important step by investing in adult education, expanding access to digital literacy skills and improving the coordination of state and local programs. another bill endorsed by the national association of manufacturers is the america works act sponsored by senators hagan and heller.÷ another challenge we face is ensuring that employers can quickly recognize whether a worker has the skills they really need. so senator hagan's bill helps solve this by ensuring that we prioritize programs that invest in training that has portable, national and internationally recognized credentials. this encourages job-training programs to match the skills of workers with the needs of local employers, training individuals for the jobs currently available in their communities right now. a third bill that contributed importantly to this bill that was enacted here yesterday adopted by the senate yesterday was the community college to career fund act sponsored by

senator franken and senator begich. senator franken came to the floor yesterday and gave another passionate, important floor speech in support of these ideas. it is something that as i have presided and as i have been with him in caucus i have heard senator franken speak to many times. it is about equipping workers with the skills they need by investing in partnerships between our community colleges and our employers. senator franken, senator begich, myself and others have seen this work in our home communities. we have seen community colleges, learned from manufacturers what are the actual today relevant modern manufacturing skills they need and then deliver customized training coarses that make a difference in the skills, in the lives, in the college affordability and access of those who seek to join today's manufacturing work force. a fourth bill, the on the job training act cosponsored by senators shaheen and cochran contributed the idea that we need to invest in on the job training. because of senator shaheen's

leadership on this bill, it will now make new and important investments so that workers learn what they need to know in the job that needs to be filled rather than an academic setting and then search for a job that might match the skills they learn on the job training in this bill sponsored by shaheen and cochran is an important contribution to modernizing america's workplace skills. the last of the sectors act cosponsored by senators brown and collins is a provision that helps meet the fundamental challenge of connecting our schools with our businesses, by requiring state and local work force investment boards to establish sector-based partnerships. mr. president, with all of these bills, there is an important and common theme. in the 21st century, rapid economic change is a given. in order to compete, in order to grow our economy and grow employment, in order to be productive and to have a successful and growing work force, we need to be able to adapt as quickly as our economy does and we need to invest in

modernizing the skills of american workers. with the passage of the work force innovation and opportunity act yesterday, we have made a strong statement that in a bipartisan way, we're willing to invest in america's workers, the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. this is just one of many encouraging moments here in the senate that sometimes go without note or commentary in our communities at home, but i thought it was important to bring to the floor today this range of five different bills, three of them bipartisan, all of them strong, whose ideas were part of the package adopted here on the floor yesterday and that i am confident will be adopted by the house and signed into law by our president. this senate can, will, should continue to make bipartisan progress in investing in american manufacturing. thank you. mr. president, last friday was juneteenth, which marks four of the most important days in our

nation's long and continuing march towards racial justice and civil rights in this country. first, on june 19 in 1862, president became lincoln's emancipation proclamation abolished slavery in all u.s. territories. then three years later, a month after the end of our civil war, union soldiers arrived in galveston, texas, to free the last of our nation's slaves. nearly a century later, on june 19, 1963, with jim crow laws still a stain on the moral fabric of our country, president john f. kennedy sent his civil rights act of 1963 to congress. and the following year, as the nation mourned its loss, president j.f.k., president johnson shepherded the civil rights act of 1964 to final passage. as we mark these days in our

nation's history from the end of our darkest period to some of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation passed, we know we still have further to go. it's appropriate that we do so this year especially, that we mark june 19 and these five moments across our nation's history because as a result of the supreme court's decision last year, the shelby county case, a key piece of president johnson's voting rights act of 1965 stands in bad need of repair and revision. in fact, the voting rights act itself is at risk of becoming a dead letter in the future of voting in our country. now, just two years ago, i had the opportunity to join many of my colleagues here in the congress from the house and the senate, republicans and democrats in returning to selma, to the site of bloody sunday, to the march across the edmund pettis bridge.

many of us, members of congress, got a chance to hear again from congressman louis about the events of that day, that day that was etched into the consciousness of this country and mobilized millions to speak out to their representatives and senators and moved this congress finally to enact legislation that would unlock the keys to the ballot book across the country. i was so proud earlier this year to join with chairman leahy, the senate judiciary committee and with senator dick durbin, congressman john louis, an icon and leader of the american civil rights movement, congressman john conyers and republican congressman jim sensenbrenner to introduce a bill that would restore the core protections made possible in the original voting rights act. the bill we introduced doesn't look at discrimination through the lens of the past. it focuses on modern day violations, not the things that happened 50 years ago. it takes up the challenge laid

down by the supreme court and comes up with a new formula and a new approach that makes voting rights and elections more transparent and has been carefully crafted to be both effective and to pass in this congress. it is, mr. president, a voting rights bill that is modern to confront modern voting rights challenges. as a country, we have come a long way since 1965, but we are not where we need to be yet. as much as we may at times not want to admit it or confront it, racial discrimination in voting is not a relic of the past, but a tragic reality of today. just yesterday, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on what to do to address the loss of a key part of the voting rights act that's known as preclearance. in 2013, the supreme court struck down the heart of the voting rights act that a bill that each and every senate

republican voted for in 2006. let me be clear about that again. in 2006, this body unanimously reauthorized the voting rights act, and yet in 2013, the supreme court struck down an essential provision of that very act. mr. president, the voting rights act and leadership to address the challenges of civil rights in this country have long been bipartisan in nature. my own family and friends who are republicans are justifiably proud of their party's leadership role in addressing the darkest days and the biggest challenges of civil rights in the last century in this country, but today we are struggling in this body to find a single republican cosponsor for this important and necessary bill, and i ask my friends is this because there is nothing that remains to be done?

is that 2006 law unanimously passed by this body so obsolete that there is no legislative response necessary to shelby? i think a response is necessary. just a month after the supreme court's decision, north carolina passed a restrictive -- a deeply restrictive voting law that in addition to a strict photo i.d. requirement reduces early voting and forbids local jurisdictions flexibility in setting hours for early voting, among other restrictions. after the shelby county decision in pasadena, texas, that city's voters adopted a plan to reduce the number of single member districts from eight to six, adding two at-large representatives, a change nearly certain to reduce latino representation on their city council. and just hours after the decision, the state of texas announced plans to implement its photo i.d. law that had long been blocked under section 5 of the voting rights act. again and again, mr. president, shortly following the shelby

county decision, jurisdictions moved to implement discriminatory voting changes that had previously been blocked under section 5. something needs to be done. i would suggest to my colleagues if you don't like this proposal, please come forward with something you can support, with something that looks forward, not back, that has a formula that protects voting as the most sacred and foundational right of our republic and that allows us to come together. history will not look kindly on our inaction. mr. president, just two days ago, we honored the memory of dr. king and coretta scott king with the congressional gold medal. what better way to honor their legacy than to come together in a bipartisan way and strengthen the rights they fought so hard to secure for every american. voting is fundamental and ensuring that every american really has the right to vote is at the core of what makes our democracy vibrant.

so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and to find a way forward for us to put voting rights first and to restore the important legacy of june 19 from across so many incidents and so many years and to move us forward on a positive path. thank you. mr. president, could i ask my colleague's indulgence for just one last two-minute speech? mr. sessions: well, mr. president, i was to be recognized at 4:00, so i don't -- but i would be glad to but would like 15 minutes or so that i was told that i would have, even though it may back some others up after me. so, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that senator coons be allowed an additional two minutes and that i be allowed 15 minutes thereafter on

the floor. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. coons: i object and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. without objection. mr. coons: when we send

ambassadorsships, ambassadors are voices for american valts and the interests that we share with other nations. simply put, they're critical to promoting our foreign policy, our economic and security interests and our leadership in the world. yet, one, because of gridlock here, we fail to confirm ambassadors, we send a dangerous message about our lack of interest in the world and our lack of commitment to diplomacy. i have the privilege of chairing the african affairs subcommittee. through my work as chair as well as time i spent earlier in my life in africa, i've seen up close both the incredible opportunities on the continent of africa as well as the stark challenges. for instance today this, decade, seven of the ten fastest growing economies in the world are in africa. yet right now one in five -- one in five -- american embassies in the 54 countries on that continent lack a confirmed ambassador. africa faces serious security

challenges. boko haram in nigeria which recently kidnapped hundreds of girls and burned down schools is one example. as the country is bordering that troubling area of nigeria tried to coordinate a response to ensure that conflict doesn't spill over borders we lack ambassadors in cameroon and namibia where we don't have a confirmed ambassador the united states is donated $50 million to combat aids. we need an ambassador to oversee those funds and make sure they're appropriately used. let me review some of the numbers, some of the facts our nominees to namibia, khmer and cameroon have waited almost a year. our ambassador to sierra leone 352, to gabon 287. in the long absence of ambassadors, professional career

foreign service officers, capable and competent deputy chief of mission assume this role on an interim basis. but i'm deeply concerned that with the august turnover quickly approaching many of our embassies will be left without someone at the helm. this is inexcuse. it hurts our economy and our national security to threef these -- to leave these posts unfilled for so long. mr. president, i have great hope for africa's future. across the continent there are emerging democracies and growing economies. although there are some security challenges, i'm optimistic we can meet them in partnership with africa's leaders. but when we fail to send career public servants to serve as our ambassadors, we send the message we're not serious about these challenges and aren't willing to invest in these partnerships. i urge my colleagues to work together across the aisle to devote ourselves to getting our ambassadorial nominees to africa confirmed. this transcends partisanship and

it's a task we should turn to promptly. thank you. and, mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you. i'd like to thank, through the chair, the senator from alabama for allowing me to go ahead in the queue. mr. president, we say that america is a nation of immigrants, and of course that's true. there's no other country in the world for which immigration is so central to its history and its identity. but let's take a moment to reflect on what that really means. here's a photo. i'm afraid it's not very good quality. i took it myself. it's a photo that i took at a naturalization ceremony held for active duty service members in fort carson, colorado, the 13 soldiers and spouses who became united states citizens on that day represented 11 different

countries of origin, even though they're wearing our uniform. they came from all over the world: colombia, haiti, malaysia, mexico, nicarauga, china, the philippines, south korea, togo, ukraine, and the united kingdom. 11 different countries, mr. president, and they all came in pursuit of the american dream. they all came to serve this country. and they're going to be people that help us determine our future. the same with the refugees fleeing persecution from around the world. the parents seeking opportunity for their children and those stepping forward to serve and to sacrifice for our shared values that make this country the america that we love. but our existing immigration policies do not reflect this history or the values that shaped it. instead it's a mess of

unintended consequences that hurt our businesses, rip families apart and keep us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. tomorrow marks 365 days, one year, since the senate acted to fix these problems and pass bipartisan immigration reform. yet, here we are still waiting for the house of representatives to do the same. the house's inaction is coftion our nation -- is costing our nation. it has cost us, among other things, $13.4 billion in lost revenue in this last year alone. and with each additional day that passes, we lose another $37 million of revenue. but what's most frustrating about this, mr. president, to me, is that we agree on both sides of the aisle that our current immigration system is broken. we agree that our immigration system is critical for our economy and for our country. in june of last year, we passed

a bill in this chamber with strong bipartisan support. it won the support of a broad coalition of republicans and democrats. it also has the support of countless organizations from migrant workers to farmers and ranchers, from law enforcement agencies to the latino leaders across this country, the chamber of commerce to labor unions. often i tell of the despair about the lack of leadership in congress that there is a model we can learn from, and it is the bipartisan work that was done on this bill. i cannot say enough about the republican members of the gang of eight willing to negotiate a bill over seven and eight months knowing what the base of their party might say but willing to do it, willing to do it because it was the right thing to do for the country, willing to do it because it's the right thing to do for their party, in that order. in this job, i've had the

opportunity to meet with a diverse cross section of coloradoans throughout the state, each struggling beneath the weight of a broken immigration system. i've spoken with peach growers on the west slope and melon farmers in in the san lois vall. farmers who can't get the seasonal workers. one will tell you how hard he and his family have had to work to fill these gaps and how every single day they've got to keep fighting to prevent their 36-acre farm from closing. a legal, reliable, competent workforce for our nation's farms and ranches is essential for colorado's $40 billion agriculture industry, and it's essential for agriculture industry across the country. and maybe that's the reason why both the farm workers union and the growers all across the united states of america endorse this bill. i've heard from colorado's high-tech companies such as full

contact, a tech start-up in boulder, colorado, that recently fired up -- hired a company overseas. they have been unable to hire those to add jobs. i've heard from administrators who work tirelessly to teach the next generation of entrepreneurs. teachers like mary edwards from colorado springs, a graduate from johns hopkins with a master's degree in education, will likely be forced to return home to nigeria leaving behind the children she works with at turman elementary school on account of our broken outdated visa system. on april 7 this year, the government already reached its statutory cap on h-1b petition or h-1b visas. it also reached exemption for

20,000 advanced degree holders. these are exactly the type of workers our state and the national economy require. let me paint a picture of what our country would look like if the senate's immigration bill were actually enacted. first, millions of people who came to this country for a better life, including the young people whose parents brought them here as children, would have the opportunity to enter a tough but fair pathway to citizenship. with a path in place, we'd see higher wages, greater consumption of goods and increased revenues. it would reduce our debt by nearly $1 trillion -- $1 trillion -- even in washington that's real money -- over 20 years and increase our g.d.p., our economic growth by roughly 5.4% over that period of time. next our bill would put in place an efficient and flexible visa system that would enable us to compete in a change 21st century global economy. talented entrepreneurs and

innovators from around the world would have the opportunity to stay here in order to create jobs and fuel our economy. high-skilled workers in math and science and lower-skilled workers in industries like has parliamentary inquiry talt and tourism -- like hospitality and tourism would come into the country to fill jobs where there are no available u.s. workers. we provide stability for our agriculture industry with a new streamlined program for ag workers, one that's more usable for employers and that protects our workers. and our borders would be more secure. there's one border security bill that's passed the united states congress, and that's the bill passed by the senate. with new fencing, doubling the number of r border agents, increasing spending on new technology. we'd have full situational awareness on the border in order to allow us to intercept threats rapidly and successfully. and with the mandatory employment verification system and more effective entry-exit

system we would prevent future ways of illegal immigration. a huge number of people that are here entered the country legally. we just don't know where they are. we ought to have a system that tells us. these are all changes that our nation urgently needs. in the time since the senate passed the bill we heard a litany of reasons why it can't pass the house. they say the senate bill doesn't have support in the house. if speaker boehner put the bill on the floor tomorrow, it would pass. they say the senate bill is too long, too big, too comprehensive. i for one am willing to consider looking at this bill in smaller pieces as long as all the problems with the system are addressed. but the house hasn't produced -- never mind voted on -- a single bill, much less a series of smaller bills. they say they want more border security but what do they know about the border that our republican colleagues from arizona -- john mccain and jeff flake -- don't know?

what do they know about the border that senator flake and senator mccain don't know? we have 21,000 border agents. we're putting another 21,000 on the border if this bill were passed. we spend more money on the border than we do all other federal law enforcement combined. but they say that there's not enough border security. not that they've passed a border security bill. the only folks who have are here in the united states senate. we should be asking how many more agents do they need? how many more billions of dollars should we spend? if the house wants to secure the border first, which the senate bill does, let's see their legislation. we're waiting. i for one would like to see them think about customs agents and trade instead of adding more billions of dollars at the border. the most common excuse we've heard is the house hasn't had time to pass a bill.

the house was only scheduled to work nine days last september. ultimately they came back for a few extra days to shut the government down. in the year since the senate passed the bill, the house has found the time to vote 17 times to repeal, delay or dismantle the health care bill, 54 times in total in the last four years. they voted to name 20 post offices, an as sortment of 20 other government buildings. they held five separate house committee hearings. they produced three different public reports. they passed one resolution on the topic of benghazi, a topic that never has come up in most of our town halls. in colorado, what i hear over and over again is we've got to stop excuse, spop posturing -- stop posturing and pass a bill, a good bipartisan bill. that is what the house of representatives ought to be doing now, fixing our broken immigration system is long overdue, and i believe that the bipartisan solution crafted in our senate bill will fix it just fine. it's time for the house to act.

and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i thank my colleague again for his patience and his kindness in letting me go first. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i appreciate my colleague, and what i would note, he didn't mention and it wasn't mentioned in the effort to pass the gang of eight bill, which was dead on arrival in the house, was the american worker. the numbers just came out yesterday, a revision of the economic numbers, our gross domestic product products showed a decline in the first quarter of 2.9%, a g.d.p. decline of 2.9%, which is the largest decline we've seen since the recession hit, those dramatic days. we are not creating jobs in this country.

wages are not going up. we do not need to be surging i wil--we do not need to be surgii will heelly the number of immigrants coming n into the country. at a time when americans are having wages fall and jobs very, very difficult to defind. for example, i would just note that the percentage of americans in the workforce ages that are actually working has fallen to the lowest point since the 1 1970's. this is a dramatic decline in the number of people working, and since 2009 -- and the

numbers continue to slide. since 2009, we've had a decline in median income for families in america by $2,300. and they say and suggest repeatedly that this legislation that was brought to the floor was focused primarily on melon harvesters. but teas not so. about 80% of the people that would be given legal status would not be on the farms. they would be taking jobs in plants and factories all over america, reducing the need for businesses to increase wages for a change and try to attract people into some of these more difficult jobs. it's not that people won't do this work. it's that they -- the wages aren't sufficient to take care

of themselves or their families too often. and we need wages to rise. we have a loose labor market, not a tight labor market. people are having a hard time finding jobs. we're talking about a dramatic increase in the number of workers at a time when the economy is struggling, workers are hurting, wages are down, unemployment is up. i just want to dispute that. i want to push back on it. that's been my analysis from the beginning. oh, we need more high-tech workers, they say. and businesses say that, too. but what do the numbers show? professor salzman, i believe at rut guess, did a report that said we're actually graduating about 500,000 stem workers -- science, technologies, engineers, mathematics. about 500,000 graduate a year,

but we only have jobs for less than half of them. most stem graduates are not working in their fields. they haven't been able to find the kind of work they trained for. one of the reasons is, a substantial number of those jobs are taken by h-1b workers who are brought in not to immigrate to america to create jobs, colleagues; they come in on the h-1b, which is a limited period of tievmen time. they work at lower wages and they return to their country. they are not on the path to be permanent citizens. but it gives great assets to businesses who don't want to hire, perhaps, it seems, people and put them ton a career path where they might be expected to get pay raises in the years to come. so i would challenge even that fafnlgfact. i talked to a businessperson recently about a factory that they have. the work sounded pretty good to

me. and he wants to bring in foreign workers to alabama. well, we got unemployment in alabama. we've got people on unemployment insurance. we've got people on welfare and food stamps and assistance that need to be taking those jobs. so the first responsibility of a congress, a senate when they consider an immigration bill is what is in the interests of the american people? i don't believe it's wrong to discuss that. we have to ask what's in our national interest, the interest of our people. and this is not a time to be doubling the h-1b workers into america. it is just not. and more and more scientific, peer-reviewed, excellent studies is coming out on that. i see my colleague, senator durbin. i know he is exceedingly busy, and i was going to makers to ma,

mr. president, a unanimous consent request that we actually do something about the crisis we have on the border, and i would ask consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 202, the accountability through electronic verification act understand that that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of the measure. i ask further that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and that the the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. mr. president, i just -- just one second, mr. president. and -- mr. president, for the purpose -- for the information of all senators,' 202 introduced by senator grassley and which i am cosponsor, amends the illegal

immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 to make the e-verify program permanent. this is critical to protecting jobs and wages of american workers. it requires that a business at least run as cursory computer check to determine whether the person applying for a job is legally in the country. so, mr. president, i would renew my motion for a unanimous consent. the presiding officer: is there objection to the motion from the senator from alabama? mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, a year ago today on the floor of the senate we passed the comprehensive immigration reform bill. 68 senators, 14 republicans and all of the democrats, voted for it. we extent over to the house of representatives, including -- included in that bill was a requirement that all employers use a mandatory electronic

employment verification system to verify that all their employees were legal, job applicants were required to show identifying documents like a passport, driver's license, biometric work authorization card including a photo i.d. any employer that continued to employ undocumented immigrants faced serious penalties. that would end the hiring of undocumented workers, which the senator from alabama has spoken to. e-verify, though, has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform. otherwise it would devastate the economy and hurt innocent workers. this was included in the bill and we said there would be no path to citizenship until we've established this as a nationwide standard to ver nigh workers -- verify that workers truly were not undocumented. that bill came to the the floor a year ago. the 12340the senator from alabad against t it passed. it went to the house of representatives. it has languished for one solid year. the house speaker, john baron, will not call that bill because

he knows it will pass. we are not going to take that bill apart piece by piece, as the senator from alabama suggests. i object. mr. sessions: mr. president -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sessions: mr. president, thank the able senator from illinois for his articulate response. i would note that if the e-verify is program that should have already been implemented long ago, if it's so good, why don't we bring it up and pass it now? why do we have to pass along with it a bill that will double the number of guest workers in the country and would increase immigration and have a -- in a whole lot of areas and also not -- also had many other flaws in it? so i would ask, mr. president, unanimous consent -- and this would be my last consent tonight -- that the committee on finance be discharged from further consideration of s. 91, the

child tax credit intreeing grit preservation act, 2013, and that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of the measure. i ask further the bill be considered and read a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. for the information of senators, mr. president, s. 91 was introduced by senator vitter, which i cosponsored. it would close a loophole in the law to permit illegal aliens from illegally and improperly receiving cash tax credits from the internal revenue service. according to the treasury department's own inspector general, the i.r.s. sent illegal aliens $4.2 billion in additional child tax credit payments in 2010. the cost has quadrupled in five years. in one instance, four illegal aliens fraud will notly claimed benefits for 20 children they claimed that lived with them in

the same trailer and received from the i.r.s. $29,000 in refunds. so, mr. president, i would ask consent that this bill be passed. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object, the circumstance is this: if you were legally required to pay income taxes in america, you are legally entitled to some deductions and credits. one of those credits which you're entitled to is a child tax credit. if you have a minor child, you pay less in taxes in america. what the senator from alabama and this bill try to do is to restrict the availability of this child tax credit to some workers in america. i think they've gone too far. i want to make sure that working families with small children have the helping hand of our tax code. i want to stop any fraud in any program if our tax code but i don't believe this bill is a balanced approach to solving the

problem, and i object. mr. sessions: mr. president -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sessions: mr. president, i appreciate -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: -- the senator from illinois's comments. i just would have to say that the inspector general of president obama's own department -- u.s. treasury department has said that this is a clear abuse. they've written a detailed letter on why it ought to be closed, and i am flabbergasted, amazed that we would sit by and allow $4 billion in child tax credit payments to go out that are not justified. we've been told this. why is this that we won't even respond to this little problem? it's one reason i brought it up today. because i want the american people to know this congress, this democratic majority, is not willing to take any steps to confront the problems that we have with regard to immigration, unless they get a massive

increase that satisfies activist groups, business interests, and their own political interests. it's not the interest of the american people. we need to dot right thing for our country, based on law, on principles, on fairness. that's what we need to do. persons who come to the country illegally aren't entitled to get child tax credits for children in some other country. and even if they bring them here, they are a not entitled to it i would -- they're not entitled to it i would think, certainly not for children that don't exist. nobody is going out and checking to see if children are in the home. they're just claiming this. the numbers have surged in recent years. the inspector general expressed great concern about that. how it went from like $1 billion to $4 billion. that's a lot of money, $4 billion in one year. subsidizing, encouraging further illegal entry into america. the first thing that any country

ought to do to control its borders, its sovereignty, it's legal integ grirkts is not to provide financial benefit to people who violate the law and then give them benefits that are unlawful. that is -- that is beyond comprehension. so i want to say to my colleagues, this week -- the last few weeks it's becoming more and more clear that we have chaos at the border, all a direct result of the president and his administrative officials who have told the world, we have no intention basically of deporting people who enter the country unlawfully, particularly the young people. and what has that been heard? have people around the world heard what's been said in yes, and they're coming in unbelievable numbers, creating a

humanitarian crisis, create being a crisis of -- creating a crisis of law for america, and creating a financial crisis. we had $600 million in costs calm of years ago to deal with unaccompanied children. now that cost is expected to be $2.7 billion. that's just based on the numbers today. in 2011, there were 6,000 apprehended children trying to come into america illegally. this year they say it could reach 90,000. 90,000 from 6,000? it's a direct result of the unwillingness of president obama to look the american people in the eye, tell the people throughout the entire world, we believe in immigration, we have a lawful system of immigration. please apply, wait your turn.

if you qualify, you'll be able to come to america. we're going to do it fairly and objectively and treat everybody with respect. but do not come unlawfully. do not give money to some smuggler, do not attempt to sneak in through our border across the desert and place your lives at risk because it's against our law. and we will apprehend you and we will promptly deport you and you will lose all the money you've invested in this effort. just don't do it. and they refuse to say that with clarity. secretary johnson was before the judiciary committee and i asked him about it. he also refused to say, don't come to america because it's against our law. he said, don't come because it's dangerous. now, that's not the kind of message we need to hear from our leaders. the first thing a law enforcement officer should do --

and, you know, the president's the chief law enforcement officer. but the secretary of homeland security, he has the border patrol, he has immigration and customs enforcement officers, he has the citizenship and investigative service. that's who's supposed to be enforcing our immigration laws. and he will not say that with clarity and he will not communicate it with clarity. vice president biden supposedly made a statement in central america about it. it was weak. it just was not strong. i mean, what is it? do they want the illegality to continue? do they believe in open borders? and this congress, this senate is about to recess having done not one thing about it? and the humanitarian crisis continues on the border. these children, some of them are young. of course some of them are 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. they claim to be 17.

who knows? they're not carrying birth certificates with them. it's creating an incredible crisis. one reporter said that the border patrol, instead of enforcing the law, are changing diapers. this is a very dangerous situation. our entire legal system is crumbling about us and the chief law enforcement officer in america, the president, alone is the one that can bring order to it. the secretary of h.h.s., the secretary of homeland security, he works for the president. he doesn't get on it, he needs to be out of there. the president needs to say, get this thing under control. what are we paying you for? what about the officers and the agents? what do they think? our officers and agents are stunned. report after report of senior

officers say they've never seen anything like this. and it's a direct result of the inconsistent message that we're sending. and they're saying a message is even -- is sort of only part of the solution. it has to be backed up with words. so how is it happening today? a child and an adult cross the border. what are they doing today? they're going straight up -- this is, i know, hard to believe -- they go straight to the immigration officer and turn themselves in. and what does the immigration officer do? he takes them in to custody. he's got -- if they've got a child then the adult has to stay with the child. and then they put them in a shelter. and then they give them a hearing date. and the hearing date's down the road and they've got a backlog so what do they do then? they give them a -- put them out on bail, basically.

they allow them to go to someplace where somebody will take them in, which is what they desired to begin with. and then they're told to appear at court at some given date in the future. and nobody is going to investigate to see if they actually showed -- if they didn't show up, where they are. there's nobody to investigate it, which we're talking about a huge increase by tens of thousands of people coming into the country, in addition to the 11 million that are already here. so this is a guaranteed failure. and that's what everybody has been telling us that knows anything about it. now, the i.c.e. officers, the immigration, customs and enforcement officers, their association went so far a little over a -- over a year ago to file a lawsuit in federal court. and what did they say? they said that this

administration is violating the laws of america and the constitution by directing them not to enforce the laws they sworn to uphold. and the federal judge was very sympathetic with them. he eventually ruled there was not standing for this lawsuit to proceed but he was very sympathetic with the merits of their claim. because that's exactly what's happening. and we have a situation with the president of the united states, after the dream act, the idea that we would provide legal status to everybody who was brought here under i think 18, we'll provide basically a legal status and a pathway to citizenship. that -- that bill came up before the senate, it's been voted down three times by the senate. and so what did the president do? he directed that the law not be

enforced as to them. even though the law remains on the books. and that's part of the message that was heard in central america and that's encouraging people to come unlawfully to america. so we're not against immigration. we do need a certain number of farm workers. we do need and will accept and validate people who come with skills and are ready to go to work. we should -- we should do that. and we have a generous policy. but we shouldn't be doubling it, as the gang of eight bill d. we just don't have the jobs for them. we have low unemployment and rising wages and a shortage of workers -- if we have low unemployment and rising wages and a shortage of workers, i think you could justify a generous immigration policy. but not now. canada is not doing this.

they're reducing right now the number of people they're allowing comin to come to their country. they want to make sure their people get the jobs first. mr. president, the whole matter here is disturbing to me that we're at a point where the law is not being enforced properly in this country. today the unanimous supreme court ruled against the president's unconstitutional recess appointments. in a dramatic repudiation of the white house's position. 9-0 they ruled. and it was an obvious decision, in my opinion. it was breathtaking that the president of the united states would appoint members to the labor relations board that have to come before the senate for confirm acconfirmation under the constitution. we have advice and consent authority. and he didn't want to do that so

he just appointed them and claimed we were in recess. and we weren't in recess. it was not a close question. he just did it. and so it took over two years of a lawsuit and finally the supreme court has now ruled. and a lower court ruled against the president some months agoment so the president clearly and deliberately violated article 2 of the constitution, circumventing the advice and consents clause. at the time of these appointments, the senate had determined it was not in recess. we determined we weren't in recess. and the court affirmed that determination. and the question of whether or not the senate is in session is up to the senate. not the president. so the president has got to yield to the senate's authority to determine its own rules and procedures.

this is basic law, it seems to me. unfortunately, the president has made it clear that he'll only follow the letter of the law when it's not an impediment to whatever agenda he has at the time. just today the white house displayed again its lack of respect for our constitutional traditions. in a rather brazen display of candor, the new white house spokesman, the president's spokesman today explained the administration's rationale for moving unilaterally to rewrite america's immigration laws. here is what josh ernest had to say. hear me, colleagues. this is a direct threat to the integrity of our constitutional separation of powers. it's not far different from what the president has said before but it was today or yesterday -- today. quote -- "we're not going to sit around and wait interminably for

congress." how about that? "we're not going to sit around and wait on congress." we don't have to fool with congress. quote -- "we've been waiting a year already. the president has tasked his secretary of homeland security, jeh johnson, with reviewing what options are available to the president. what is at his disposal, using his executive authority to try to address some of the problems that have been created by our broken immigration system?" so this is about as close as you can get to an open admission that the administration does not believe it has an obligation to follow the law. you can't -- you can't just eviscerate whole code sections of the law, claiming that you've got authority to decide what you want to prosecute and what you don't.

jonathan turley, the great law professor, has hammered this idea. a liberal, he voted for president obama in 2008. he's hammered this idea. you -- this is an abuse of executive power. so i know my colleagues -- so we're seeing the results of this on our borders right now. in 2011, we had 6,000 illegal immigrant youth from central america apprehended. this year we may hit as many as 90,000. next year, projections are as high as 130,000, costing billions of dollars to take care of them. that would be more than a 2,000% increase. the president's policies are directly responsible for this crisis. they just are. he's acted unilaterally to suspend immigration enforcement and has sent the signal to the world that our borders were open and that if you get here unlawfully and burrow in, you'll be able to stay here.

as former i.c.e. director john sandwig said -- quote -- "if you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero." so i asked homeland security secretary johnson about this during his testimony, to say clearly to the world, do not come unlawfully. you must follow the laws of the country. if you come unlawfully, you will be sent back home. he refused to even say that in my presence with any clarity. so here's what "the new york times" reported on april 10 -- quote -- "with detention facilities, asylum offices and immigration courts overwhelmed, enough migrants have been released temporarily in the united states that back home in central america, people have heard that those who made it to american soil have a good chance of staying. word has gotten out that we're giving people permission and walking them out of the door,

said chris caberra, border patrol agent who's vice president of the national local border patrol council, the agents' union. 'so they're coming across in droves." that's exactly what's happening. it's a huge tragedy for those children. it's costing them money, putting their lives at risk and we're not able to handle them effective. colleagues,ive her, i have heree line over 17 pages long of the ways this administration has either ignored or suspended the immigration law. by directing officers not to do their duty, essentially. a week before the july 4th holiday, american can't even protect its own borders. and what do our democratic colleagues wish to do? they want to adjourn this chamber, go home to their barbecues, work on their reelection campaigns, and

promise while they're home they're fighting to end the lawlessness at the border while doing nothing. while actually doing nothing but objecting to legislation that would make a real difference. so, mr mr. president, i see my colleague, senator sanders, and i'll wrap up. i believe we were elected, colleagues, to protect this country and its people and the laws of our country. that's critical component of national sovereignty is the control over your border. we have past immigration laws that are on the books and not being enforced. we on the republican side have opposed -- proposed immigration laws that would reduce the illegality that cannot even see the light of day on the floor of the u.s. senate. i'm asking my colleagues that we ought to stay here. why don't we stay here and work on this crisis? i intend to request that we do

so and have done so, and offered unanimous consents to bring up legislation that would help improve the situation. but that's been objected to. our taxpayers are overstretched. if we want to get this country back on track, we need to control this border and enforce the nation's laws in a fair and equitable way that allows generous immigration to america, that treats people fairly and decently, but is not an open border, unlimited number that people can come by the tens of thousands unlawfully. so how can any of us relax at an independence day barbecue next week knowing at this very moment the nation's sovereignty is being eroded? so, mr. president, i think we failed in our session, we've not responded to the crisis that's on our border, and we could have made real progress, but there's a lack of will and a

lack of willingness to act. and i'm disappointed to see that fact. i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, as chairman of the senate veterans committee, i would hope that every american understands that the cost of war does not end when the last shots are fired or when the last missiles are launched. the cost of war continues until the last veteran receives the care and benefits that he or she has earned on the battlefield. war is an incredibly expensive proposition in terms of human life, human suffering, and in financial terms. and in my very, very strong view, if we are not prepared to take care of those men and women who went to war, then we shouldn't send them to war in the first place. taking care of veterans is a

cost of war, period. in terms of iraq and afghanistan, the human cost of those wars is almost 7,000 dead, the cost of war is 530,000 veterans seeking care at the v.a., in 2013 for posttraumatic stress disorder not to mention those struggling with traumatic brain injury. the cost of war is too many service members coming home with missing arms and legs, lost eyesight or lost hearing. the cost of war includes veterans each day dying by suicide, high rates of divorce, wives trying trying to rebuild their lives after losing their husbands, kids growing up in one-parent homes, and too high rates of unemployment for returning service members. those are some of the real costs of war that this congress cannot ignore. madam president, several weeks ago, senator mccain and i

hammered out an agreement which i think goes a significant way to address many of the serious problems facing the v.a. i'm very proud that the sanders-mccain bill passed the senate with overwhelming bipartisan bipartisan support with a vote of 93-3. in terms of funding, very importantly, by a vote of 75- 75-19, overwhelming vote, the senate made it crystal clear that the current crisis in the v.a., the crises facing veterans who are not getting health care in a timely manner is an emergency and should be paid for through emergency funding. and i'm very proud that in a bipartisan way the senate made that important vote. madam president, in the last four years we have seen a significant increase in the number of veterans utilizing

v.a. health care. in addition, many of our other veterans from world war ii, korea, and vietnam require a greater amount of care as they age. further, a recent v.a. audit revealed that more than 57,000 veterans are on too-long waiting lists in order to be scheduled for medical appointments and in addition to that, there are many other veterans who were never put on the list in the first place, which is what this whole scandal is largely about. clearly, these waiting lists and veterans not getting care in a timely manner is unacceptable and must be dealt with immediately. not six months from now, not in a year from now, not in a great debate about national priorities. this is a crisis which must be dealt with now. swru agree -- i couldn't agree with senator john mccain more when he said on the senate floor

during this debate -- and i quote -- "if there is a definition of emergency, i would say this legislation fits that, it is an emergency, it is an imagine what is happening to our veterans and the men and women who have served this country and we need to pass this legislation and get it in conference with the house as soon as possible." end of quote. senator mccain was right. i concur with what he said. we need to get this legislation moving as soon as possible and get it to the president's desk. veterans of this country must get quality care and they must get that health care in a timely manner. and we need to provide the funding the v.a. needs to accomplish that goal and do it as quickly as we can. the simple truth of the matter is, madam president, that the v.a. needs more doctors, the v.a. needs more nurses, it needs more mental health providers and in certain parts of this country, more space for a growing patient population.

that is the reality. does the veterans administration need better management? you bet it does. does it need to be more efficient, more accountable? absolutely. but at the end of the day, if you don't have the doctors and the nurses and the medical staff you need, there will continue to be waiting lines, unacceptably long, and veterans will not get the care that they need. madam president, i received as the chairman of the house veterans committee a letter on june 17 which was signed by virtually every major veterans organization. that's the american legion, the d.a.v., the v.f.w., the vietnam veterans, the iraq veterans and many other organizations and they made a number of very important points in their letter talking about the kind of legislation we need to pass. i want to just quote from one

section of their letter. which they entitled "protect and preserve the v.a. health care system." quote -- "any legislative, regulatory or administrative changes designed to respond to the v.a. health access crisis, whether temporary or permanent, must protect, preserve, and strengthen the v.a. health care system so that it remains capable of providing a full continuum of high quality, timely health care to all enrolled veterans. the letter continues, and i quote, "unless the legislation simultaneously sets v.a. on a path to intelligently strengthen health care delivery, expand access and capacity, reallocate resources and ensure that overall v.a. funding matches its mission, the current problems confronting v.a. and veterans will inevitably recur" -- end of quote. in other words, what they are saying is that unless unless we

strengthen the v.a., give them the staffing and the space they need, this problem of waiting periods of time will continue. madam president, in order to address the long waiting periods, the senate legislation says to veterans around the country that if you cannot get into a v.a. facility in a timely manner, you will be able to get the care you need outside of the v.a. that means access to private doctors, community health centers, or department of defense or indian health service facilities. furthermore, what the bill says to veterans who live 40 miles or more from a v.a. facility that if they choose, they also have the option of seeking care outside of the v.a. just as the letter from the veterans service organizations articulated, it is critical to address the current waiting period crisis, but we also have to make sure that that crisis

does not continue to occur. we do that by providing v.a. the tools it needs to ensure sufficient capacity for veterans seeking care as v.a. medical facilities. clearly, no medical program can work unless we have the necessary medical staff. madam president, today v.a. has thousands of vacancies for health care providers. these vacancies along with an untold shortage of health care providers to meet the demands of veterans who want to get v.a. care has a direct impact on the department's ability to get veterans in the door for appointments. to fill these positions, the senate bill provides for the hiring of v.a. doctors and nurses and it does so in an spoided -- expedited fashion by ensuring v.a.'s hiring efforts are not hamstrung by federal bureaucracy. during the discussion of v.a.

health care, let us not forget that today alone some 230,000 veterans are walking in the door of a v.a. facility for health care. 230,000 veterans today. 6.5 million veterans in a year. and while it is absolutely true that not every veteran is satisfied by the care he or she is getting, the overwhelming majority, well over 90% of them, believe they receive high-quality care. over and over again i hear from vermont veterans and veterans across the country that once they get into the system, the care is good. and that is not just my view. it is the true of virtually all of the major veterans organizations and a number of independent studies that have compared v.a. health care with that in the private sector. we owe it to these veterans, to our veterans, to fix the current problems and bolster the

system to ensure that quality care is available in the v.a. for years and decades to come. now, i have heard a lot of criticism of the v.a., and much of that criticism is valid. but when we talk about v.a. health care, we must put it in the context of health care in the united states of america. does anyone seriously believe that the v.a. is the only health care institution in america that has problems? it is absolutely the case that not everybody outside of the v.a. gets timely quality affordable health care. that's not just the reality. today some 40 million americans have no health insurance, and accordingly a harvard study of a few years ago, 45,000 americans die each year because they don't get to the doctor when they should. that is outside of the v.a.

but it is more than that. let me just read you a few headlines from the last couple of weeks, and i make this point not to argue the whole health care debate again, but to say that anyone who thinks that it's only the v.a. that has health care problems does not understand what's happening with health care in america. here is a quote a few weeks ago. quote -- "a report released monday by a respected think tank, the commonwealth fund, ranks the united states dead last in the quality of its health care system when compared with ten other western industrialized nations." and the report further tells us that the united states -- quote -- "has the -- maintained the dubious distinction that while spending far more per capita on health care than any other country, that we are spending far more on health care than any other country, let me read you another headline. published september 20, 2013,

by fios health care. quote -- "hospital medical errors now the third leading cause of death in the united states. medical errors leading to patient deaths are much higher than previously thought and may be as high as 400,000 deaths a year according to a new study in the journal of patient safety" -- end of quote. now, i mention all of this to make clear that the v.a. of course has its problems and our job is to strengthen the v.a., to provide better accountability, to make sure that incompetent and dishonest people are not working in the v.a. but we have also got to make sure that the v.a. has the doctors, the nurs nurses, and the other health care providers it needs in order to provide the quality of care that our veterans deserve. last point that i want to make make -- i hope very much that

the house will agree with the senate that we are in an emergency, that it is absolutely imperative that we move as quickly as possible to get the funding that we need so that all veterans enrolled in the v.a. health care system get quality care in a timely manner. i hope very much that we don't once again have a major debate about whether we're going to cut food stamps or education or roads and bridges in order to fund the veterans administration. madam president, when this congress voted to go to war in iraq and afghanistan, it said that it was an emergency. now, some of us disagreed with that, and i don't want to debate the iraq war again, but when congress said it is an emergency that we go to war, well, if it's an emergency that we go to war, it is more of an emergency that

we take care of the men and women who fought in those wars. and if you don't believe that's the case, don't send americans off to war. taking care of veterans is a cost of war. and i hope very much that we don't go back to the same old, same old, having a debate where some people say well, if you want to fund v.a. health care, you're going to have to cut education or cut medicaid or cut medicare or cut some other program. that is not the issue. this is an emergency. our veterans have put their lives on the line. now is the time for us to defend them, and we have got to get this legislation moving. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to talk about three young boys. three young boys who are now in the hands of terrorists. this should be on the front page of every paper in the united states because this is an issue that is as vital to us as it is to the nation of israel. on thursday night, june 12, three jewish teenagers -- na naftali shenko and two others were kidnapped. you can see all three of these boys in the photos beside me. today, thursday, june 26, marks the 14th day of their abduction. just imagine if these were your children.

or any child you know. just imagine if it was your child that was kidnapped for 14 days and you don't know where they are or even whether they are still alive. these boys all smart, hardworking, diligent students were taken on their way home from school. they were waiting at the bus stop. they were only five minutes away from their school, one of the finest yashivas in all of israel. they weren't doing anything wrong. they were innocent school children. yet today it has been reported that israel's shinbet identified two key suspects in the abduction. these two individuals are members of hamas, a vicious terrorist organization that seeks israel's destruction and has launched thousands of

rockets into israel, killing innocent civilians. these rockets have also killed dozens of americans in israel. now they have kidnapped three school boys. sadly, this is business as usual for hamas. this is the same terrorist organization which with the -- with which the palestinian authority recently joined in a so-called unity government. israel has been tirelessly looking for these two men since the kidnapping. they come from families who have broader ties to hamas. in a telling statement in "the times of israel," the mother of one of the two alleged terrorists claims she did not know of her son's actions, but she says she would be -- quote -- proud of him and hoped he

would continue to evade capture. a mother proud of her son for kidnapping three school boys. hamas leader khalid mashal spoke about the kidnappings on sunday, saying -- quote -- "i bless those who did it because it is a moral obligation to free prisoners from israeli jails." this is a leader of hamas, now part effectively of the unity government with the palestinian authority blessing those who have kidnapped three school boys. because this is the kind of activity that hamas terrorists support, the kidnapping of innocent school children. since the kidnapping, there have been no pictures or videos made

available of the kidnapped boys. their families are in the dark, without any knowledge of where their boys are or what conditions they are being held in. rachel frankel, the mother of naftali, spoke on june 24. rachel said -- quote -- "my son texted me, said he is on his way home, and then he's gone. every mother's nightmare is waiting and waiting endlessly for her child to come home." she then pleaded for more action to be taken to find the boys, concluding -- quote -- "we just want them back in our homes, in their beds. we just want to hug them." all of us should stand with rachel as she stands with her

son who has been kidnapped. i also want to tell the world about these three boys. rachel's son naftali is 16 years old. his grandparents have lived in brooklyn and brooklyn has been a second home to him. he is the oldest of seven children. he likes playing the guitar, basketball and ping-pong. indeed, there is even a video of him on youtube playing ping-pong i've got to say he's pretty good. he is a talented and gifted student who was on track to take the biology metric layings exams. -- metriculation exams. his teachers say he is one of the best they have ever had. his mother says he is a

delightful combination of both serious and fun. gilad sha'ar who was with naftali that day also coming home from school was likewise abducted. like naftali, gilad is 16 years old. gil means happiness and ad means forever. his name literally means happiness forever, and he is a source of joy to those who meet him. his aunt, lihi sha'ar, with whom i had the privilege of meeting and visiting earlier this week, says he has a smile that brings light to the world. quite fitting for a boy named happiness forever. and she says -- quote -- "we want him home where he belongs, with his family who so dearly loves him."

gilad has five sisters, and he is described by them as a caring and loving brother. he's the family's only son. he has family in los angeles and in new york. gilad is witty. he loves to read and watch movies. recently, he finished a scuba diving course. but he is also a talented cook. he enjoys baking his sisters cakes and pastries. we don't know where gilad is right now. and then there is eyal yifrah, the third boy kidnapped that day. he is 19 years old and is the oldest of six children. he's a role model for their family. he's loved by friends who say they would like to have him as a brother. he loves sports. he should be cheering the world cup games today, like so many other teenagers, with his friends.

a gregarious fellow, he likes to cook, to travel, to play guitar, to sing. indeed, you can find videos of him on youtube singing a song that he wrote himself. eyal should be home singing again. there could be no more illusions that hamas has any role in any future government formed by the palestinian authority. they must not receive any further recognition or legitimatization. hamas is a violent terrorist organization ready and eager to brutalize the most innocent. hamas is a terrorist organization that kidnaps three innocent school boys. hamas, give those boys back. hamas, give those boys back now.

the full weight of the world should bear down on hamas to give them back safely and immediately. if they do not, we should use all of the available means to stand unequivocally with israel for however long it takes to find these boys and to bring them home. these are teenagers who were targeted for who they are, who have done no wrong, who have done nothing that comes near to deserving what has happened to them that day while waiting at the bus stop to go home from school. it's easy for us to become desensitized to violence, desensitized to terrorism. it's easy for us to forget that these are three teenaged boys

whose families desperately want their boys back. i ask that all of us lift them up in prayer. i pray for their safe return. i pray that they will soon be home with the families who very dearly love them and miss them. and i pray that god will cover them with a shield of heavenly protection. and i pray that america will stand strong, will shine a light and do everything possible to apprehend the terrorists and bring these boys back. thank you, and god bless you. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. i appreciate the -- the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mccain: the wonderful courtesy of my friend, senator carl levin. next week, i will be traveling to india where i look forward to meeting with prime minister moti, his national security team and other indian leaders. i am excited to be returning to new delhi and i do so hopeful about what the prime minister's election could mean for the revitalization of india's economy and its rising power for the renewal of u.s.-india strategic partnership. national elections in india are always a remarkable affair. over several weeks, hundreds of millions of people peacefully elect their leaders. the largest exercise of democracy on the planet. but even by indian standards, the recent election that brought to power prime minister moti and his party, the b.j.p., was a landmark event. it was the first time in 30 years that one indian political party won enough seats to govern without forming a coalition with another party. this gives the prime minister a historic mandate for change

which indians clearly crave. i want prime minister moti to succeed because i want indiana why to succeed. it's no secret that the past few years have been challenging ones for india -- political gridlock, a flagging economy, financial difficulties and more. it's not my place or that of any other american to tell india how to realize its full potential. that's for the indians to decide. our concern is simply that india does realize its full potential, that the united states has a stake in india's success. indeed, a strong, confident and future-oriented india is indispensable for a vibrant u.s.-india strategic partnership. here, too, it is also no secret that india and the united states have not been reaching our full potential as strategic partners over the past few years, and there is blame to be shared on both sides for that. too often recently, we have slipped back into a transaction

al relationship, one defined more by competitive concession seeking than by achieving shared strategic goals. we need to lift our sights again. to help us do so, i think we need to remind ourselves why the united states and india embarked on this partnership in the first place. it was never simply about the personalities involved although the personal commitment of leaders on both sides have been indispensable at every turn. the real reason the united states and india resolved to develop a strategic partnership is because each country has determined independently that doing so is in its national interest. it's because we have been guided by our national interest that the progress of our partnership has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support in the united states and in india. this began with closer cooperation between a democratic administration in washington and

a b.j.p.-led government in new delhi deep and dramatically under the last decade under a republican administration and a congress-led government. to reach historic heights with the conclusion of our civil nuclear agreement, thanks to the bold leadership of president bush and prime minister singh. this foundation of shared national interest has sustained our partnership under president obama, and it is the common ground on which we can build for the future as a new prime minister takes office in new delhi. when it comes to the united states national interest, the logic of a strategic partnership with india is powerful. india will soon become the world's most populous nation. it has a young, increasingly skilled workforce that can lead india to become one of the world's largest economy. it is a nuclear power and possesses the world's second largest military which is becoming even more capable and technologically sophisticated.

it shares strategic interests with us on issues as diverse and vital as defeating terrorism and extremism, strengthening a rules-based international order in asia, securing global energy supplies and sustaining global economic growth. india and the united states not only share common interests, we also share common values, the values of human rights, individual liberty and democratic limits on state power, but also the values of our societies, creativity and critical thinking, risk taking and entrepreneurialism and social mobility. values that continue to deepen the independence of our countries and our interdependence of our peoples across every field of human endeavor. it is because of these shared values that we are confident that india's continued rise as a democratic great power, whether tomorrow or 25 years from now, will be peaceful and thus can advance critical u.s. national

interests. that's why contrary to the old dictates of real politics, we seek not to limit india's rise but to bolster and catalyze it economically, geopolitically and, yes, militarily. it is my hope that prime minister modi and his government will recognize how a deeper strategic partnership with the united states serves india's national interest, especially in light of current economic and geopolitical challenges. for example, a top priority for india is the modernization of its armed forces. this is an area where u.s. defense capabilities, technologies and cooperation especially between our defense industries can benefit india enormously. similarly, greater bilateral trade and development can be a key driver of economic growth in india which seems to be what india's citizens want most from their new government. likewise, as india seeks to look

further to -- seeks to further its look east policy and deepen its relationships with major lifeline and powers in asia, especially japan, but also australia, the philippines, singapore and vietnam, those countries are often u.s. allies and partners as well and our collective ability to work in concert can only magnify india's influence and advance its interests. put simply, i see three strategic interests that india and the united states clearly share and these should be the priorities of a reinvigorated partnership. first, shape the development of south asia as a region of sovereign democratic states that contribute to one another's security and prosperity. second, to create a preponderance of power in the asia pacific region that favors free societies, free markets, free trade and free comments and finally to strengthen a liberal

international order and an open global economy that safeguards human dignity and fosters peaceful development. as we seek to take our strategic partnership with india to the next level, it's important for u.s. leaders to reach out personally to prime minister modi, especially in light of recent history. that's largely why i'm traveling to india next week. that's why i'm pleased that president obama invited the prime minister to visit washington. i wish he'd extended that invitation sooner but it's positive nonetheless. when the prime minister comes to washington, i urge our congressional leaders to invite him to address a joint session of congress. i can imagine no more compelling scene than the elected leader of the world's largest democracy addressing the elected representatives of the world's oldest democracy. and yet, we must be clear-eyed about those issues that could weaken our strategic partnership. one is afghanistan.

before it was a safe haven for the terrorists who attacked america on september 11, 2001, afghanistan was a base of terrorists that targeted india. our indian friends remember this well, even if we do not. for this reason, i'm deeply concerned about the consequences of the president's plan to pull all of our troops out of afghanistan by 2016. not only for u.s. national security, but also for the national security of our friends in india. if afghanistan goes the way of iraq in the absence of u.s. forces, it would leave india with a clear and present danger on its periphery. it would constrain india's rise and its ability to devote resources and attention to shared foreign policy challenges elsewhere in asia and beyond. it could push india toward deeper cooperation with russia and iran in order to manage the threats posed by a deteriorating afghanistan and it would erode india's perception of the

credibility and capability of the u.s. power and america's reliability as a strategic partner. the bottom line here is clear. india and the united states have a shared interest in working together to end the scourge of extremism and terrorism that threatens stability, freedom, and prosperity across south asia and beyond. the president's current plan disengage from afghanistan is a step backward from this goal and thus does not serve the u.s.-india strategic partnership. for all of these reasons and more, i hope the president will be open to reevaluating and revising his withdrawal plan in light of conditions on the ground. another hurdle on which our partnership could stumble is our resolve to see it through a middomestic political concerns and short-term priorities that threaten to push our nations apart. for most of the last century the logic of a u.s.-india

partnership was compelling but its achievements eluded us. we have finally begun to explore the real potential for this partnership over the past two decades, but we have barely scratched the surface and the gains we have made remain fragile and reversible as our largely stalled progress over the past few years can attest. if india and the united states are to build a truly strategic partnership, we must each commit to it and defend it in equal measure. we must each build public support needed to sustain our strategic priorities and we must resist the domestic forces in each of our countries that would turn our strategic relationship into a transactional one, one defined not by the shared strategic goals we achieve together but by what parochial concessions we extract from one another. if we fail in these challenges, we will fall far short of our potential as we have before. it's this simple. if the 21st century is defined

more by peace than war, more by prosperity than misery and more by freedom than tyranny, i believe future historians will look back and point to the fact that a strategic partnership was consummated between the world's two preeminent democratic powers: india and the united states. if we keep this vision of our relationship always uppermost in our minds, there's no dispute we cannot resolve, no investment in each other's success we cannot make and nothing we cannot accomplish together. i want to thank my, again, my beloved friend from michigan for allowing me to speak. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, first let me thank my dear friend from arizona for not only his remarks, but also the thoughtfulness of the remarks on the u.s.-india relationship. i listened to them carefully.

i'm glad he's going to india. and i look forward to his report. we have had an historic relationship with india as the two preeminent democracies, and we have a great opportunity to build on those, on this relationship. and i know that my friend from arizona is going to contribute mightily to that effort. madam president, recent events in iraq have created great concern. the territory gains by isil are not just a threat to iraq's security but a security challenge to the entire region and indeed to the united states. by its words and deeds, isil has made clear that it is deeply hostile to american interests and to the universal values of freedom and human rights. that hostility can easily translate into plans and threats against us. faced by these developments, president obama's decision to sender a small -- send a small number of u.s. military advisors is prudent.

it will help assess the situation on the ground. it will support iraqi efforts to defeat the islamic militants iraq faces and help the iraqis make best use of the intelligence support that we are providing. the president is right to say that u.s. troops will not return to the ground combat in iraq. the president is also right to say that it is not our place to choose iraq's leaders. because doing so is only likely to feed distrust and suspicion, and there is already too much of that in iraq and the middle east. what we can do is promote moves towards the political unity that is so essential for iraq if it is going to weather the crisis and make progress towards a stable democratic society. the problem in iraq has not been a lack of direct u.s. military involvement, but rather a lack of inclusiveness on the part of iraqi leaders. that's why i believe we should not consider any direct action

on our part, such as airstrikes, unless three very specific conditions have been met. first, that our military leaders tell us that we have effective options that could help change the momentum on the ground in iraq. in other words, only if our military leaders believe we can identify high-value targets that striking them could have a measurable impact on the ability of the iraqi security forces to stop and reverse the advances of the isil on the ground. and that we can strike them with minimal risk of civilian casualities and without dragging us further into the conflict. second, any additional military action on our part should come only with the clear public support of our friends and allies in the region, particular limo dern arab leaders of neighboring countries. the united states is engaged in a comprehensive diplomatic effort to coordinate our

response with iraq's neighbors. if our strategy is to have the effect we want, it is essential that we have broad support in the region. finally, and perhaps most importantly, we should not act unless leaders of all elements of iraqi society -- shia, sunni, kurds and religious minorities -- join together in a formal request for more direct support. there's an obvious need for iraqi leaders to form an inclusive unity government for their country's long-term success, but that process is likely to take some time, weeks or even months. but a unified formal statement requesting our further military assistance would be an important signal that iraq's leaders understand the need to come together. it could only -- not only be a sign that additional action on our part would be effective, but also could be an important step toward creation of a national

unity government. so far the signs that iraqi leaders are prepared to take the steps they need to take are mixed at best. prime minister maliki was too often governed in a sectarian and authoritarian manner delivered a speech in which he said national unity is essential to confront isil which is undeniably true. but then he signaled little willingness, little willingness to reach out to other groups. a number of prominent shia leaders portrayed the conflict in starkly sectarian terms, and militias have marched through the streedz -- streets of baghdad. there is little doubt iran has its own in the region. some iraqi sunni leaders made statements that promote sectarian interests over the common good and there are also

fears that the kurdish minority may exploit the situation. but on the other hand, there have also been some signs that iraqi leaders recognize the need to confront the isil threat not as sunnies or shia or kurds but together as iraqis. iraq's cleric allay sustani has called on all iraqis to exercise the highest degree of restraint and to avoid any kind of sectarian behavior that may affect the unity of the iraqi nation. spreading the message that -- quote -- "the army -- the iraqi army does not belong to the shia, it belongs to all of iraq. it is for the she yarks the sewn neerks the kurds and the christians." that's the message from ali sustani, a very unifying

message, in contrast to the emergencies which have come, for instance, from mr. sadr. the united states has national security interests in iraq, but further military involvement there will not serve those interests unless iraq begins moves towards the inclusiveness and unity that is necessary if our involvement is to have a positive impact. wreck not save -- we cannot save iraqis from themselves. only in iraq's leaders begin to unify their fairs nation can help from us really matter. the isil is a vicious enemy. it is also the commonnen miff all iraq, of all iraqis and of iraq's neighbors. now, if this vicious, common enemy cannot unite iraqis in a common cause, then our assistance, including airstrikes, won't matter. only a unified iraq governed by elected leaders who seek to rule

in the interests of all their people can stand up to this threat. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the? er from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, before i begin, i ask that m.i.a. these remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the record. officer sphe without objection u. mr. hatch: i want to pay tribute to the memory of my friend, former colleague howard baker u i was honored to serve with him in the senate and later worked closely with him when he served as president reagan's white house chief of staff. he loved the senate and he built an impressive leadership role as majority leader. he was a skilled negotiator, an honest broker,and effective lerlg and great steward of this institution. i offer my deepest condolences to his wife, senator nancy landon kassebaum baker, an incredible woman, dear friend, a understand a respected colleague

as well. it was truly a privilege to learn from and serve alongside howard. we miss nancy, too, but it was wonderful to see the two of them together. they cared a great deal for each other. he was a wonderful man. she is a wonderful woman. i personally love both of them. we will miss him. that's all i can say about it. madam president, i hope that my next remarks are placed in the appropriate place in the record. i rise today to commend the holding of the supreme court's decision this morning on nlrb v. knoll canning. the court's decision is -- we are a nation of laws and not of men. it is a vindication of the fundamental notion that the constitution binds us all including even the president. it is a triumph for the rightful

prerogatives of this institution, the united states senate, the authority of which has been under siege throughout the obama years. one of the most important powers un-dowed in this body by the constitution is the requirement that nominations of principal officers receive the advice and consent of the senate. the confirmation process provides members of the senate with a wide range of tools up to and including outright refusal to confirm a nominee in order to influence the proper execution of the laws wye we pass. when aggregated, these tools amount to a critical check on the workings of the executive branch. madam president, the senate's advice and consent role did not rise from accident. far from it. as the supreme court has explained, quoting the famed historian gordon wood, "the manipulation of official appointments have long been one

of the american revolutionary generation's greatest grievances against executive power because the power of appointment to offices was deemed the most insidious and powerful weapon of 18th century despotism." but founders worry about the dangers of the executive appointment power should ring true today, given many of the obama administration's actions, including a radical set of national labor relations board nominees, that promise to tip the balance of the board toward an extreme and divisive agenda hurting both employers and employees, and a consumer financial protection bureau director nominee poised to exercise unpress defntsed and unchecked power thanks to the dangerous provisions of dodd-frank. no checks on his removal, no congressional control over his budget, and no effective judicial review. madam president, these are exactly the sort of circumstances that motivated the

founders' concerns about an unchecked appointment power in the executive. they are the very reason that the presidential nominees must obtain the senate's consent before taking office. the only exception to this body's four decline its consent to a nomination is the president's power -- quote -- "to the fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate by granting commissions which shall expire tend of their next session." but the president's power to make recess appointments is wholly contingent on what the constitution terms the recess of the senate actually occurring. and the power to decide when that happens rests squarely with the legislative branch. madam president, this is the obvious consequence of the senate's constitutional power, conferred in article 1, section 5, to determine the rules of its

proceedings. and it is well-supported by long-standing practice and precedent acknowledged by the executive brafnlg going as far back as 1790. consider what would happen if the president could unilaterally determine when the recess of the senate occurs. with no check on the president's discretion to declare the senate in recess, he can employ the recess appointment power whenever the senate refused to give immediate and unencumbered consent to his or her nominees. the advice and consent process would become a dead letter. the exception would swallow the rule and the senate would be deprived of a central tool our nation's founders specifically conferred to prevent executive mischief. the founders realized the severity of this threat. they had fought royal abuses of the appointment power asserting in the declaration of independence and how the king's government had -- quote -- "erected a multitude of new

offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, any doubt their existence." and as hamilton explained in federalist 69, they deliberately chose not to give the president the king's often-abused power to discontinue a session of the legislature." so concerned were the framers with the legislature's power to control its own settings that the constitution gave each house the power to prevent the other from adjourning for more than three days. in essence, the senate and the house of representatives both have the power to prevent the recess of the senate and, thereby, avoid the activation of the president's recess appointment power. so when the senate was confronted by the process expect of an out-of-control national labonationallabor relations boan

unchecked consumer financial protection board led by president obama's appoint year, we were facing threats that our founders had themselves faced and for which they have specifically provided us with the tools to resist. when we refused to act as quickly as the administration wanted and merely rubber stamp these nominees, we acted exactly as the constitution's framers had intended. in the house othe house of reprs wisely refused to consent to a recess of the annual session of the senate. thereby friesing to grant the president authority to make lawful recess appointments. madam president, i don't relish rejecting nominees. quite the contrary. over the past 38 years i have voted for the vast majority of nominees from each of the six presidents under whom i've served. and with whom i've served

alongside, including president obama. but scrutinizing the president s nominees, and occasionally withholding consent when circumstances warrant, represents congress fulfilling, not abdicating, its constitutional responsibilities. so when faced with our legitimate and lawful use of the powers endowed in the legislative branch by the constitution, what did the obama administration do? did it seek to accommodate our concerns about the unconstitutional structure and un-un-dprensed powers of the cfpb? did the president seek to help develop a compromise package of the now nlrb nominees, as ted kennedy and i always did? sadly not. instead, president obama simply proclaimed that he -- quote -- "would not take no for an answer." despite what the constitution might say or may say, he chose instead to use or rather abuse

the recess appointment power to install these four nominees, including two who had not been nominated -- no, who had been nominated only two weeks before. hardly long enough for the senate to vet them thoroughly. but, of course, madam president, we were not in the recess of the senate that the constitution requires to activate the recess appointment power. even the solicitor general admitted that a three-day adjournment was too short to allow the president to bypass the senate lawfully. instead, president obama audaciously claiment claimed tho decide for himself when the senate was in recess and determined that, in his personal opinion, our so so-called pro forma sessionses during this period don't really count as sessions of the snaft, at least for the purposes of the constitution's requirements.

but during these sessions, the senate was fully capable of engaging in its business. indeed, during similar session, t previous fall, the senate twice passed legislation that president obama himself signed. we have also used these sessions to appoint conferees to read and calendar bills and the to engage in other such activity characteristic of the 123459 operating in session. while the senate planned to conduct no substantive business under a unanimous consent agreement, even the obama administration admitted that there was a possibility that we might decide otherwise. and whether the senate chooses to conduct business has no relevance here. instead, it is the ability of the senate to conduct business if it so chooses that matters. faced with this reality, the obama administration even argued that the senate, by refusing to adjourn for more than three days, would not deny the

president his recess appointment power, as if he was owed the opportunity to use this power. since this argument turns basic structure of presidential appointments on its head, as if our advice and consent rule were merely an inconvenience to be avoided rather than the organizing principle of how the entire constitutional process is designed to work. madam president, the constitution does not create in the president an endlessly flexible power to bypass congress when he disagrees with or, in fact, when he disagrees with us. in fact, it disexactly the opposite. it vests in congress both the power and the responsibility to resist a president's ill-advised policies and executive overreach. the actions and arguments advanced by the obama administration represent a direct assault on the

constitution's division of powers between the different branches. this brazen power grab takes president obama's already audacious overreach to a new level. madam president, i applaud the supreme court's willingness to fulfill its constitutional obligations and check this abusive power by the white house. while i agree most with justice scalia's concurrence which respects the meaning of the constitution's text as controlling power, the unanimous nature of this decision reflects just how egregious the president's action was. but those of us who care about checking the obama administration's overreach cannot place our faith in the courts alone, though they must play an important role. too often this administration has been crafty in complementing its breaches of the law to avoid judicial review.

frequently structuring its overreach to prevent any potential plaintiff from having legal standing to sue in court. this white house has even used its role in the legislative process to advance provisions that eliminate the potential for judicial review. as it did in dodd-frank. and when the courts have found legitimate occasion to scrutinize president obama's overreach, the administration has often fought to keep litigants out of court, as in the fast and furious litigation. perhaps most disturbing is what happened with the d.c. circuit, the second-most important court in the land that oversees our massive regulatory state, the court that originally held the president's appointments unconstitutional. when the d.c. circuit tried to hold the obama administration accountable to the law and the constitution, president obama and his allies sought