introducing the congres companil in the house. this act is virtually identical to bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed the house of representatives by a vote of 402-19 during a similar crisis in june of 2008. specifically, our bill directs the cftc to do the following within 14 days of enactment. one, immediately curb the role of excessive speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the commodity futures trading commission on or through which energy futures or swaps are traded. two, eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion or unwarranted changes in price or other unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances that prevent gasoline and oil prices from

accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand. mr. president, there is now a growing consensus. this is not just the opinion of bernie sanders. there is a growing consensus that excessive speculation on the oil futures market is significantly contributing to the high prices that the american people are seeing at the pump. exxonmobil, goldman sachs, the i.m.f., the st. louis federal reserve, the american trucking association, delta airlines, petroleum marketers association of america, the new england fuel institute, the consumer federation of america, and many other organizations have all agreed that excessive oil speculation has significantly increased oil and gas prices. just a few years ago goldman sachs, perhaps the largest speculator on wall street, came out with a report indicating that excessive oil speculation is costing americans 56 cents a

gallon at the pump. 56 cents a gallon. i personally think that that is a conservative estimate, but it is interesting that it comes from goldman sachs itself. the c.e.o. -- and this is, what can we say? the c.e.o. of exxonmobil has testified in the past that he believes excessive speculation has contributed as much as 40% to the price of a barrel of oil. so what you're hearing is some of the wall street people in a moment, a rare moment of honesty acknowledging the impact of speculation. you're hearing the head of the largest oil company in america acknowledging the impact of speculation on gas prices. i think we don't need a whole lot of evidence to suggest that this is a serious problem. mr. president, three years ago my office obtained confidential information about how much wall

street speculators were trading in the oil futures market on just one day. and that day was june 30, 2008, when the price of oil was over $140 a barrel and gas prices were over $4 a gallon. here's what some of the biggest oil speculators were doing back then on just one day of trade. june 30, 2008. this goes on every day. one day. goldman sachs bought and sold over 863 million barrels of oil. morgan stanley bought and sold over 632 million barrels of oil. bank of america bought and sold over 112 million barrels of oil. lehman brothers obviously nor bankrupt, bought and sold over 300 million barrels of oil. merrill lynch, bought by bank of america, bought and sold over 240 million barrels of oil.

mr. president, the only reason that these firms were betting on the price of oil was to speculate and to make money. goldman sachs, bank of america, they do not use oil. their only function in this process is speculation, driving up prices and making huge profits. mr. president, the rise in oil and gasoline prices were entirely avoidable. the dodd-frank wall street reform required the cftc to impose strict limits on the amount of oil wall street could trade in the energy futures market by january 17 of 2011, over three and a half years ago. unfortunately the cftc has been unable to implement position limits due to opposition from wall street in a ruling by the d.c. circuit court.

this is simply unacceptable. millions and millions of americans who are filling up at the gas tanks today are disgusted. they know they're being ripped off and they want us to protect our needs. mr. president, the time is now to provide the american people relief at the gas pump before the situation gets even worse. i urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i rise to speak on cheryl krause. cheryl krause was nominated by the president on february 6, 2014. i want to start with a few thank yous for where we are in this process. first, chairman leahy and ranking member grassley, i appreciate their expediting the consideration of cheryl krause through committee. they moved that process along very quickly. i want to thank senator reid, leader reid and leader mcconnell for agreeing to bring ms. krause's nomination to the senate floor so quickly. in fact, later this morning my understanding is we have a cloture vote on consideration of her nomination. from my point of view, this is part of an ongoing effort that i have with senator casey, my

colleague from pennsylvania, a bipartisan collaboration to make sure that we're filling vacancies as they occur as quickly as we responsibly can, to make sure that we have as close to a full complement of federal judges as we possibly can. so thus far in the three and a half years that i've been in the senate, senator casey and i have worked closely, and we have had ten people who have gone through the entire process from the application process, the vetting process, the consideration, recommendation by senator casey and myself jointly to the white house, nomination, and through the confirmation process, ten people who have successfully gone through that process already. four additional candidates recently nominated by the president at the recommendation of senator casey and myself, and i'm very hopeful that the senate will confirm all four of them later this year. we still have remaining vacancies and we're working on filling those vacancies as well.

but we are making progress, and it is in this spirit of bipartisan cooperation in filling vacancies on the federal court that senator casey and i are both enthusiastically supporting the nomination of ms. krause to the third circuit. and i certainly hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today will vote to support her confirmation. cheryl krause is an extremely qualified individual. there is no question about that. she has a wealth of legal service in both public service and in private practice. in fact, her background is so impressive that the a.b.a. gave her a unanimous well-qualified rating. she has excellent educational credentials. she earned her undergraduate degree from the university of pennsylvania where she graduated summa cum laude. she went on to stanford law school where she graduated with the highest honors. she clerked for justice kennedy on the u.s. supreme court.

she's been a u.s. attorney in the southern district in new york. she served for five years. she has taught at the university of pennsylvania law school, and she's currently a partner at the law firm of eckert l.l.p. she's got a wealth of experience. it's relevant experience and a terrific background. she's been both on the prosecution side and the defense side, so she understands both perspectives, both of which need to be understood to have a proper balance perspective on the court. in addition to a very strong legal record, cheryl krause has demonstrated a commitment to serving her community. she served as counsel to the philadelphia board of ethics. she's represented children with disabilities. she has led decker's partnership with penn law school in a project that supervises attorneys representing indigent

defendants. her husband has a distinguished career in the united states military. so to conclude, i just want to say i'm confident that ms. krause will serve as an excellent federal appellate judge. she has the crucial qualities we look for in a candidate for such an important post. she has the intelligence. she's got the integrity. she has the experience, a commitment to public service and an understanding of and respect for the limited role that the judiciary plays in our constitutional system. the senate judiciary committee apparently shares my confidence in cheryl krause. they unanimously reported her out of committee, unanimously supporting her confirmation. so i am pleased to speak on behalf of this highly qualified nominee, and i urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. .

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask permission to speak for 10 or 11 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i come to the floor today to praise the supreme court's decision to strike down president obama's illegal recess appointments. article 2, section 2, of the constitution provides for only two ways in which the president may appoint certain officers. first, it provides that the president nominates with the

advice and consent of the senate, appoints various officers. second, it permits the president to make temporary appointments when a vacancy in one of those offices happens if the senate is in recess. on january 4, 2012, the president made four appointments. they were purportedly based on the recess appointments clause. he took this action even though they were not made, in the words of the constitution, during the recess of the senate. these appointments were blatantly unconstitutional. they were not made with the advice and consent of the senate, and they were not made during the recess of the senate. in december and january of 2011 and 2012, the senate held

sessions every three days. it did so precisely to prevent the president from making recess appointments. it followed the very same procedure as it had during the term of president bush, and that was done at the insistence of majority leader reid. president bush then declined to make recess appointments during these periods, thus, respecting the desire of the senate and the constitution that we were in session. but president obama chose to attempt to make recess appointments despite the existence of the senate being in session. as the supreme court said today, for the purposes of the recess appointments clause, the senate is in session when it says it

is, provided that under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact senate business. a quote from the decision. no president in history had ever attempted to make recess appointments when the senate said it was in session, and i'm a little surprised since senator obama -- president obama had served in the senate that he would not know how this had been respected in the past by presidents. so, president obama failed to act -- quote -- "consistent with the constitution's broad delegation of authority to the senate to determine the rules of its proceedings" as the constitution states. these illegal appointments represent just one of the many important areas where president obama has disregarded the laws with his philosophy of the ends justifying the means.

we should all be thankful then that the supreme court has reined in this kind of lawlessness on the part of this administration. and it should also bring some confidence that at least from time to time -- maybe not as often as our constituents think so -- that the checks and balances of government do work. the supreme court was called upon to decide whether president obama could make recess appointments even when the senate was in pro forma session. fortunately for the sake of the constitution and the protection of individual liberty, the supreme court said it did not. now this is a very significant decision. it's the supreme court's biggest rebuke of any president because this was a unanimous decision. the biggest rebuke of any president since 1974 when it

ordered president nixon to produce the watergate tapes. it included the -- the unanimous decision included both justices that even this president has appointed to the supreme court. that shows the disregard in which the president held this body and the constitution when he made these appointments. and remember, as i just said, i'm a little surprised because at one time he was senator barack obama. thanks to the supreme court, the u.s. -- the use of recess appointments will now be made only in accordance with the views of the writers of the constitution, our founding fathers. it is worth keeping in mind that the president, the justice department and the senate said at the time of these appointments, the president said that his nominees were pending

and he would not wait for the senate to take action if that meant that important business would be done. so the president stated in another way then that i have a pen and a phone and if congress won't, i will. but the supreme court has made clear that failure to confirm does not create presidential appointment power. the appointments were so blatantly unconstitutional that originally there was speculation that the justice department had not approved their legality. but in fact, the department of office of legal counsel had provided a legal opinion that claimed to justify the appointments. in other words, justify the unconstitutional action of the president. now, the department's office of legal counsel's reasoning was

preposterous, and this unanimous decision backs that up. the -- that office, you find the same words "recess" that appear in the constitution in two different places differently and without justification. it claimed that the senate was not available to do business so that it was in recess when the president signed legislation that the congress passed during those pro forma sessions. the department allowed the president, rather than the congress, to decide whether the senate was in session. as today's supreme court unanimous decision makes clear, the office of legal counsel opinion was an embarrassment reflecting very poorly on its author. she had told us in her confirmation hearings that she would not let her loyalty to the president overcome her loyalty

to the law. this office of legal counsel opinion proved otherwise. it said the president had the power he did not have, and he did not have that power as expressed today by unanimous decision of the supreme court. those who defended that opinion should be humbled and should take back their misplaced praise, not that i expect them to do that. the office of legal counsel opinion furthered a trend for that office from one which gave the president objective advice about his authority to one which provided legal justification for whatever action he had already decided he wanted to take. perhaps now that the office has been so thoroughly humiliated, it will hopefully conclude that the department and the president

will be better served by returning to the former role of that office as a servant of the law and in the a servant of the president -- and not a servant of the president. the other statements to keep in mind were from senators. no senator of the president's party criticized president obama for making these clearly unconstitutional appointments, even though they felt that we ought to protect the president from president bush doing that. rather than protect the constitutional powers of the senate and the separation of powers, they protected their party's president. those were not the senate's best moments. this underscores again the need to change the operation of the united states senate. appointment powers and the separation of powers are not simply constitutional concepts.

they're the rule of how the american people are protected from abuse by government people. they exist not so much to protect the brafnling branches f government but then to safeguard individual liberty. let me quote again from "the federalist" papers, this time 51. madison wrote that -- quote -- "separate and distinct exercise of different powers of gofnance i-- of governance is essential o the preservation of liberty." president obama's unconstitutional recess appointments are part of a pattern in which he thinks that if he cannot otherwise advance his agenda, he can unilaterally thwart the law. that's a pretty authoritarian approach to governing. whether it is with respect to

drugs, immigration, recess appointments, health care, or in a number of other areas, president obama has concluded that he can take unilateral action regardless of the law and, of course, as we see in the case of these appointments, the justice department has aided and abetteabetted him in that. praise then to the supreme court for forcing the president to confront the errors of his ways and for enforcing the constitutional structure that protects our freedom and maybe cause him to modify that statement he made earlier this year that when congress won't, i will because i have a pen and a phone. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as we all know, the department of veterans affairs, the v.a., is in shambles. two national reports this week have highlighted the fact that bureaucratic ineptitude and incompetence seems to be the norm there. and, unfortunately, reports that surfaced out of phoenix that led to the resignation of secretary shinseki do not seem limited to arizona. i want to talk about where we are nationally with this scandal and also specific instances that have come out of louisiana that i have learned about, working directly with whistle-blowers, working directly with families of veterans that i'm very concerned about that are examples of this same sort of abuse. on monday, the head of the agency that investigates whistle-blower complaint us in the federal government, carolyn

lerner, sent a blistering letter to president obama stating that the v.a. office of the medical inspector has repeatedly undermined legitimate whistle-blowers by confirming their allegations of wrongdoing but dismissing them as having no impact on patient care. learlerners letter stated numers failures at the v.a., including cases where drinking water in colorado was tainted with elevated levels of legion err's bacteria. also in montgomery, alabama, -- likely resulting in an inaccurate patient health information being recorded.

in these cases among many others, v.a. whistle-blowers brought the information to the special counsel, an independent federal entity, that's charged with enforcing whistle-blower protection laws. the special counsel passed it along to the office of the medical inspector, but that v.a. medical inspector concluded that the hospital's failings, while accurately reported by the whistle-blowers, didn't threaten veterans' health or safety even when the v.a. inspector general had concluded that similar faults compromised care in other cases. now, this is really deeply troubling, and it severely cripless any belief that the v.a. is in any way capable of fixing these deep-seeded problems on its own. my colleague, senator coburn of oklahoma, who i have worked with closely in dealing wellcome of these v.a. problems, also railed his over--- also released his

oversight report. to say his report is troubling is quite an understatementment. some of the key findings that i find most troubling were these: there seems to be a perverse culture, his report said, within the department where veterans are not always the priority and data and employees are manipulated to maintain an appearance that all is well. in many cases it also seems bad employees are rewarded with bonus, paid leaves, while whistle-blowers, even veterans and their families are subjected to bullying, sexual assault, abuse and neglect. and senator coburn's report also highlights criminal activity by v.a. employees. vast amounts of waste at the v.a. and the fact that the v.a. also made waiting lists worse and the v.a. committee led by

bernie sanders virtually ignored these warnings. only two oversight hearings have been held over the last four years. these are national problems. the reports -- the two reports that i alluded to are national reports. but i know from my work in louisiana that they have consequences that similar cases exist in louisiana. i've been deeply involved in a couple, and i want to highlight those. first, the overton brooks scandal in shreveport, louisiana. a whistle-blower came forward to me, my office, with very troubling information regarding the v.a. hospital in shreveport called overton brooks. the whistle-blower is a licensed clinical social worker there and he accused that v.a. facility of the following: maintaining a secret wait list and manipulating the official

electronic wait list, using gaming strategies to manipulate reported wait times -- ex-, holding appointments or entering them into the system that the patient requested an out-of-date appointment when this this ajust wasn't true. providing group that i remembe y appointments and counting these are an appointment as a primary care provider which they were clearly not. these aren't just allegations. i've also personally seen e-mails that the whistle-blower provided. and that's shown that this secret list could contain up to 2,700 veterans. it also seems to confirm that while waiting for appointments, 37 of those veterans died. since hearing these allegations, i've sent a letter demanding a full investigation into overton brooks to the inspector general at the v.a., and i have

confirmed that that is happening; that liewl is moving forward. -- that absolutely is moving forward u no veteran who served this country should be put in any secret waiting list. at a time when we're learning more and more about rampant mismanagement at the v.a. across the country, any inalternatival ealsz like that should be taken -- allegations like that should be taken very, very seriously and reported. that brings me to the second case that i've personally dealt with and learned about in louisiana; this case out of the new orleans area. again nolan was the daughter of a distinguished veteran. she came to one of my recent town hall meetings in new orleans and she explained to me personally that her dad passed away in 2011 while patient at the v.a. hospital in new orleans allegedly in part due to delayed and poor care at the facility.

she described medical treatment there as poor and that her father's doctor had a terrible attitude and regularly refused to show up at the hospital in key situations. she requested that information from the v.a. including information regarding a supposed investigation into the case of her father be given to her. that information be given to her and what she most wanted -- her dad had passed. what she most wanted was to be sure that the v.a. data, to be sure that the v.a. in new orleans took some remedial action to correct the situation. her case was done. her case was done in two ways. first of all, tragically her father was dead, her father had passed. secondly, she brought a legal action against the v.a. and that was settled for a substantial sum of money, which she received. and she is not disputing that or reopening that. that is done.

but she really wanted to know that these problems have been addressed. so on june 3, i sent a letter to the acting secretary of the v.a. showsloan gibson demanding this information and the steps the v.a. has taken to correct what went wrong. the v.a. responded by saying -- quote -- "patient privacy laws prohibit us from discussing specific patient information" -- close quote. i sent another letter with the pertinent constituent's privacy release form. the patient is dead. the daughter will sign any release form they want. this was clearly just stonewalling, not give us appropriate information. unfortunately, the v.a. responded that they cannot share this information with my office unless very specific criteria are met. and, guess what? they didn't think it was relevant to list the specific

criteria we need to meet. again, more pure stonewalling. well, this information is extremely important. and i'm continuing to fight to get me and my constituent this information about if and how the new orleans v.a. fixed these problems. i'll be demanding a meeting as soon as possible with the head of the new orleans v.a. hospital so i can answer those questions directly and that person better not stonewall me to my face. that will have very negative consequences. we're setting up that meeting. that meeting will happen, and i'll be following up on this new orleans case. similarly, i'm following up on the shreveport case that came to light because of the whistle-blower. i'll be in shreveport tomorrow, and i am meeting with two significant people directly involved in these issues.

one, an official at the v.a. the second, someone who has come with additional information to confirm the fears and claims and concerns of the original whistle-blower. so i'll be having those meetings in shreveport tomorrow. again be, these louisiana cases that i've been personally involved in underscore the serious scandal at the v.a. every community has these cases. every state has these cases. every senator -- republican, democrat, independent -- has these cases. we need to fix these cases to properly honor our veterans. we need to ensure that this sort of abuse -- in some cases, fraud, dishonesty -- to the great detriment of our veterans, never happens again. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, exactly almost one year ago to this day all the members of the senate came to this chamber for what each of us understood was an historic vote. because after years and decades of debate and discussion, a small group of bipartisan senators, members from different backgrounds, different states, certainly different philosophies had come together to reach an agreement on landmark legislation, a bill that would truly change the lives of millions of americans. they had reached a deal that would significantly boost our economy, make every one of our communities fundamentally safer, and help millions of men and

women pursue the american dream. but most of all it was a deal that showed the united states was still capable of adapting, improving, and striving for perfection. still, the deal wasn't perfect. after all, it was a compromise. and once it was reached, it had to survive incredible scrutiny throughout the committee process and then during the floor consideration, but somehow it made it through. so one year ago this week, when each member of the senate came to the chamber, we did something that we don't normally do -- we honored an old senate tradition and actually cast our votes from our desks. and that night, mr. president, we finally passed comprehensive immigration reform through the united states senate. mr. president, i well remember the optimism we all shared that night. after years of trying, we had finally passed, with votes from republicans and from democrats, legislation that would finally start to fix our broken immigration system. it would strengthen our borders,

support our businesses, and, most importantly, provide a real path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants who are forced to live in the shadows as americans in all but name. the congressional budget office even estimated that our bill, the senate bill, would grow our economy and reduce the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars over the next two decades. so we sent the bill to the house of representatives, knowing the path forward there might not be easy, but we'd heard from the speaker of the house, john boehner, the majority leader, eric cantor and dozens of other members from both sides of the aisle that they all knew immigration reform had to happen this congress. well, since then, mr. president, we have watched and we have waited as the speaker and house republicans simply refuse week after week, month after month to take up the senate bill and move this process forward. for a full year we've witnessed

exactly what it looks like when congress simply fails to do its job for the american people. mr. president, our broken immigration system isn't a hypothetical problem. this isn't an obscure philosophical disagreement over the role of government. this is an issue that has real, tangible consequences for millions of americans. and while america has watched, the house republicans fail to -- failed to act for a full year. and we've seen some of those consequences up-close. since the senate passed immigration reform, tens of thousands of people, many of them women and children, have been senselessly deported from this country and separated from their families for no reason other than their undocumented status. businesses large and small have begged members of the house to pass reform, from tech compani companies, who need to hire the best and brightest from around the world, to agricultural businesses, who desperately need

a stable work force, and now, mr. president, we're seeing along our country's southern border hundreds of unaccompanied young children, many fleeing horrific gang violence in their home countries desperately seeking safety and a new life in the united states. but because of our broken immigration laws, we're nearly helpless to respond and live up to our nation's global reputation as a place of safety and fairness and freedom. although these children broke our immigration laws, they are not criminals. they are simply coming to our country to escape violence at home and strive for a better life in america. and, mr. president, it's not only along our southern border, where our immigration system is hurting families and hurting communities. in my home state of washington, i've heard from hundreds of families and businesses who have been directly impacted by this broken system.

businesses like west sound lumber company located on orcus island. it's a small sawmill. it's owned by the haulsal family for decades. now haulsal family is only able to keep it open from ben. he's an undocumented immigrant from mexico and arrived on the island more than a decade ago. he has become a cherished member of that community and an expert sawer. the hausals will tell you they'd have to close down if they lost ben and that possibility nearly became a reality when ben was randomly stopped by an immigration official while he was taking an elderly neighbor to a doctor's appointment out of town. though he posed no danger to his community, the department of homeland security scheduled him for deportation. which was only narrowly avoided this year after i took his case

directly to the secretary of homeland security and the ""seattle times"" told ben's story on its front page. mr. president, we should not be kicking people like ben nunez marquez out of this country. we should welcome him. we should treat him like a human being, and we should give him an opportunity to become a citizen. in the country that he loves, our country. and, mr. president, senseless deportations aren't the only symptom of our broken immigration laws. just this year, local headlines and television reports in washington state have revealed very concerning treatment of undocumented detainees at the northwest detention center. that treatment led to a widely publicized hunger strike and protests in communities across my state. mr. president, this is simply unacceptable. we must demand better than an immigration system that leads men and women whose only crime

is their pursuit of the american dream to be locked up, abused and discarded over the border. mr. president, these problems aren't new and they're not going away. throughout this year we've heard that house republicans will have a window of opportunity to act on immigration reform. well, mr. president, we're in that window now. republican primaries are behind us and the general election is months away. but that window is quickly closing. so the pressure is on house republicans and millions of americans across the country are hoping that they do the right thing. the time to act is now. so, mr. president, i think it's time to hope for the best but also plan for the worst. president obama has made it clear he is willing to take administrative action if the house refuses to pass comprehensive immigration refo reform. so i wanted to come today to lay out my principles for what that

action should look like and what i will urge the president to do if the worst happens and republicans in the house do nothing. first of all, the administration should make changes to ensure that while we're being tough on those who are a threat to our public safety or our national security, we're enforcing our immigration laws in a smart, humane way for the millions of undocumented immigrants who are american in all but name. and, frankly, that means changing our priorities. it means focusing our immigration enforcement efforts, including deportations, on actual criminals who are a danger to our communities, not innocent people like ben who randomly cross paths with an immigration official, and not undocumented immigrants who live in our communities, attend church alongside us and whose only crime is seeking a better life in the united states of america. it also means we should stop

relying on detention centers to lock away undocumented immigrants who pose no public safety risk, are already in our country and are contributing members of their community. rather than simply locking up in terrible conditions and scening thescene --sending them away, wd take advantage of more humane, cost-effective ways of enforcement. such as weekly check-ins with our immigration officials. secondly, we need to reestablish in our immigration system the most basic of american principles -- due process of law. for example, if you're in our country, absolutely no one should be deported or turned away from the united states without a hearing before an immigration judge. and part of making that a reality is providing the funding for immigration judges and access to legal information for undocumented immigrants. the policies at every single federal agency that deal with

undocumented immigrants, including i.c.e. and border patrol and any other agency should be reformed so that they are consistent, transparent and fair. because for far too long, the rules have been different from one federal agency to another and the policies have been so convoluted and illogical that innocent families are being torn apart. we should also discontinue the use of unconstitutional i.c.e. detainers when there is no probable cause as many counties have bravely done in the pacific northwest. because not only is holding someone without probable cause a violation of our constitutional rights, it's expensive to local sheriffs and diverts precious law enforcement resources away from policing and protecting communities. we should reduce the 100-mile enforcement radius for the border patrol agents, and make

sure there isn't one inch of land in this country that can be called a constitutional free zone. finally, mr. president, we must expand prosecutorial discretion and decide that before we deport someone like ben nunez marquez out of this country, we should take a second to use our common sense first. we should believ build on the gt success the administration has had with daca, the deferred action for childhood arrivals, and make sure federal agencies are focusing their efforts on actual criminals, not families trying to make a life in the united states. none of these actions can solve the underlying problem of a broken immigration system. only legislation from congress can do that. but if the inaction of the house republicans continues -- and i hope it doesn't -- we could be left without a choice. mr. president, since that historic vote one year ago, we've all watched as more and

more of our friends and neighbors fall victim to immigration laws that were designed for criminals, not families or our economy. and we've seen members of the house of representatives choose politics over good policy and completely ignore a full-blown crisis that we have the power to change. so i look forward to working with president obama along with republicans and democrats alike in congress to make sure our immigration system works. and i know so many people here and around the country join me in hoping that the house republicans step up and do the job that the american people expect them to do. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to met during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent unanimous consent for my intern, john bosworth to have floor privileges for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i welcome the supreme court's decision in the noel canning case. it represents a clear, clear rebuke to the president's brazen power grab, a power grab i was proud to lead the effort against. today's decision was clear, and it was a unanimous, unanimous

rebuke of the president of the united states. like my republican colleagues, i've said all along, president obama's so-called recess appointments to the nlrb in 2012 were a wholly unprecedented act of lawlessness. the president defied the senate's determination that it was meeting regularly and the supreme court unanimously, unanimously, agreed with us. today's ruling is a victory for the senate, for the american people, and for our constitution. the court reaffirmed the senate's clear and constitutional authority to prescribe its own rules, including the right to determine for itself when it is in session, and the supreme court unanimously rejected the president's completely unprecedented assertion of a unilateral appointment power, a

power that the framers deliberately withheld from his office. our counsel, miguel astrawda, did an outstanding job defending the senate and its iewp north korealy important place in our constitutional system. by contrast our democratic colleagues shirked their institutional duty to defend the senate. they failed yet again to stand up to the president. although they failed to defend the senate when it mattered most, they, their successors, and their constituents, will benefit from today's ruling. the principle at stake in this case should extend well beyond narrow partisanship. it should be about more than just one president or one political party. in closing, the administration's tendency to

abide only by the laws it likes represents a disturbing and dangerous threat to the rule of law. that's true whether we're talking about recess appointments or obamacare. so i hope the obama administration will take away the appropriate lessons, because the court's decision today is a clear, clear rebuke of this behavior. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, cheryl ann krause of new jersey to be united states circuit judge for the third

circuit. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of cheryl ann krause of new jersey to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of cheryl ann krause of new jersey to the united states circuit judge for the third circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: