shorten the time from the unions' request to call an election to as little as ten days. but here is the nlrb's proposal. it would require employers to include voter-eligible employees' personal telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations, shift times, job classifications on the excelsior list, and they rejected a suggestion that i made that at least an employee ought to be able to opt out of that. we have had many examples of unions violating privacy and even harassing individuals. for example, in 2010, agents of

communications workers of america local 1103 connecticut used personal information that they obtained about one woman who did not support the union to sign her up for hundreds of unsolicited and unwanted magazines against consumer products. this nlrb proposed rule has a lot of opposition. senator graham was intending this morning to offer in our markup a similar amendment that would prevent funds from going to implement in any of the so-called ambush elections rule which this is a part of. as i have said before, the nlrb has become far too politicized under recent administrations. it didn't start with the obama administration, but it's gotten worse with this administration as it's moved to its side of union advocacy with such things as ambush elections and microunions and undermining state right to work laws. the national labor relations board should be an umpire rather

than an advocate. finally, mr. president, my fourth amendment. the fourth amendment i would have offered this morning if our subcommittee markup had proceeded as it had been scheduled and which apparently was canceled because some senators didn't want to take -- quote -- tough votes, my fourth amendment would simply require the obama administration to be straightforward with the public about the affordable care act by reporting basic facts on the federally run insurance exchange which is running the exchange to 36 states. facts such as the number of people signed up and making premium payments. i introduced similar legislation last year. the house of representatives passed that legislation in january by a bipartisan vote, 259-154. a total of 33 house democrats voted for it. it was very simple, controversial, shouldn't be considered tough. it simply required the obama administration to provide weekly

reports during open enrollment which now runs from november to february, reports to congress, to states and the public about the federal exchange, including such easily tracked data as the number of individuals who have visited the site, the number who successfully enrolled, their zip codes, the level of coverage they have attained. also at least monthly a list of the navigators and the brokers operating in each state. this is important especially to understand whether the disadvantaged americans are being served. this isn't complicated. this is the internet age. even before the internet age, mcdonald's could tell you how many hamburgers it made each day and r.c.a. could tell you how many elvis pressley albums it had left on its shelves. in may, the administration stopped releasing the bare bones report it provided to the public every month. this is troubling. many americans can continue to sign up for the coverage through special enrollment periods.

we won't know how many americans have continued paying their premiums after the first month of coverage. we will have no way of knowing the final number of confirmed enrollments, so these are the four amendments that i had expected would be offered and debated today in the senate appropriation committee. instead, i'm here late in the afternoon on the senate floor because some senators must be more worried about their reelection campaigns than about the process of governing and setting priorities. if you're not willing to do what you're elected to do, well, no one's making any of us be here. i hope the markup we'd planned today will be rescheduled. i plan to offer then these amendments. i hope they'll be voted on by the committee and i hope i will have the opportunity to represent the people of tennessee who have sent me here to represent their views. i thank the president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico.

mr. heinrich: mr. president, for the first time in our nation's history, the total amount of student loan debt has exceeded the total amount of credit card debt. this very real problem weighs heavily on families in my home state of new mexico. now, last year congress narrowly stopped a student loan interest rate hike from going into effect, a rate hike that would have doubled student loan interest rates. and as a result, undergraduate students borrowing this year are able to take advantage of reasonable student loan rates. but students who borrowed before this agreement could be paying rates as high as 9%. those who pursued an education to get ahead are literally starting out behind. student loan debt is proving to be a debilitating impediment to achieving the american dream. recently i met a working mother

in southern new mexico who told me about her family's struggle to raise their children while paying her husband's student loans from a degree he had earned more than two decades ago. another woman shared her story of going back to school to become a teacher. she's a single mom who wanted to make a better life for her and for her daughter. she got her degree but not without acquiring more than $40,000 in student loan debt. she worries that she'll be paying her loans off well into retirement. and as a parent, she worries for her daughter, who will be entering college and fears that she has no choice but to take out loans to pay for her education. and unfortunately, mr. president, these stories are all too common today. outstanding student loan debt in america totals more than

$1.2 trillion -- trillion with a "t." in new mexico, students are graduating with an average of nearly $18,000 in debt. outstanding balances not only affect families working to pay those loans, it affects the entire american economy as well. because of this debt, many are unable to buy a home, to start a business, to save for retirement or even start a family. in today's economy, we should be eliminating the obstacles that keep americans from earning the education that they need to get ahead. college, mr. president, should not be a luxury. it should be an opportunity all americans can at least afford to pursue. the student loan refinancing legislation that was on the floor this week would have helped address this problem of skyrocketing student loan debt. allowing graduates to refinance would put more money into

productive use and strengthen our economy as a whole. however, as you know, our colleagues across the aisle decided to filibuster this legislation. they don't seem to understand that crushing student loan debt is a serious issue that forces many americans to put their dreams, their american dreams on hold. higher education is one of the most important investments that any person can make in their own future. and from my perspective, making college affordable is an investment in america's future. republicans should know this and even recently helped to do something about it. you think about just last year, democrats and republicans came together in congress to prevent a student loan interest rate hike that would have doubled student -- doubled student loan rates. and this was a great

money-saving piece of news for students taking out new loans. however, there are still approximately 134,000 new mexicans, so just in my small state of 2 million people, 134,000 new mexicans who would benefit from passing this newest legislation which would allow them to access the same student loan rates. we had an opportunity to come together to address skyrocketing student loan debt and instead our colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to leave families, students and really the american economy behind. a college education opens the doors of opportunity. it provides an avenue into the middle class for our families. college graduates are nearly twice as likely to find work as those with only a high school diploma and they'll earn nearly a million dollars more over the

course of their lifetime. mr. president, we should be willing to give our aspiring college students a fair shot. senate republicans should reconsider their priorities and allow us to at least debate this student loan refinancing legislation. to end their filibuster so that we can move forward, so that we can provide immediate relief to student loan borrowers and put that money to work in america's economy growing our economy. mr. president, i would yield back the rest of my time. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: just last week, the majority leader gave his view that tax extenders as an issue is dead in the senate

until the lame-duck session. i presume that means that we'll have a lame-duck session. the majority leader blames this on us republicans, the minority in the senate. but, as you all know, the majority leader is uniquely situated under our senate rules to determine what legislation will be considered on the senate floor. the majority leader's excuse that was given for not proceeding to extenders before a lame-duck session is that we republicans are seeking to offer amendments unrelated to tax extenders. and, of course, this excuse simply does not fly. even an introductory report on

senate procedure from the congressional research service will tell all senators there is no -- quote -- "standing rule or general requirement that the amendments offered by senators on the floor must be germane or relevant to the bill being considered." as the i.r.s. report states and to further quote -- "the right to offer nongermane amendments is extraordinarily important because it permits senators to present issues to the senate for debate and decision without regard to the judgments of the senate's committee or the scheduling decisions and preferences of its majority leader." the majority leader has caught to circumvent the open amendment process by blocking amendments by filling the amendment tree. and, as you know, this allows

the majority leader to effectively decide what, if any, amendments ought to receive consideration here on the sena senate. essentially, then, this allows the majority leader to impose his own will at the expense of the will of the senate as a whole. or another way to say it, the majority leader deciding what 99 other senators can offer as amendments. the real reason that the majority leader does not want to bring extenders back is that he's concerned members of his party might have to take tough votes in an election year. and, of course, in a parliamentary system, this is a pure excuse for putting off considering legislation that has broad bipartisan support and this extenders bill does have

broad bipartisan support. those approaches then puts politics before constituents. delaying tax extenders legislation to a lame-duck session has real consequences for our constituents. we know from previous years what's happened when tax legislation is not passed in a satisfactory amount of time. late action on tax extenders, then, poses significant tax administration burdens that causes headaches and hardships for millions of taxpayers. when we fail to act in a timely manner, tax forms are not ready and refunds are delayed. we owe it to our constituents, then, to see to it that these added complications are not a factor this year. tax season is already a -- is

already unpleasant enough without or adding to it by failing to do our job in a timely fashion. while many view tax extenders as benefiting businesses, the truth is the delay of widely-used individual tax provisions will impact millions of taxpayers. and i'll just give you a few examples. three of the most widely used tax provisions are the state and local sales tax deduction claimed by over 11 million returns in the latest year we have statistics for, 2011. the above-the-line deduction for teachers expenses, claimed on over 3.8 million tax returns in that year 2011, and the college tuition deduction, which was claimed on about 2 million tax returns is another example.

these three provisions alone gives us over 16 million reasons because of 16 million taxpayers being affected to act now to ensure that we don't subject these taxpayers to needless delays and complications this coming filing season. these 16 million tax filers should provide more than enough reason for not putting off tax extender legislation until the lame duck. but if you're also in need of another reason, think of the small businesses that are anxiously looking on wondering what we're going to do about the expiration of the enhanced expensing rules under section 179. i'm sure not only -- i'm sure i'm not the only one hearing from small business owners and from farmers who are putting off

purchasing that new truck or tractor, all because they don' don't -- they do not know the fate of this provision. this is bad for economic growth, bad for jobs. then there is the lapse in the renewable energy incentives that support millions of jobs not only in my state of iowa but in many other states across the country. the expiration of these provisions has already hampered the strides made towards a viable self-sustainable energ energy -- renewable energy and fuel sector. delaying extension of these important provisions is hurting the economy and costing jobs. a biofuels organization found that nearly 80% of the united states biodiesel producers have scaled back production this ye year. 66% of the biodiesel producers have reduced their work force

and anticipate cutting jobs. so it's the direct result of the policy uncertainties here in washington, d.c., including the expiration of the biodiesel tax incentive. the only thing standing in the way of passing the extenders package here in the senate is decisions made by the majority leader and -- and getting a agreement on a handful of reasonable amendments. the delay in passing the extenders package is harming a whole range of renewable energy efforts. a letter delivered to every senator from about 200 clean energy businesses urged quick passage of that bill. and i want to quote from that letter. "the lack of timely action to

extend these provisions injects instability and uncertainty into the economy and weakens confidence in the economy -- or in the employment marketplace. moreover, the extension of the expired provisions should not be delayed until the end of the year since companies are making decisions right now related to taxes that will have an immediate impact on the econom economy." i would encourage all of those who support this bill to urge the majority leader to bring it back up and allow for a fair amendment process. could the senate majority leader possibly argue it's more important to protect senators from tough votes than to move forward on clean energy and job creation? for such an important piece of legislation, there's no legitimate reason for the majority leader to refuse to bring extenders to the floor for

an open and honest debate. there has been -- it has been quite a while since we've had a relatively open amendment process on major tax legislation. because of this, many senators view this bill as their one shot at getting tax priorities that they have considered on the floor. there is no reason, then, that an agreement cannot be reached that will provide that opportunities to members on both sides of the aisle to offer those amendments. as a former chairman and ranking member of the finance committee, this senator knows that this can be difficult, but it is more than doable. i remember when senator baucus and i regularly worked out an amendment process on tax bills. usually this would consist of alternating votes on a block of 10 or so democrat and republican

amendments so each side was treated fairly. a tax bill that comes to my mind as an illustration of this process is a bill entitled jump-start our business strength act or as we use the acronym, jobs, j-o-b-s. like the extenders package, the act had broad bipartisan support and ultimately passed the senate 92-5. though it had bipartisan support there was no shortage of members from the other side seeking to offer their amendments. many of these amendments were in no way related to tax, though the jobs act was a tax bill. as the bill's chief senator and floor manager, i hoped to keep amendments somewhat relevant, at least related to tax. however the then-democratic minority pushed for votes on

everything from overtime laws to trade adjustment assistance to unemployment insurance. all of these amendments were political in nature. they were intended to make republicans take tough votes. at the time then-minority leader -- now majority leader reid -- vigorously defended the right of the minority to get votes on these and other amendments that were entirely nonrelevant and nongermane. we republicans took those votes because we wanted to get things done. we wanted to get a very important tax bill passed. because, you know, that's what the american people need right now, new leaders who want to get things done. yet today we're told republicans are unreasonable for even seeking tax amendments to tax

legislation. but it's not just members of the minority that would like to offer amendments. members on the other side filed nearly as many amendments as members of the minority, but under the procedure set by the majority leader, even members of his own party weren't able to offer amendments. we could have been debating amendments to the extender bill this week. instead, we wasted time on other pieces of legislation that was designed to fail so the other side could score political points. well, madam president, we were all sent here by our constituents to represent them in the legislative process, so let's legislate, and that means debating and that means offering amendments. a bipartisan bill such as the tax extenders bill is, would be

a perfect opportunity to show our constituents our ability to work together and get things done. so i call upon the leadership of the senate to bring the tax extenders bill back to the floor, allow for reasonable amendments that permits individual senators of both parties to have a say in crafting this legislation. on another matter, madam president, i want to speak about something earlier this week i spoke about, it's so important that i want to remind colleagues of the importance to me and what i think is an important issue for the oversight work of the united states senate. on monday i explained my opposition to the nomination of peter kadzik to be assistant for

legislative affairs at the justice department. that my view the nominee's record demonstrates contempt for congressional oversight. he has made a habit of providing evasive, nonresponsive and plainly insufficient answers to congressional inquiries over the years. that practice alone disqualifies him from heading up the legislative affairs office. that office has had a chronic problem with credibility in recent years, going back before mr. kadzik as well. specifically, i'm referring to the false denials regarding operation fast and furious which mr. kadzik's predecessor made and eventually had to retract. so it's pretty evident to me that this administration is spending a message to all of us in the senate by nominating an

individual with a track record as abysmal as mr. kadzik's. that message is this -- expect more of the same. quite a message from a self-professed "most transparent administration in history" that quite frankly doesn't turn out to be so transparent. but there's a lot more at stake because mr. kadzik's nomination than even restoring credibility to the legislative affairs office. a lot more. as we all know, at the beginning of this year the president boasted that he had a pen and a phone, and that he intended to use it. what he meant, of course, was that he intended to bypass the legislative process and proceed with aggressive and unilateral executive action. so in january i called on the attorney general to disclose the opinions and memorandum --

memoranda from the justice department's office of legal counsel providing the legal justification for this president's universal -- or unilateral executive action. four months later, mr. kadzik replied to me in a one-page response. he said in short, he wouldn't disclose those legal opinions. but he said if i had additional questions regarding the legality of the president's action, i should let him know. now, that was may 20. 11 days later, on saturday, march 31, we learned that the president had flouted the congressional notification provision of the national defense authorization act. this latest example of the administration's flagrant disregard for its legal obligations to submit to congressional oversight has dominated the headlines.

i'm referring, of course, to the administration's failure to notify congress of its plan to release the so-called taliban dream team from guantanamo last week. as every senator knows, the national defense authorization act, a law that this president has signed, required the administration to notify key congressional committees at least 30 days before arranging the release of a prisoner from guantanamo. the law enumerates exactly what that notification needs to address. specifically, the administration was legally required to explain to congress why the release is in the national security interest of our country. the administration was legally required to explain to congress what action it has undertaken to mitigate the risk of reengagement of such terrorists

by releasing the detainees. the law requires these explanations and other disclosures because members of this body have an independent responsibility to ensure the national security of the united states. and, of course, we take this responsibility seriously. each one of us swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution, the same similar oath that the president takes. unfortunately, this administration has locked us out of the process that the national defense authorization act requires. now, i know i need to be more clear for most of us. the history of section 1035 and the negotiations surrounding it make it plain that congress included those provisions because it wanted to avoid releases of prisoners like this

one. so congressional opposition shouldn't exactly come as a surprise to this administration. this administration broke not only the law but also the promise it made in 2013 when the white house press secretary, jay carney, promised that the administration -- quote -- "would not make any decisions about the transfer of any detainees without consulting with congress and without doing so in accordance with u.s. law" -- end of quote. now, the administration knows that it broke the law. certain senators on our select committee on intelligence have even reportedly received apologize from the administration officials for not notifying them. i don't think apologize are enough. -- apologies are enough. and i don't think this administration takes seriously its legal obligations to consult with us before acting.

take the recent statement made by deputy white house press secretary june 9, he said that -- quote -- "this administration continues to be committed to coordinating with our partners in congress" -- end of quote. but the law doesn't require mere coordination. coordination under the law is not good enough. the president is required by law to meet certain obligations, and he recklessly ignores those obligations. the president is required by the constitution to to document -- a document that the president claims to know a lot about because he's a constitutional law professor, to -- quote -- "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- end of quote. yet we all know that by now that this president picks and chooses which laws to enforce. this is not how our constitutional system is

designed. the president is not empowered to ignore the law. so coordination as the deputy press secretary said, is not good enough. we need compliance with the law. this administration needs to commit on the record that going forward it intends to comply with the national defense authorization act so that another one of these stealth detainee releases never happens again. with the exception of the majority leader, this administration has kept every member of the senate and the house in the dark about releasing five of the most dangerous terrorists who were -- who we were holding at guantanamo. and even the majority leader wasn't given the 30 days' notice the law requires. so it's clear that not 0 single senator was notified in compliance with the law in advance of the release of the taliban five.

it's likewise clear that not a single senator received an explanation regarding national security and risk mitigation that the law requires in advance of releases. but the failure to notify, to notify us in the congress, in accordance with the law, doesn't relieve this administration of its responsibility to justify the releases. there's a lot about this ordeal that is extremely concerning. a part of what is so troublesome is that this administration can't even seem to get its story straight regarding why it ignored the law. the justifications that the administration has offered publicly thus far have shifted dramatically from one day to the next day. i'll just show you how this shift has taken place.

and the justifications that have been presented to the public. shortly after the release of the taliban five on june 1, the administration sent, of all people, national security advisor susan rice back to the sunday talk shows in benghazi fashion showing -- to explain the administration's rationale. advisor rice told cnn that the -- quote, unquote -- "acute urgency of an unspecified health condition" -- and "health condition" is quote, unquote -- is suffering from had forced the president to act without notifying congress. we haven't heard much publicly about the acute medical emergency since then. in fact, a number of my colleagues have expressed skepticism at what little information the pentagon has

provided publicly regarding sergeansergeant bergdahl's physl condition. but since the administration has said it was an emergency because the terrorists had threatened bergdahl's life, apparently this was the medical emergency. but now the story has changed. first, on monday, following the release, according to press reports, the white house called the chair of the senate select committee on intelligence to apologize for its so-called oversight in failing to consult with congress. so they meant to inform congress about the releases but didn't because it was an oversight. is that the story now? no. it didn't take long for the story to change. the white house then offered a new explanation.

on tuesday, the deputy white house press secretary said that the release was -- quote -- "a secret military mission in which disclosures of the mission could put into jeopardy not just the life of sergeant bergdahl but also the lives of the american servicemen who were involved in the mission, so discretion on this matter was important." end of quote. let's think about the new justification, this one i just quoted. think about it for a moment. the white house is saying, essentially, that disclosure of the operational details concerning the physical transfer of sergeant bergdahl could have jeopardized the mission, but the white house's justification is totally beside the point. to my knowledge, no senator has claimed that the administration had a legal obligation under section 1035 to disclose the

specific operational details of the transfer to the relative committees. section 1035 doesn't even require that. on the contrary, the law requires the administration to explain its rationale for the release in terms of national security and risk mitigation, not operational details. so this particular justification is, of course, a colossal red herring, and it wasn't the last of the shifting justifications that this administration has offered. listen to the next one. the administration claimed that it simply ran out of time to notify us. on tuesday, the administration reportedly claimed that it knew only one day in advance that the transfer would take place and only an hour in advance about where it would happen.

and then on wednesday, defense secretary hagel told the house armed services committee that the administration had only 96 hours from the time the deal was made to actually release sergeant bergdahl. again, both of these justifications miss the point. it's clear that the negotiations preceding the deal were in motion for months. according to the chairman of the armed services committee, the administration reported that it had been engaged in negotiations with the taliban since january 2014. so the administration had weeks, maybe even months, to communicate to congress that it was in active negotiations that might result in the exchange deal in the near future. that, of course, never happened. but even that wasn't the last of

the shifting justifications. on wednesday, defense secretary hagel told the house committee that the administration couldn't notify congress because of the risk of a leak. secretary hagel said that the qatarrqatari government threateo end all negotiations if details of the deal leaked. it's pretty obvious that this justification doesn't wash either. press report reports indicate te administration told congress that anywhere between 80 to 90 members of the executive branch knew about the release of the taliban five before it happened. that number includes officials in the state department, the department of homeland security,

the white house, and the department of defense. if that many individuals -- 80 or 90 people in this town -- were in tharein the loop, the administration's stated concern about a leak just doesn't make any sense. the white house could keep all of those officials in the loop, but somehow it couldn't pick up the phone and call the chair and vice chair of the senate select committee on intelligence. and, frankly, as we've seen over the last few years, when information is leaked to the press, the leak usually originates in the executive branch and, more often than not, from the white house itself. so it seems pretty clear that the administration is not being candid with us or with the american people about why it broke the law and locked the representatives of the people of the united states out of the

process, contrary to what the law said. so, my colleagues, the bottom line is i is this: the white house ignored a federal law that the president signed and that the white house press secretary promised it would follow. yet the white house can't even get its story straight regarding why the law was ignored. it's for these reasons, getting back to the point about the office of legal counsel and mr. kadzik nominated to be head of that -- of the office of legislative affairs, it's for these reasons that i wrote to the office and asked for them to release any and all details regarding the justifications for the detainee's release that the

department of justice provided to the administration. because, you see, it's the office of legal counsel's job to look at every presidential action and executive order and decision to see if it complies with the law. and then it's my approach that, if some lawyers are telling the president what he can legally do or not do, constitutionally do or not do according to the constitution, well, why shouldn't the american people know about it? so this all becomes more important with each passing day, as the white house keeps offering new explanations for why it broke the law. we know that the justice department provides legal advice on this question to the defense department because that is one of the very first things the administration said publicly about the deal. on june 1, susan rice told cnn that the defense department

consulted with the justice department before the decision to move forward was made. we need to know about the nature of that consultation. we need to know what legal justification the department of justice provided that would permit the administration to ignore its legal duties to notify congress and inform us of the reasons for the release. and, importantly, we need to know what specific facts the justice department based its legal action -- analysis on. in other words, with all of these shifting explanations that we've been hearing about the factual basis for the decision, which one of those many was provided to the justice department? did they tell the justice department -- quote -- "we don't have time to tell congress?" and if so, did they tell them that these negotiations had been

ongoing for months, as they appear to have been? or did these executive branch people tell the justice department that sergeant bergdahl was, as susan rice claims, suffering from an acute condition that required the administration to take immediate action? or did the justice department take the view that the administration did not have to comply with the law because of the president's powers under article 2 of the constitution, notwithstanding the fact that the white house had already promised that it would comply? or was none of this even considered? was all of this just an oversight, as the white house apparently told the chair of the senate select committee on intelligence? or was it that they didn't have

to comply because they didn't trust the members of the select committee to keep a secret? or should we expect that yet another justification will be forthcoming? the bottom line is that susan rice went on cnn and said the justice department was consulted. but we don't know whether there was a written opinion provided by the office of legal counsel. and if there was, what it concluded and what facts that conclusion was based on. the general counsel of the defense department testified yesterday that the administration had received legal advice from the office of legal counsel in the form of an e-mail chain. the administration needs to provide us with whatever written advice it received before it decided to contravene federal law. given their failure to respond to my previous request and

considering mr. kadzik's track record in this regard, i'm not optimistic. as i've stated previously, mr. kadzik's nomination embodies this administration's philosophy that it's okay to ignore it's obligations with respect to congressional oversight, a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch of government, by the way. so let me conclude by saying, this nominee's record is emblematic of the administration's sorry record in complying with congressional oversight. and, of course, both have been abysmal. if this administration is serious about honoring its legal obligations, the attorney general will direct mr. kadzik to disclose the office of legal counsel's legal reasoning for why the administration was entitled to ignore the law's

requirement to notify congress. no senator should cast a vote on this nomination before mr. kadzik provides that legal reasoning to us. if not now, when are all senators -- republican, democrat alike -- going to take a stand against this president's unilateral decision to ignore the congress and his obligations under the law? if not now, when will members of this body stand together in defense of our legislative prerogatives and assert our rights as part of the coequal brage of governmenbranch of gove constitution? in this senator's view, a vote for this nominee is a vote endorsing this administration's contempt for our oversight authority and will lend support to the deal that releasing -- that the release of the taliban

five without adhering to the law. as my colleagues know, i will vote against this nominee. i encourage my colleagues to vote against this nominee as well. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

move. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 740. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed tothe clere nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. salvador mendoza jr. to be united states district judge of the east district of washington. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion it is desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we the undersigned senators hereby move to bring to close debate on the nomination of salve door mendoza jr. of

washington to be united states district judge for the eastern district much washington signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask consent the reading of the names be waivedtt objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay, the ayes appeae it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 741. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. s motion is carried. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion i ask to be reported. mr. reid: the clerk will report the nomination the clerk: staci michelle yandle of illinois to be united states district judge for the southern district of illinoisthe clerk will report the cloture

motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of staci michelle yandle of illinois to be united states district judge for the southern district of illinois, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objectionmr. reid: i ask unanims consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. automatic opposed nay -- all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. motion carried. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider khrurpbd 778. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: darrin p.gay le s of florida to be united states district judge of the southern district of florida. mr. reid: madam president, i would ask consent that the -- first of all, i need to have the clerk report the motion which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to tpwroeu a close debate on the nomination of darrin p. gayles of florida for the to be united states district judge. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 572. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of justice, peter joseph kadzik of new york to be assistant attorney general. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion at the desk. i ask it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of peter joseph kadzik of new york to be assistant attorney general signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived proeufplt without -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: is the motion to proceed to h.r. 6602 pending? the presiding officer: the senate moves to proceed to legislative session. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. that motion is now pending. mr. reid: madam president, i ask that the cloture motion at the desk be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 428, h.r. 4660, an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and

for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under you will rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that on monday, june 15, 5 h:30 the senate proceed to skaoufgts -- executive session and the senate begin to vote cloture -- let me do that again. i ask consent that on monday, june 16 and the senate proceed to vote on calendar numbers 740, 771, 748. further if cloture is invoked, on tuesday, june 17 at 11:00 a.m. all postcloture time be expired and the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations ordered upon which cloture was invoked.

further, following senate action on these nominations on tuesday, the senate proceed to vote cloture on calendar numbers 572, further there be two minutes of debate prior to each vote and all roll call votes after the first in sequence be ten minutes in length. further with respect to the nominations in disagreement if any nomination is confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the president be notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ruled. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business, with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider nominations numbered 538, 770, 766, 712, that there be two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on each nomination, that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that all roll call votes after the first be ten minutes in length, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and no further motion be in order and any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration now en bloc of the following resolutions -- s. res. 473, 474, 475 and 476. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles where applicable be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on next monday, the morning hour and the pledge, the proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. at 5:30, the senate proceed to executive session as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so, madam president,

there will be three roll call votes at 5:30 on monday. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn. under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

and so we can conclude a resettlement process. ambassador jones, i look forward to your news and analysis. >> presents another set of issues. another spending of questions about the context of the negotiations, the qatari government and toxin commitments regarding the status of the taliban detainees. but guitars strategic importance goes far beyond its facilitative role in the berg doll taliban rule. i sincerely hope the hearing does not denigrate into a political debate that demands answers the nominee does not have been ultimately holds the process leaving us with no abbasid or on the ground to enforce the terms of the agreement. this is not the time to debate

those terms. it is time to confirm an ambassador who will enforce them. i look forward to hearing from you and what you see is your role in qatar as well as this issue with confirmed by monitoring this commitment and i want to make it clear congress of playback oversight role on the issue. that said kylix and from the nominee in the facets of commerce's broader strategic importance. what that come my turn to senator corker for his remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thanks to all three of you for decider to start this way. the odyssey had three qualified nominees and going to very, very important places. i think to a lesser degree in qatar, there are two issues that are overwhelmingly will affect the service of both ambassador jones and beecroft and that is the black hole we have right now in syria and i know both of your

party experience that in the country in which you are serving right now. the fact we have never really put in place any kind of policy or strategy or even may whether object is our clearly and that is obviously having a very destabilizing effect on iraq and jordan were both of you have been. we also have a situation where there is just no regional strategy. you know, the administration unfortunately continues to hide behind classified briefings in those kinds of things and is unable to lay out a coherent strategy for the region. so again, all three of your inner places where that has created significant difficulties. again, i thank you for your desire to serve. in egypt since 111 they spend a stabilization they are.

the country is really no better off relative to many of the issues we care about than it was. i do have hope, greater hopes that our chairman just mentioned for egypt going forward and i know they are very important relationships for our country. iraq we are beginning to read daily. the demolition taking place there you feel on the crowd, the lack of involvement that we have had in helping shake things on the ground is very, very apparent and i know we'll talk about that during q&a and qatar because of our inability or lack of desire or just whatever, taking a leaf relative to the syrian opposition, qatar obviously has taken a role that has been unhealthy. i understand that may be tapered xml, but that's a very important relationship. i look forward to our questions and answers. i want to thank each of you for the last you a flat that has made she so qualified for the positions you are sending to and

i thank you for being here today. >> thank you, senator corker. but we welcome our first panel of nominees, all decorated career foreign service offers. not as a stranger to the demanding critical assignments both domestically and abroad and we think them and their families for their past service in their willingness to serve again in very challenging roles. but introduce them. they are propers even beecroft, the ambassador to egypt. stewart each of its ambassador to iraq and dana shell smith to be the ambassador of qatar. ambassador beecroft has undertaken difficult assignments of the most critical countries for u.s. national security and strategic interests. he's a career foreign service officer and the minister council serving as a master of the u.s. embassy in baghdad. stewart e. john says no stranger to the strategic pricing areas for the night dates as a career foreign service officer with the rank of career minister currently serving as an asset or an imam jordan and a serve tripe

the deputy chief of mission in baghdad and around his teenager. dana shell smith is truly a global diplomat throughout the world in her capacity as a public affairs officer she too is a career foreign service officer from the rank of counselors there is a senior adviser the undersecretary of public diplomacy and public affairs. let me join senator corker and thank y'all for your service, both past and having toured in the future. we have a large audience that we normally have for a nominee, so i assume there may be some family members or friends if they are here with you, we urge you to introduce them to the committee when you have your time to testify. we understand and appreciate that families are a big part of the sacrifice of the service and we honor their willingness to have you be willing to serve our country as they themselves a sacrifice as a result of it. your false statements will be included in the record without

objection. we ask you to summarize your opening five minutes or so so we can enter into a dialogue with you. with that, we'll start off with you, ambassador beecroft in ambassador jones and then move to ms. smith. >> thank you very much chairman menendez, ranking member corker, other members of the committee. am i to appear before as the president's nominee as the u.s. ambassador to the arab republic of egypt. i'm deeply grateful to press obama and secretary kerry for their support and confidence in if confirmed i look forward to working closely with you another premise of congress to advance the interest of the united states. i'm also pleased to share this hearing with my colleague, steve jones and dana smith. i look forward to working closely with them on the many issues facing the united dates in the middle east. mr. chairman, spent much of my career working in the middle east and couldn't assignments in area and saudi arabia to jordan

and iraq. my experience has made me acutely aware featured strategic importance inside and outside the region and the need for effective u.s. engagement with each other. as the most populous arab country, egypt represents fully a quarter of the arab world and also host the arab league and its long-standing cultural influence and importance as an opinion leader alberto for trends across the region as well knowing. egypt is the third-largest market for u.s. goods and services in the middle east in the united states is the second-largest source of on direct has been in egypt. approximately 8% of global maritime commerce flows through the suez canal every year and a total 420 u.s. like vessels including 85 u.s. military vessels moved over 1.9 billion tons of cargo through the suez in 2013. i cannot stress enough the importance of egypt's upholding of the peace treaty with israel, which has delivered over 35 years of stability to the region. after repeated conflicts began in 1948, the two countries have

not seen moore's 1973. conditions in egypt does have implications for the security of israel and allies in the arab world and beyond increased instability would not only open space for violent extremist strongholds but also encourage microplate. it would threaten global commerce within the ensuing ripple effect on international economies. for these reasons and more be of crucial interest in egypt preserving regional peace and stability with israel in all of egypt's neighbors, kind of transnational threats of terrorism and trafficking, creating economic prosperity and increase opportunities for foreign investment and build an inclusive democratic institutions and civil society sentiment conditions for violent extremism and form the bedrock of prosperous equitable growth. if president obama said in his may 28 address, support goes beyond idealism. it's a matter of national

security. while views on how to advance our interests may differ from a disagreement success is a secure, prosperous and pluralistic democratic state remains important to the united states. if the firms come i commit to work with congress to help achieve this goal and promote a constructive u.s. egypt partnership furthers our interests. ..