nominations. confirmation for an 11th circuit judge, a u.s. representative to an international civil aviation board and confirmation of a new u.s. ambassador to niger. live coverage here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord, your mercy and loving kindness endure forever. thank you for the favor you have given our nation, for blessing us in seasons of prosperity and privation.

may our lawmakers this day renew our commitment to seek first your will as they strive to do what is best for america and live to honor you. help them to search for priorities that will unite and not divide them, remembering that unity brings strength. provide them with the perspective of taking victories and defeats in stride, knowing that their steps each day are only part of the long journey of progress. shield them from discouragement.

and lord, please be with the families of the victims of malaysia flight 17. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 21, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tim kaine, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair.

signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 453, bring jobs home. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 this evening. senators during that period of time will be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual fashion. at 5:30 p.m., the senate will proceed to executive session and vote on confirmation of the following nominations -- julie carnes of the united states circuit -- to be united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit, michael anderson lawson, eunice reddick to be ambassador to the republic of

niger. we expect roll call votes on the carnes nomination and voice votes on the lawson and reddick nominations. mr. president, it's such a shame that we have had to go through this stalling on michael anderson lawson to be ambassador of the council of international civil aviation. there has been a terrible tragedy take place in the world, that shooting down of the malaysian airliner with 298 innocent people, killing every one of them. that's his job. we tried to get it confirmed last week. no, they can't do that. they said no, we can't do that. we try to get him confirmed for months. they have held it up every step of the way. it's really untoward that this is happening. they are holding up these nominations out of spite, and it's too bad. it's a perfect example.

mr. president, it's my understanding that s. 2631 is desk and due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2631, a bill to prevent the expansion of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program unlawfully created by executive memorandum on august 15, 2012. mr. reid: i object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: the objection is noted and sustained. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, we're facing a humanitarian crisis on our southern border. thousands of migrants, a vast majority of them are children, fled to our border and other countries in the region in an effort to escape the growing violence in central america. most of these boys and girls come from three countries -- honduras, el salvador, gad mall a, where crime and lawlessness

have resulted in chaos and anarchy. honduras is the murder capital of the world. with more murders per capita than any nation on the planet. and el salvador and guatemala are right behind them. these statistics are stunning. in fact, we know that virtually all the homicides in these countries take place in the same cities that these kids are leaving, and migration has spiked in the neighboring countries, not just the united states as people try to escape this untoward violence. citizens of these three nations, though, are also imperiled by high rates of human trafficking, drug trafficking, sexual assaults, widespread corruption. it's an understatement to say these are not safe places to live or to survive. mr. president, here is an article out of the "new york times."

written by a woman by the name of sonya nazario, july 11, a new article. here's just a few of the things she said. "christian reyes, 11-year-old sict grader in the neighborhood of nueva suapa on the outskirts of the capital tells me he wants to get out of honduras soon, no matter what." a little 11-year-old boy. in march, his father was robbed and murdered by gangs while working as security guard protecting a pastry truck. his mother used the life insurance payout to hire a smuggler to take her to florida. she promised to send for him quickly. she hasn't. three people he knows were murdered this year. four others were gunned down on a nearby corner in the span of two weeks at the beginning of this year. a girl his age resisted being robbed of $5. she was clubbed over the head, dragged off by two men who cut a hole in her throat, stuffed her

panties in it and left her body in a rea convenient across the street from christian's house. i'm going, i'm going this year, he said. mr. president, think about what this woman just wrote. think about what this boy said. so after hearing this, can anyone blame these boys and girls and their families for doing everything they can to stay alive? and one of the easiest ways to stay alive, even though it's very hard, is to leave. one can imagine how bad things are in their squalid homes and neighborhoods if these children and their families are willing to trek across dangerous terrain with little food, little water,

putting themselves at the mercy of bandits, thieves, coyotes and cartels. these kids are so desperate that when they reach our border, they immediately surrender themselves to the first person they encounter. they're not sneaking over the border. they're getting there for safety. they're -- they're desperate. the truth is, mr. president, we have taken steps to secure our border, so regardless of what the american people may hear from the republicans, this isn't an issue about bigger walls or more barbed wire or more drones or more helicopters or more personnel on the ground or national guardsmen. mr. president, we have doubled the number of border patrol agents.

we have drones patrolling the air. i think there are six of them. we're catching undocumented immigrants and drug traffickers in record numbers. after visiting the rio grande valley, one fox news reporter, fox, hear's what that reporter said -- "there is some evidence that border security as it stands now is actually working pretty good, pretty well." mr. president, this is fox, not a friend of president obama. they never give him the benefit of the doubt, but they said it's working pretty well, pretty good. but if you don't want to take fox news' word for it, this past weekend, two democratic senators and a republican senator went down to look around to see the crisis firsthand. one senator asked a senior border patrol official is it true that border security is better than ever? that's a quote. he responded it is true. how does this assessment compare

to what we have heard from republicans in the congress? this morning, the republican leader disagreed with our border enforcement officials, claiming that the current crisis further illustrates how insecure the border is. i repeat, mr. president, these children are sneaking over -- aren't sneaking over the border. they look to the border for safety. so who would one believe? border patrol officials who are there on the front lines, the fox news reporter who was there on the front lines or, mr. president, the republican leader? it's pretty clear where the weight of evidence is. finally, our border security measures are working so, so much better, but our border patrol

agents and infrastructure aren't equipped to care for tens of thousands of children. barbed wire doesn't do that. hyphenses don't do that. virtual fences don't do that. drones don't do that. helicopters don't do that. what we need now are resources to temporarily house and feed these children, administer deportation or asylum proceedings and give border agents the necessary tools to keep our border secure. they need to be temporarily taken care of until a decision is made what should happen to them. that has to be done in a humane fashion. our challenge is to treat these children as children should be treated, consistent with american values. the white house emergency supplemental request does just that. if the department of homeland security and health and human services don't get these resources, they are going to run out of money in a few weeks, mr. president. they will be out of money. but all we hear from republicans

in congress is blame. it's all the fault of barack obama. it's his fault. it's his fault these kids are coming. it's his fault the border, i guess, is secure. they are coming up and turning themselves in. congressional republicans are suggesting that the thousands of young migrants have come to america as a result of president obama's 2012 action plan. they are saying that's the reason for all this trouble, but that's nonsense. mr. president, this article i held up, this long article doesn't mention a word from anybody she interviewed that they are coming because of deferred action. they are coming because of fathers being robbed and murdered by gangs while they are working as security officers. and the other vile things that

are happening to human beings. we need the resources to temporarily house and feed these children and administer whatever proceedings are necessary legally and give border agents the necessary tools to keep our borders secure. i repeat -- if they don't get their resources, they are going to be out of money, and then what are we going to do? republicans blame obama. it's our job, our job. we can't do it alone. we have 45 obstinate republicans who are not letting us get done anything about anything, and certainly not letting us guess anything done about immigration. this "new york times" article doesn't mention daca at all, he doesn't mention dreamers.

he talks about the violence that he sees, this boy with his own eyes. these kids are fleeing honduras, el salvador and guatemala and heading anywhere they can to escape the violence. they aren't just fleeing to the united states. they're going anyplace they can. they're headed to panama, nicaragua, costa rica, belize, and those countries that i just mentioned claims have spiked 712% over the last few years. think, mr. president, all the children who don't make it. this crisis, humanitarian crisis on our border has nothing to do with dreamers, children who have lived most of their lives as americans even though they were brought here illegally. yet republicans would have us believe the two are inseparably connected. that's clearly not true. the junior senator from texas is one trying so hard to link these

groups of children. in fact, this junior senator from texas saying before he'll agree to the white house presently request which will give our border patrol the resources it needs to care for these refugee children, president obama must end the deferred action program. we just read some legislation here on the floor a few minutes ago. that's what it is. no money for these poor boys and girls until you -- i guess you deport them, hundreds of thousands of people who are here because they deserve to be here. republicans under attacks like this are resorting to ransoming children to get their way, and that's shameful. the assistant republican leader, the senior texas united states senator, has authored legislation to permit any

hearing process for these migrant children appears supportive of the junior senator from texas' plans. it send these children back to dangerous places without minimal concern for their health and well-being. mr. president, you wouldn't send -- if people were treating animals the way these boys and girls are being treated, you wouldn't send an animal back to this, let lien a little boy or girl. so neither of the plans put forward by the junior and senior senator from texas address the underlying issues. what is the real issue? the presiding officer has lived in south america. he's one of the few senators here who speaks fluent spanish. he's a member of the foreign relations committee. so what is the real issue? the presiding officer could tell you what the real is, if he

were able to speak now. why are these children arriving at our southern border? as nobel laureate oscar arias said -- and, by the way, he was -- president of colombia, did such an overwhelmingly good job in a very bad situation. here's what he said yesterday in an op-ed in "the washington post." the root causes of violence and poverty that make these children's lives at home intolerable, intolerable. and you hear that from this little boy's message to us. deporting dreamers already here and speeding up the process for sending children back to their crime ravaged home does not address the root cause. in fact, it will only break up families who are already here and ensure that we see these any grant children again in a few months if they survive because they're not going to stay there. but many of them won't survive.

but if they do, they'll try to come back here again until things become tolerable. instead of playing a game of hot potato with thousands of innocent children lisa address the treasurer pressing needs we have right now which is to treat these kids humanely. mr. president, i've had the good fortune of traveling to every country in south america except belize and urg aby -- urg uruguay. cuba is sending physicians all over south and central america. china, lots of money, projects down there. and we because of the string enzi of what's happening with our -- string enzi of what's happening with our appropriations bills took months and months to get peace corps

director, the peace corps helps but without a director it was kind of wobbly. the aid for international development is good programs, we don't -- we do very little to help those countries. and we have venezuelan, chavez ships hundreds and hundreds of teachers and oil to those countries, and we do nothing. for a fraction of what we spend on our border, a fraction of what we spend on our border, we could help those countries stabilize. we need to get resources to our border patrol agents and others caring for these children from central america. we need judges to hear these kids' cases and decide whether they need protection or need to be sent back home. the world is watching how this

great democracy of ours responds to this crisis. congress must act now and give the administration the funding it insides to temporarily house and feed these boys and girls and reinforce the infrastructure to process thousands of asylum deportation hearings. mr. president, we had a big show here not long ago where we provided $35 billion to help veterans. we've spent trillions of dollars in two wars, unpaid, by the way. that's what president bush wanted and that's what he got. squandered the surplus we had. a surplus ever over ten years when he took office of -- mr. president, was trillions of dollars. but now when we're being asked to spend a few dollars to take care of these people who have

come back in need as our veterans, senator sanders has been working for well more than a month to try to get them to agree to something. looks to me they're going to come back to nothing. the conference is not being completed. why? because they have to spend some money on these people who they were glad to spend the money to take them to war but now they're back, they're missing limbs, they've got lots of protest traumatic stress problems, a lot of other medical issues, and no money there. mr. president, i'm afraid that's where we're headed with this. i'm afraid we're headed to the place where unless republicans get to deport all these dreamers -- that's what this texas senator obviously want -- or just give these kids no hearings, ship them back, i just think it's not fair.

the american people want these kids to be treated fairly. if the kids don't belong to be here, let's have somebody decide they shouldn't be here and do whatever needs to be done. but just to ignore the issue and run out of money, what do we do? what we should do is legislate. and we're not doing that, mr. president. i've said here a number of times, i repeat it. for five and a half years the republicans have opposed everything that president obama has wanted, everything. that's what they set out to do three days after he was elected and they have stuck by that. scores of ambassadors' positions not filled. legislation going wanting. they want to be able to show that there's a democrat in the

white house, democrats control the senate, but the american people not realizing that a small minority can stop us from doing everything here and that's what they've done with the so-called filibuster. hundreds of them, mr. president. i only hope that come this november people will respond as i believe they will and say this is enough. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein up to he 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled by -- between the two leaders or their designees. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is suspended. mr. nelson: and i ask consent that mrs. belson, a pass this i, be allowed floor privileges. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, 45 years ago yesterday, the entire world was rivetted to their television sets. it was often a television image that was grainy black and white

and flickering as we heard the report "the eagle has landed." and then we saw neil armstrong come down the ladder of the lunar lander, and that's when he made the famous statement, "that's one step for a man, a giant leap for mankind." in the context of that day 45 years ago, if you were not of sufficient youth that you would not have a memory, anyone will remember exactly where they were and what they were doing because

that was an extraordinary time for the entire planet. this senator at the time was an army lieutenant and at the liftoff four days earlier, i had been in belgrade, yugoslavia, and had gone to the embassy asking if they had a television so that i could watch the liftoff from my hometown area of brevard county, where from this launchpad my family had homesteaded under the only homestead act in 1913, working the land for four years, eking out a living in which under the homestead act, as a way of populating the country, particularly the westward

expansion, that was also the southward expansion into unsettled lands like florida. and i have a copy of that deed signed by woodrow wilson to my grandparents in 1917, that 160 acres of land. well, that land sits today at the north end of the space shuttle runway at the kennedy space center and it's only a few miles from the launchpad that apollo 11 launched and years later that -- in the early part of the space shuttle program, i had the privilege of launching with the crew of sts-61c. but that moment 45 years ago i had gone in to the embassy in

belgrade and they did not have a television set that would show the liftoff. i asked if any way of getting a communication. they said, go outside of the city on those high hills and stick up your shortwave radio antenna and get the bbc from london. and my friends and i did exactly that. and when that rocket, the saturn 5, lifted off, there were three young americans screaming at the top of our lungs, "go, baby, go!" four days later i'm on my way back to the u.s. and am staying overnight in a london hotel.

and i got the desk to call me in the middle of the night. it was somewhere around 3:00. and turned on that flickering black-and-white television set to see neil armstrong come down the ladder and to issue that famous statement. today at the kennedy space center is a ceremony that is commemorating that event 45 years ago yesterday. i happened to bump in to buzz aldrin yesterday in the orlando airport as he's on his way to join with mike collins, who was the third of the three apollo astronauts, and they are there to dedicate today the operations

and check-outbuilding a check-oe kennedy space center to be named as the commander of that mission and the first one to set foot on the moon, neil armstrong. it is that very same building where those astronauts were in quarantine before they went to the launchpad. it is that very same building where so many of the space missions have been prepared. and it is that very same building now named for neil armstrong that is, as we speak, preparing the spacecraft that will be the forerunner of taking us in our next journey to another celestial body, this time the planet mars.

that spacecraft, orion, will be tested at the end of this year in a ballistic reentry, going out some 30,000 miles to come back in at a very steep descent to test the new protective materials on the heat shield. the old days we had an ablative material on the blunt end of the capsule that would burn up on reentry as you are coming through the fiery heat of reentry 3,000 degrees fahrenheit. the heat shield, part of it, would burn up. today they have much more high-technology techniques that will repel that heat in order to save the crew. and that test will come at the end of the year. when we shut down the space shuttle program, most americans

feel like that the american human space program was shut down. that is not the case. we have an orbiting national laboratory that's part of the international space station with two american astronauts and an international crew, a total of six astronauts, onboard doing research right now and have be been. as a matter of fact, just to give you a visual mind's-eye idea of how big this international space station is, it is 120 yards long. if you can visualize from one goal post in one end zone to the other goal post, that's how big the international space station is. and six humans are onboard right

now. we are developing the rockets already that are delivering cargo, american rockets, and those rockets are now in a competition in nasa as to which ones will be selected to carry humans and then all of the redesign, the redundancies of systems, the escape mechanisms will all be incorporated in order to make it safe for humans. and we're expecting that first american launch of americans onboard american rockets to be in 2017. then the american people will realize that we've been in space all along. now, you can speak of the

wonders of our space program, the hubble space telescope that has been on orbit, carried by a human crew tha, that has now unlocked the secrets of the universe. and the follow-on telescope named after the first nasa administrator, james webb, will peer back in time to the very beginning of the universe and will bring us additional knowledge about how we got here and how it all started in this incredibly infinite thing called the universe of which the cosmos, as we look out, is just so large we can't comprehend it. our space program is vigorous.

and now we will move into a new era, starting right there in the building that's being dedicated today in memory of neil armstrong, a building that will assemble the spacecraft called ""orion," which will launch with americans in 2021 for the beginning of a mission that will capture a distant object -- an asteroid -- fly to it, rendezvous, explore it as we start the systems, the methods, building and creating the new technologies that will then allow us to take a human crew all the way to the planet mars,

land them and bring them back safely to planet earth. so this is a day that we remember and we remember an astronaut that was taken way too early from us, because neil was only 82 years old. although of the original seven of which neil was not part of that, we only +sr one left, and that's john glenn, the first american to orbit the earth. john glenn, a former senator of this body, in his 90's. he looks terrific. and then came, after the mercury program, the gemini and then came apollo, and that's the celebration that has just

occurred. 45 years. i.tit's hard to believeit's bee. and yet that was a day that the world stopped, as they gazed fixed on their television sets as a human from planet earth set foot on another slee celestial . that was quite an accomplishment. but there's a lot more to come. mr. president, i would yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask the smungs of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is suspended. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. i come to the floor today to join with senator walsh from montana in his effort as he is leading us in the effort to pass the bring jobs home act, which is pretty basic in terms of where our values and prierts are in terms of our -- priorities in terms of our tax policy. we are considering at this point in time, we are in the process

of determining whether to bring that up and i sure hope we're going to do that. certainly the american people would say it is a no-brainer to bring up this bill and to pass t the reason, first of all, would be the fact that empeople understand that we need a middle class in this country. we started the middle class 100 years ago, started it with some pretty basic policies in my state in 1914 when henry ford decided to invest in detroit, in michigan, in america and double the salary of his employees so that they could afford to buy his automobiles. he was really doubling down on america and on manufacturing in america, and we've seen multipe ways in which that took office and literally created the middle class of our country. today we see the middle class under assault, folks that are working hard trying to hold on, people who have felt in the past

if they worked really thard they could get into the -- really hard that they could get into the middle chase an class and fe the system is rigged against them. we're in a fight about whether we're going to move forward and have a strong middle class. too many people have a few very wealthy people, a lot of extremely poor peernlings and -- poor people, and they envy the economic engine that we have had in this country. and as we look at how we move forward to keep and expand the middle class, we've got d -- wee got t look for ways to invest in america. i believe our workers can outcompete anybody as long as the rules are fair. there is a lot of ways this which we need to deal with the rules. but right now we have a tax code that really puts a thumb on the scale against our workers. and at this point in time, after

the last ten years where we have actually seen 2.4 million jobs shipped yoa overseas, we still e a tax code where american taxpayers are footing the bill for this move, which is stunning. i think every time i've talked to people about the fact that when a company packs up and moves, that the worker, the community, the taxpayers pay for that through write-offs in the tax code, people say to me, you've got to be kidding! why do we let that happen? well, the bring jobs home act is a way to address that and to stop that from happening. so let me talk about the very specific and very simple ways in which we do that. we would stop the taxpayer subsidies that pay for moving costs. we instead would say to companies, if you're coming back, you can write off those

costs. if you want to move back, you could write off those costs and we'll at ad add an additional $20% tax credit for the costs of moving. so if you want to come home, we're all for t you can write off those cost, yo you'll get an additional tax cut. but if you want to leave this country, you're on your own. are there other things we need do in the tax code? you bet. we have very serious issues. more and more companies are using this process called inversion. it seems to me, mr. president, that a good place to start in a whole discussion about how we have a tax code for america that invests in america, that rewards american businesses and american workers, families, communities is to start with the bring jobs home act. surely everybody -- colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- ought to be able to agree that

we would not pay for the costs of shipping jobs overseas through the tax code. now, i want to also commend a lost companies right now that are actually bringing jobs home. it is exciting for me from a major manufacturing state to see that we are having a resurgence in manufacturing. and through a number of -- for a number of reasons, including lower energy costs and transportation costs and resurgence in manufacturing, we are seeing jobs come home. we're seeing manufacturers like ford and caterpillar and g.e., who have announced major investments to the united states, bringing jobs back from japan and mexico and china, and this is a good thing. we want that. smaller manufacturers who are taking advantage of our skilled and ready workforce and over 80% of the companies actually bringing jobs back are companies

are less than $2 million in sales. so companies are taking a look and they're coming back, and we want to reward that. when they look at tax code, we want for them to see the right message. we want folks to see that, hey, you know what? if you're one of the good guys and you're bringing jobs home, we want to give you some extra help, pay for that, extra tax credit. but we also want to send a message to those who are thinking about leaving, our tax code will no longer reward your leaving america. i don't know how many times i've heard from workers saying that they not only are insulted by paying for the cost of the move through the tax code but oftentimes they're training their replacements in other countries, the replacements come over, they train them. i mean, this is craziness at a time when too many people have

lost their jobs and are looking for that fair shot. you know, what's the next job? what's the next opportunity for them? how do we paycheck sur make surx code, that the laws, that our investments wok for americansver americans and give everybody a fair shot? this is very much about making sure we have a fair shot for every american. part of that is making sure that we have good-paying jobs in america and that our tax code is rewarding the creation of those good jobs and rewarding the companies that are bringing jobs home. so, mr. president, i again want to thank senator walsh for his leadership. he has been very clear about how this effects his state of montana and his concern about this. i want to thank all of those who are cosponsors in working with

us on this bill. i hope it will be brought up as soon as possible. this is an opportunity really for all of us to show the american people that we get it, that we are willing to work together on a bipartisan basis to do something that's very simple and very straightforward and say, as americans, we are no longer going to pay for the move the when you move jobs overseas. the tax code is not going to pay for that. but we will stand together in supporting those efforts that help companies bring jobs home. so i hope when we do have the vote on this issue that we will see a resounding "yes" from everyone. i know the american people would love to see a strong bipartisan vote right now that would actually address something that they care about deeply, which is the ability to have a

good-paying job, to be able to work hard, play by the rules, have a fair shot to get ahead, which is what america has been all about. i mean, that's who we are, as opposed to other places, the ability to have opportunity, to work hard, and get ahead. and everybody needs to know that that fair shot is still available to them. the bring jobs home act is part of letting people know that it is. thank you, mr. president. i would suggest the absence of a erm quo. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i wrote my colleagues a few weeks ago a letter that had a serious front line about policies being executed, we are told, by the president that would seriously undermine the constitutional structure of our republic and give to the president powers, or allow him to take powers that have never been given. subsequent to that, george washington law professor

remarked during a recent congressional testimony, mr. jonathan turley that -- quote -- "when president obama pledged to circumvent congress in the state of the union address he was referring to" -- he -- quote -- "received rapturous applause from the very body that he was proposing to make practically irrelevant." professor turley emphasized the -- quote -- "most serious violations, in my view, are various cases where the president went to congress as in the immigration field, as in the health care field, asked for very specific things and was rejected, and then decided just to order those on his own." close quote. he testified before the house committee. professor turley, i think, has been known as a democrat. i think he said he supported

president obama. he's not a partisan person. he's an observer who testified before congress many times and is well respected. and that statement should cause concern on the part of every member of this congress. is it so? is it so that he asked for the very specific things that were rejected by congress and that he decided to just order them with his pen on his own? well, the primary immigration action that professor turley was referring to was the president's decision to implement the dream act by fiat, providing administrative amnesty and work permits to an entire class of illegal immigrants. professor turley described it as -- quote -- "the clear circumvention of congress, and for congress not to act, in my

view, borders on self-loathing." close quote. is that a serious comment or not? i think he's exactly right. he's exactly right on this. has congress got no gumption at all? multiple news reports have now made it clear that the president is now considering an executive immigration action on a scale so far and indeed beyond our own imagination. here is how that action was described by the national journal of prestigious publication in our country on -- this is the poster. this is what "national journal" reported. "president plans to expand executive amnesty." executive amnesty means his amnesty. chief executive, the president, expand executive amnesty work

permits for illegal immigrants and visas overstays." quote -- "president obama made it clear he would press his executive powers to the limit." i say well beyond the limit, and so does professor turley. the article goes on -- quote -- "he gave quiet credence to recommendations from la raza and other immigration groups that between five million and six million adult illegal immigrants could be spared deportation under a similar form of deferred adjudication he ordered for the so-called dreamers in june of 2012." the dream act that he executed. and one of the things i think is exceedingly important, colleagues, is that what they're suggesting here is that five

million to six million people will be given a document that basically provides them legal status in america. the article goes on to say, "obama has now ordered the homeland security and justice departments to find -- ordered them to find executive authorities that could enlarge that nonprosecutorial umbrella by a factor of ten." that's over the dream act ten times. "senior officials also tell me obama wants to see what he can do with executive power to provide temporary legal status to undocumented adults." close quote. well, this is five million to six million. that's what a factor of ten means. that's maybe more than half of the people illegal in the

country today, and congress has considered these matters at great length. and congress set the law as to how you enter the country lawfully and how you enter the country in effect unlawfully, and what's acceptable and not acceptable. the president is the chief law enforcement officer in america, and the f.b.i., the d.e.a., the border patrol officers, the i.c.e. officers, the attorney general all work for him. and the leaders of those organizations serve at his pleasure. he can remove them at will if they don't carry out his policies. so he's ordered them, ordered the homeland security and justice department to find executive authority. not to see if they could find them, but to find them. because he's got a policy he wants to carry out. and congress doesn't agree with

it. let me read another poster here that quotes professor turley. and i think he continues, he talks about the danger of this, colleagues. this is dangerous. does anybody not respect this institution? do we not respect the house of representatives, united states senate? have we gotten so partisan that we don't allow -- we don't care what the president does to diminish congress? don't we have an institutional responsibility, a constitutional responsibility to defend the legitimate powers of congress? sure, we can disagree sometimes, but this one is not a matter of disagreement, it seems to me. this is an overreach of dramatic proportions. again, this is what professor turley says -- quote -- "the president's pledge to

effectively govern alone is alarming. and what is most a large is his ability to fulfill that pledge. when a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger the framers sought to avoid." certainly they sought to avoid that. they were very suspicious and aware that the tendency of chief executive officers is to assume more power than they're given. and so they created a strong congress and they gave certain powers to congress that could not be delegated to the executive branch. professor turley goes on to say -- now this was his recent testimony before the house rules committee, i think, last week, i believe it was. he goes on to say -- quote -- "what we're witnessing today is

one of the greatest crises that members of this body will face. it has reached a constitutional tipping point that threatens a fundamental change in how our country is governed." close quote. well, no matter what somebody thinks about immigration issues or health care issues, there are limits on what the president can do without congress. so the president says congress won't act. therefore, i have to act. have you ever heard that? they used to say that about federal judges would say that, you know. they would say legislature won't act. governor king won't act. why the courts have got to act. that is not so. that is so bogus. if a governor decides not to act, if a congress decides not to act, if a state legislature

decides not to act and do what some president would like to see done, that's a decision. it's every bit as real and firm a decision if they had passed a law. if they're asked to pass a law and they say no, that's a decision reached through the legislative branch by people duly elected from all over this country who come to congress to pass laws. so i'm really frustrated that my democratic colleagues are not sufficiently concerned about it, and we need, certainly i think, more discussion from the loyal opposition, the republicans, on this question. do my democratic colleagues express concern about it? not that i've seen. they seem to celebrate it.

the newspaper "el diaro" quotes new jersey senator bob menendez, and this is what the paper says: "senator menendez said friday he has no doubt that president barack obama will deliver on his promise to take executive action on immigration despite the current attention on the unaccompanied minor crisis." he goes on to be quoted there as saying -- this article continues -- "one executive action that menendez and other democrats are pushing for is the expansion of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program which provides deportation reprieve and work permits for undocumented youth." so colleagues, it is one thing to be less than vigorous in carrying out the laws of

deportation and that kind of thing. it's quite another class of action to give people who are unlawfully in the country a document from the president that says you can work and stay in the country. to give them legal status when congress has considered this and rejected it. it's an entirely different thing. it's beyond the grasp of the president, beyond the power of the president. so i wrote in my letter before this testimony to my colleagues about these planned executive actions that i had been reading about. i said they would amount to -- quote -- an executive nullification of our borders as an enforceable national boundary.

guaranteeing that current illegal immigration disaster would only further worsen and destabilize, close quote. you cannot provide continuous amnesty on a regular basis and ever expect anybody not to attempt to come to the country if they believe they, too, in a manner of years -- maybe now even fewer years, be rewarded for the unlawful act by being put on a path to citizenship or permanent status. so i would therefore make two requests today. i believe any border legislation that is sent to us -- to the senate by the house of representatives, it should include specific language denying the president any funds to execute his planned work

permits. congress has that power, clearly. we can appropriate money and not appropriate money. we can say that money cannot be spent for this or that thing. so we have every right to say that the president should not spend money delivering work permits to people that congress has declared to be not lawfully able to work in america. this, i believe, the president's actions are in clear contravention of law. i just feel strongly about it. secondly, i'm calling on every senate democrat colleague to stand up and be counted also. senator cruz has a bill that would stop this presidential overreach. it's very simple. it lays out that we won't spend money providing legal documents to people unlawfully in the country as defined by the law of

america and as defined by the congress of the united states. so i will ask will you cosponsor senator cruz's bill and let's defend our constituents, or will our congressional colleagues remain complicit in the nullification of our laws and basically the nullification of border enforcement? so i'd like to make a final note on what we owe to the citizens of this country. president obama's illegal work permits add to the already huge flow of lawful work permits issued by the federal government. between 2000 and 2013, we lawfully issued almost 30 million work and immigration visas. to put that number in perspective, 30 million is about the entire population of el salvador, honduras and guatemala combined.

this matter and our situation today is in disarray. it's in disarray as a result of confused and politically driven thinking by this administration. it just is. i wish it weren't so, but it is. the obama administration's officials have gone so far as to describe amnesty as a civil right. that's an argument against the very idea of a nation state and the idea of a nation's borders. of course, there is and can be no civil right to enter a country unlawfully and then to demand lawful status and equal citizenship. of course there is not. how can this possibly be that the attorney general of the united states of america would assert that people have a constitutional right to enter unlawfully and be given amnesty?

that's the kind of thinking that's got us into this fix, and it's encouraged the flow of unlawful immigration. the actual legal rights that are being violated here today, i suggest, are the rights of the american citizens, and as the civil rights commission member, a member of the u.s. commission on civil rights, peter kershanow warns, our african-american citizens are often the ones that are hurt the most. and also recent immigrant arrivals and working americans. so what about their rights. they have sweat and bled and died for this country, been called on to serve and responded, paid their taxes, raised their children, tried to do the right thing day after day. what about their right? what about the right of every citizen through the protections of immigration laws that we have in america today? will no one rise to their

defense? so we need an immigration policy that helps all residents, including millions of immigrants who have come to america. we want to help them rise into the middle class and above. we need rising wages, not falling wages. we can't help those living here today if we keep bringing in record numbers of new workers to compete for their jobs, to drive up unemployment and that pull down wages. that's just fact. after decades of large-scale immigration and with large illegal immigration flows in addition, we need to get serious and establish a principled policy of immigration and consistently enforce it, a policy that's honorable, that we can be proud of, that serves the interests of all americans, especially working americans. these are the people who have

made our country great. they deserve our attention and compassion, too. middle america has been decent and right on this issue from the beginning for 40 years. the american people have called on congress, called on their presidents to create a lawful immigration system that they can be proud of, that serves the national interests and serves their interests, but what have they gotten? nothing but more illegality and more demands for amnesty. the leaders of their country have not listened to them. and they aren't listening now. the leaders of this country, it appears to me, are not very interested in what the american people think, so the president plans to dramatically exceed his powers, and it's the latest example of rejecting what the american people have asked for,

and it's a breathtaking violation of congressional power. it cannot be allowed to happen. we need to defend our constitution. we need to defend the rule of law. and we need to defend the powers of congress. and at bottom, to defend legitimate rights, interests and desires of the people who sent us here. i thank the president and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i know the chair serves as a member of the budget committee. as i am the ranking republican on that committee, and we have gotten a c.b.o., congressional

budget office analysis. they are our official scorekeeper of spending, on the proposal that the president has presented to spend $4.346 billion to deal with the southwest border crisis, and this is what c.b.o. has done. it's provided its cost estimates , the president's recent supplemental request for the southwest border. significantly, c.b.o.'s analysis suggests that only 25 million of the 4,346,000,000 requested will be spent this year. this indicates clearly that the agencies are not in dire need of supplemental funding from this

congress, certainly not in the degree as asked for. again, c.b.o. analysis suggests that only 25 million out of the $4.3 billion request will be spent this year. what does that mean? it means we ought to slow down. we have no -- there is no basis to demand a $4.3 billion increase in spending, emergency spending. every dollar borrowed because we're already in debt to spend $4 billion more is to borrow every penny of it. we should not do that until we find out more about what's happening at our border. $25 million is a lot of money in itself. the homeland security and other agencies, health and human services have moneys that they can apply to these problems. i'm not saying no money is needed now because we want to treat children and be helpful

and humanitarian, treat them in a humanitarian way and a compassionate way. but we don't need $4 billion. that's clear. we ought not to be doing that, and thank goodness the house of representatives is looking at it carefully, and they need to reject this request out of hand. and colleagues, the fundamental problem here is that the president of the united states, when he did his daca bill, when he did his dream act executive order, what did he do? he basically said we're not going to deport young people, and then we begin to see this surge of young people coming to america and we're not deporting them effectively. they are being taken in, turned over to h.h.s., found housing, turned over to whoever comes and picks them up, even if they are not citizens and not lawfully here, and they are not being

deported, and so more have come in record numbers. so i guess, first of all, the very idea that we would spend i guess for that project $3.7 billion, 3,700 million dollars, is a stunning amount of money. it's just a huge amount of money at a time when we don't need to be borrowing more money than we have to. so i believe and would say to our colleagues they are not demanding -- this plan does not call for the expenditure of money this year except for $25 million, and therefore we're not in a crisis that demands us to produce billions of dollars in revenue for this president so he can continue to carry out policies that only encourage more people to come to america and cost us even more in the

time to come. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, from the beginning of our nation, we have had our challenges. we've had big challenges and little challenges, and somehow, some way, america has always arisen -- risen to those challenges and addressed those in a way that was in the best interests, not only of the the present generation but future generations as well. during those times, it's -- it's not true that our leaders always saw things the same way or agreed with each other 100%, but

they saw greater value in trying to solve the nation's problems rather than just say this is too hard, we can't agree, so we quit. that's not our tradition. that's not our heritage. but looking at the present situation here in washington, d.c. and in particular the united states senate, i find myself sometimes wondering whether those days have passed us by. i hope not. but i sometimes wonder whether the youth of america will witness in their lives some of the great attempts to address our nation's challenges that they read about in their history books. right now we know we have an urgent humanitarian crisis on the u.s.-mexican border, most specifically in the state of texas. i was back in mcallen, texas on friday and i was grateful to

see a number of our colleagues who were there, senator hirono, senator blumenthal, senator murkowski as well as a number of house members there seeing for themselves what the crisis consists of and exploring what might be some of the possible solutions. i wish, again, we were -- i was meeting with congressman kauai yar from laredo, texas with a number of local 0 officials in the rio grande valley and many expressed the wish i had expressed, they wish the president would come down to the valley, to the rio grande valley and see for himself what we have seen. we know he had an opportunity to do that a couple of weeks ago and chose not to do so but they said the invitation is still outstanding. they would love to see him, and the least of which you would think that the president might

consider doing is congratulating the professional efforts of our bower and other law enforcement specialists who were down there doing an amazing job. of course, fema is on the ground and other federal agencies. so that invitation is still outstanding, and i think the president would benefit from seeing this crisis for himself. what we saw, what i saw, was children packed into detention facilities that were filled to overflowing. some with only a single toilet in the room, conditions you would not want your children to be in. and we learned even more about the horrific journey from central america through mexico up to south texas that many of these children had endured. and the truth is some of them didn't make it. some of them who started this

horrific journey from central america simply died in the process. those that did not, were subjected to horrific abuse, kidnapped, being held for random, women perhaps girls sexual assaulted en route because these corridors are controlled by transnational criminal organizations. that's what we call them. in other words, gangs, cartels that view these children and these migrants as a commodity. for a long time they've been selling drugs because drugs make them a lot of money. now they've realized they can transport children and adults because they make them a lot of money, too. and if you just figure figure it out, if they can figure out a way to move tens of thousands or 57,000 so far children just since october of last year at $5,000 each, that's a lot of money. and so these organizations,

these criminal organizations are reaping riches as a result of this sordid traffic in human beings. and, of course, communities are being overrun and government resources are being strained. now, the administration has said there's a humanitarian crisis and i agree. they've also said -- and this is secretary johnson -- among others -- that a loophole in a law passed in 2008 is one source of the problem. is it the only source of the problem? no, i don't think that's true. i think there's also an impression somehow the administration and this administration is less than fully committed to enforcing our immigration laws and if you'll read the intelligence gathered by the department of homeland security from many of the migrants including children who have been detained, many of them report being told that there would be a permiso or

basically a permission slip or visa issued to them if they were able to make it to the united states. so the combination of the lack of detention facilities, the requirement the department of homeland security turn these children and others over to health and human services but then they be released based upon their promise to return at a future court date, this is what has been interpreted as permission to enter the country and stay. so i know that secretary johnson of the department of homeland security understands the problem, although he -- the president has a political problem. many of the president's most ardent supporters are saying weep he we hope the president will just request money but in the end we hope that he will go even further, the deferred action executive order that he issued in 2012 for the so-called dreamers, kids who obviously came at a young age with their

parents into the united states but are boxed in because while they can get an education they can't get a job. but rather than ask for a solution to this problem, the president has indeed asked for a blank check. and i for one am not for giving it to him. i i am for doing the compassionate thing. i am for treating these children and the -- all immigrants and all human beings for that matter with the dignity and respect they deserve by virtue of their status as a human being. but we also need to realize that america cannot endlessly accept a flood of humanity from countries around the world who want to come to the united states especially through an illegal smuggling system that does not respect their dignity as a human being nor our laws. we simply can't absorb or assimilate into america an uncontrolled flow of people from around the world.

now, we are, americans are, the most generous people in the world when it comes to our immigration policies. we naturalize about 800,000 people a year, accept them into this great country, and accept them as american citizens. but we simply cannot allow this sort of uncontrolled wave of humanity and expect that we'll be able to deal with them in a dignified and appropriate way and we simply cannot continue to feed this business model of the transnational criminal organized and cartels who profit from their own criminality and for exploiting these children and other migrants. i know that in this political environment that putting forth a solution is tough because usually what happens is you get attacked from the right and the left which usually tells you you're probably doing the right thing. but it is worth the effort to try to find a solution to this

problem, but it requires all of us to take our responsibilities when it comes to serving the public seriously. and it requires us to put forward solutions knowing that you're not going to come up with a perfect solution but if you can come up with one that moves the ball 80% down the field, that's not bad, that's not a bad day's work, and certainly if you can help make somebody's life a little bit better or protect them from some of the horrific consequences of inaction, that's worth it. well, i have as a -- as the presiding officer knows, partnered with one of my colleagues in the house who has to be a democrat, henry cuellar, in a bipartisan, bicameral solution to this human crisis. if somebody has a better idea, mr. president. we're all ears. but all iraq hear is crickets. i don't hear a lot of other

ideas. there are some and we ought to consider those but mainly this -- i haven't come up with -- anybody come up with another solution to this loophole that's being exploited by these transnational criminal cartels other than the one that congressman cuellar and i have proposed. there have been some who have expressed concerns about the nation the legislation. on the right some have said this bill would make it easieror unaccompanied minors to achieve asylum status. that, mr. president, is wrong. the humane act which is what we call this legislation would not change current law at all with regard to either a claim for asylum or achieving legal status. it would, however, make sure that current law is actually enforced by speeding up court dates and the removal process for unaccompanied children that don't satisfy some of thesing exceptions. it's also worth reminding the

american people that there are a number of fraud prevention measures in our current asylum laws where the humane act -- that the humane act would not change, and -- this is important -- more than 70% of those seeking asylum in the united states last year, more than 70% of those seeking asylum last year in the united states were ultimately not awarded that status. in other words, this is a rather narrow provision. some have also argued that the humane act would somehow ex ping the removing -- you know, you know, the removing orders issued to minors who came to the country during the current surge illegally and have already been released to state based family members or sponsors. what our bill would actually do is allow the u.s. government to replace those removal orders with new nonappealable orders

that would allow for an expedited repatriation process for the children who were not qualified for asylum status or who were not a victim of human trafficking. on the left, we've heard the claim many of these children will not obtain the necessary legal representation that they need. wrong again. the humane act would not change current law which requires health and human services to ensure that the greatest extent practicable that legal representation is provided for unaccompanied children. i have not heard many of my friends on the other side of the aisle who actually supported the 2007 -- 2008 law unanimously complain about this aspect. in other words, what they are complaining about now in terms of inadequate legal representation, they actually

voted for in 2008. some worry this bill would be a vehicle for comprehensive immigration reform. to which i would ask, have you witnessed the dysfunction in the united states senate? do you actually think that there is any real chance that we will pass comprehensive immigration reform through both houses of congress this year? well, some have said that they're also concerned that there aren't enough protections in the bill for children. we've added protections that don't already exist under current law like an expedited court hearing before a judge, and for those with credible claims, stronger safeguards to ensure children are not released into hands of dangerous criminals or those who would abuse them. so after identifying a problem and a cause, one would think that it would be easy for republicans and democrats,

congress and the white house, to come together on a solution. you would think that would be something we would do as a minimum matter of fulfilling our job description. but sadly, the president has not seen fit to come forward to embrace the solution that's in front of him. indeed, from press accounts we've learned while he understands the nature of the problem as does secretary johnson and what would be necessary to fix it, that the president simply does not want to disappoint some of the more radical activists who essentially say we ought to open the floodgates to people from anywhere around the world and let them come. at their will. well -- and i'm discouraged to hear the remarks of the majority leader where he said he is not optimistic that we'll be able to address this issue constructively and find a solution before we recess for the august recess.

i would think that that would be a matter of some urgency because as we've seen since 2011, these numbers seem to double every year. in other words, they start out relatively low, doubled from 2011 to 2012, from 2012 to 2013, from 2013 to fewer than. it's estimated there could be as many as 90,000 unaccompanied children detained at our southern -- our southern border this year. if it's 90,000 this year, if we don't anything about it, what will it be next year? 180,000? this is a bad situation that we have within our capacity to address if we can find it -- a way somehow to do so. but it's going to take a president, it's going to take a majority leader, it's going to take all of us who choose not to just take the easy way but to take the hard way, but one that will lead to a solution to this

humanitarian crisis and it won't happen just by flowing throwing money at it without offering real reforms which will fix what's broken in the 2008 law. now, i'll close on this note: just again to pleas with my colleagues. if you've got a better idea, please come tell us about it. we may want to embrace it. is this perfect? no. does this solve all of what's broken in our immigration laws? no. it does not. this is a narrowly targeted solution to a national crisis and one that will hopefully positively impact thousands of children. to those who want to see more, i'd say that this is a moment to do what we can when we can and to show that we're serious about the job of governing and coming up with responsible solutions. if we can demonstrate to the american people we can actually do that on a bipartisan basis and fix this relatively speaking

smaller problem but urgent problem, well, maybe we can just earn their trust enough to tackle some bigger problems in the future. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, as the senate begins debate on transportation funding this week, it's clear to me that all sides, democrats and republicans, agree that what is needed most is a long-term plan for rebuilding our country's infrastructure. the reality is, we simply cannot have big-league economic growth with little league infrastructure. now, all over our country now, unfortunately, we've got potholes and sinkholes, and one of the reasons that we're not seeing them filled is that there

is no long-term plan, a plan that provides certainty and predictability for all sides, local government and businesses and developers and others, to know that that funding is going to be there. so, as we start the discussion that is going to go through the week, mr. president, about a bipartisan plan to go forward on transportation funding, as senator hatch and i in the financial committee brings to the senate today, i want all sides to know that it's our view that to get to the long-term road, you've got to have a short-term path, and that short-term path is what senator hatch and i have pulled together on a bipartisan basis, and we hope our colleagues will support it before the week is out.

mr. president, i think all the senators understand what's at stake here. allowing the highway trust fund to run dry would slam the brakes on critical infrastructure projects across the land. so let's be clear, mr. president. it is nonnegotiable -- nonnegotiable -- that congress is going to prevent that from happening. no senator wants state and local governments to have to pick and choose which projects move forward and which ones set in park because the congress didn't do its job before the august break. the reality is that a transportation shutdown would be horrendous news for tens of thousands of construction workers facing layoffs. the damages would ripple throughout our economy.

businesses would have a tougher time getting products to market, an-- to market and customers to their doors. car owners would have to fork over more cash to replace the tires and fix the broken suspensions. so with all americans having something at stake, the congress must act. and that's why, mr. president, it's so important, in my view, to pass the bipartisan path act, the preserving america's transit and highways act, this week. and as i've indicated, the finance committee came together, came together on a bipartisan basis, to advance this legislation to the senate floor. senator hatch and i met regularly on this matter

throughout the spring to reach a solution. when i first proposed a draft of a chairman's mark and announced a committee markup, senator hatch and the finance committee republicans asked for more time. they asked for more time to reach a bipartisan consensus, and i agreed. we continued to talk almost each day with our staffs in constant contact. every member of the committee pitched in. when the committee reconvened to consider the modified legislation, it passed with virtual unanimity, a truly bipartisan plan. now, our colleagues in the other body have offered their own legislation. i'd like to take a brief moment to highlight some of the difnses between the two -- differences between the two bills that, in my view, are quite important. as part of our effort to reach a bipartisan agreement, the

finance committee agreed to adopt several of the funding sources proposed by the ways and means committee. those sources included customs users fees and pension smoothing. the finance committee's bill leaves room for customs users fees to support vital trade programs. in the committee's view, that's an important tradition to protect. the finance committee's legislation also leaves room for revenue from the pension smoothing provision to help secure multiemployer pension plans that face insolvency. finally, the finance committee's legislation draws some revenue by improving the enforcement of tax laws that are now on the books. i bring this up, mr. president, because i have seen some

inaccurate accusations about what these enforcement provisions would do. so let's be clear, colleagues, these are not new taxes. they are not tax increases. in fact, the finance committee even received a letter from grover norquist in the group americans for tax real estate form saying so -- for tax reform saying so. mr. norquist is not soft on the question of tax increases, and he's indicated that these provisions are not tax hikes. what these provisions do is crack down on tax cheats and ensure that mortgage lenders providing homeowners with more tax information than they're usually getting today. by contrast, it's my view that the other body has missed an opportunity to strengthen tax compliance but also weakened the

solvency of pension plans and fleefs funds in -- leaves no funds in reserve to address that problem down the road. the house approach for paying for transportation funding creates another funding problem for pension plans that congress will have to solve in the future. so, in effect, mr. president, as one of our colleagues indicated to me, we've got one challenge on our hands in terms of transportation. now if you take the house approach, you have two challenges on your hands. you have to deal with transportation and with pensions. so the finance committee, on a bipartisan basis, decided through the path act to come to the senate floor, as the transportation shutdown approaches, with tens of thousands of jobs on the line and advance a bipartisan proposal. now, what's needed next, mr. president, after this legislation is passed and safely

in the rearview mirror is what i touched on at the outset. a long-term plan that would rebuild america's infrastructure and end the cycle of stopgap funding. that is going to require more than the bare minimum of fixing the high trust fund. even in the best of times, when there's no threat of a transportation shutdown, we are making a little league infrastructure investment of less than 2% of our gross domestic product. our big league competitors are going a different route. in parts of canada, they put 10% of g.d.p. into infrastructure projects and china almost as much. with such a small investment, it's getting harder for our country to maintain the transportation system it has, much less take up new projects that would help america compete with the world's other

heavyweight economies. for example, in our state, the poor condition of many roads costs theag the average driver t $175 a year. there are more than 1,300 bridges functionally obsolete, more than 400 bridges structural deficient, the bill for repairs, colleagues, will only grow and grow as congress waits to get serious about infrastructure. we ought to look at managing the transportation system likes owning ago car. responsible car owners don't let them fall into dis-repair. they change the oil. they row teat the tires. they -- they rotate the tires. they fix the transmission when it is needed. some day when you want to resell the car or give it to your child, the car is going to be in good shape. it is time for this generation to be responsible owners of

america's transportation system. the challenges in the weeks and months head wil ahead will be td policies that will sustain the highway trust fund for good while finding new ways to draw investment dollars into america's infrastructure. priority one, in my view, ought to be to bring private capital off the sidelines and into the game on transportation. with interest rates as low as they are today, now is the time to act. and in that regard, mr. president, i'd like to commend my colleague from north dakota, senator hoeven, who has joined me in just such an effort. we call them trips bonds -- transportation and regional infrastructure projects -- to get more private capital into infrastructure. senators warner, blunt, and bennet have tried another approach. i want to say to colleagues, as chair of the senate finance committee, all of the long-term approaches are going to be on

the table when we get over this short-term challenge this week. our colleague from kentucky, senator paul, has a very important idea with respect to transportation. he wishes to look at repatriation. senator schumer, my seatmate on the finance committee, has another approach. the point is, all of these promising ideas, each of which has the opportunity for bipartisan support, deserves consideration, and as chair of the finance committee, i commit this afternoon to do that. when the committee approved the path act, there was unanimous agreement to work together on a long-term solution to our infrastructure challenge. i've talked with a number of senators on both sides, and the message is clear: the senate is ready to act. this will not become, colleagues, another extender issue with congress kicking the can down a crumbling road again and again. i'll close with this:

we've got an important job to do this week. i hope we'll continue the finance committee's bipartisan work and pass the path act, protect thousands of construction jobs, and end the threat of a transportation shutdown. some have said there's no time and no room for compromise with our colleagues in the house, but the house can say, it's our way or no highway. i disagree. our colleagues in the house and the senate, working together, can reach a bipartisan agreement very quickly. then we'll move on to the next challenge and solve our infrastructure crisis for the long term. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator -- mr. hoeven: i ask for a u.c. to speak for five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. h.o.v. i vermr. hoeven: i very k

forward to working on a long-term plan with some of the concepts that the chairman has put forward. we need for our infrastructure across this great nation. and i again look forward to working with you in that endeavor and express my thanks. mr. president, i rise to speak on the issue of ukraine and the need to address that situation and to address it with a long-term strategy. last week russian separatists shot down a malaysian airliner with 298 souls on board. innocent people killed because russia wants to control ukraine. if not all of ukraine, certainly eastern ukraine. and the obama administration is struggling to respond. president obama talks about the need for vladimir putin and russia to be accountable. meanwhile, russia continues to deny what's really going on. putin continues to arm russian

separatists in eastern ukraine, separatists led by russian special forces, military operatives, armed and directed by moscow. but we need to respond. our country needs to respond, and we need to respond with a long-term strategy. not just talk and not a short-term strategy. and that is that we can do. we can respond, and we need to respond with a long-term strategy. we can lead with strong sanctions against russia, sanctions that will truly affect the banking sector and other sectors of their economy in a meaningful way. and we can help europe follow us with these same sanctions. we can help them by providing energy to the european union. right now europe is dependent on russia for its energy.

i brought some charts here to depict this. this first one shows countries in europe, how many of them get all or a very large share of their natural gas from russia? so they're dependent on russia for their energy, and that's an incredible source of strength for the putin regime. here you see it pictorially. you see all these pipelines coming out of russia, through ukraine and into the european union, supplying all of that energy to these european countries. and because of that, you see this, all these countries, are dependent on russia for energy. that is an incredible source of strength, power for russia, and it's holding up europe from engaging in the kind of sanctions that could really stop russia, stop the russian economy

and stop president putin in his tracks. but we can break that stranglehold, and we can break that stranglehold by allowing more l.n.g., liquefied natural gas, exports from our country. we have the companies today, right now, today, that want to build l.n.g. export facilities but they're being held up from doing so. if i could go to my third chart here. this isn't all of them, but right here there are 16 companies, 13 in our -- that are on our coast, three in canada. one of these actually has gotten conditional approval. but here's 13 applications for companies that want to build facilities, l.n.g. facilities to export natural gas. and they're being held up. all of these have been held up somewhere between one and two years. they can't even get permitted or approved by the department of energy to build those

facilities. and what are we talking about? let me give you a specific example of one of them, a company you probably heard of exxonmobil. they want to build a $10 billion facility in that area right here in the gulf. they're ready to go right now. they have been in the application process for somewhere between one or two years, and they think they're maybe halfway through it. so what, they got another year or two years before they can build a $10 billion facility that will move natural gas, they're going to bring it right into the u.k., right into europe. why aren't we green lighting this today? why do we continue to hold this up? some critics say, you know, it's going to take them some time to build it. well, of course it's going to take some time to build, but the

faster we get these projects permitted, the sooner they're going to get built. and the reality is they'll not only have an impact as they're able to move gas into that market, they'll have an impact today because those european countries will know these other sources of supply are coming, and also vladimir putin knows that we are serious about providing alternative energy to europe, and i think that will make a big difference in terms of strengthening the european countries' willingness to join us with the kind of sanctions we need to truly make a difference. two weeks ago i had this legislation to do exactly what i'm talking about. north atlantic energy security act. cosponsors include senator mccain, senator barrasso, senator murkowski who is ranking on energy; senator barrasso, who worked to put a lot of

legislation together; explain very active in the ukrainian situation. together we worked on this bill that already passed the bill. it will enable us to produce more natural gas, move it to market and export it to our allies. it increases on-shore production of natural gas. it allows us to gather it, move it to market and it allows it to be exported. quite simply, what does that enable us to do? states like mine today are flaring off, burning off $1.5 million a day of natural gas because we don't have a market for it, so we just burn it. just burn it. because we can't get the kind of legislation we've approved passed. we can't get it to the floor for a vote.

so instead of taking that natural gas, millions of dollars a day that's just going up in smoke, move it down to these facilities and over to our allies; we're just burning it up. it would be better for our economy. it would create jobs. it would create -- better for our environment. create jobs. better for our certainly economic growth. create revenues to deal with the debt and the deficit without raising taxes. just through economic growth. and it would make a big difference for the national security of our country and our allies. it's common sense. what are we waiting for? let's get beyond just talking about what needs to be done in the ukraine and let's get going. and let's get going with a long-term strategy. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous

consent to speak for five minutes and i want to subscribe to the views of the senator from north dakota on the importance of natural gas, turning it into liquefied form and solving a lot of problems we face around the world. i also want to commend senator hoeven and senator wyden for the exchange which they had briefly a few moments ago on a bipartisan approach to funding our infrastructure problems in the immediate and the long range. and i would note as i move to talk about obamacare, the absence of any such bipartisan accord during 2009 when the affordable care act was being debated by the senate. thus, we have what in april

2003, senate finance chairman baucus called a huge train wreck. he was right in seeing the train wreck coming on the rollout and the web site, but it also has turned out to be a train wreck in far more than the web site glitches and the enrollment fiasco. the train wreck of the affordable care act continues in the way the law is affecting health care coverage and the way it's affecting the pocketbooks of american families. these families were flatly told that their health care premiums would go down. they were not told their health care premiums would moderate. they were told that their health care system premiums would go down. instead we have all of the problems that we're facing with regard to obamacare and the way it affects women and the way it affects wage earners and the way it affects people who are looking for full-time employment. and, frankly, the obamacare law

continues to drag down our economy and our chances for economic growth. instead of seeing premiums drop by $2,500 on average each year, as president obama promised, families and individuals are spending more of their hard-earned dollars on health care costs under this so-called affordable care act. the sticker shock will only worsen, and it's going to happen right around the corner. in recent weeks several states have announced preliminary estimates for next year's premiums. the "wall street journal" reports that many of these states, the largest health insurance plans, plan to increase premiums by between 8.5% and 22.8%. these are annual increases coming up right around the corner of either 8.5% up to 22.8%. for many americans, this means either paying a lot more or simply not being able to have

coverage at awvment the -- at all. the administration is trying to down play the costs, but it is clear that once again obamacare is failing to live up to its billing. some states are particularly vulnerable to higher rates next year because of low enrollment among young adults or because few insurers have joined the exchanges. for example, in my home state of mississippi, 94% of enrollees are eligible for federal subsidies, which means we have little competition to drive down rates. according to this year's numbers, my home state of mississippi already has the third-highest premiums in the nation, and we can't afford them. competition cannot flourish when the government is involved in setting mandates for benefits and controlling rates. without a market-based approach, which i advocated in 2009, consumers lose out on choice and cost. particularly hard hit by the president's health care law are

women and younger wage earners. with regard to women, for example, women are more likely to pay higher out-of-pocket costs under obamacare with plans with high deductibles because they typically visit the doctor more. as 57% of the part-time workforce, women are also more likely to have their hours cut because of the employer mandate. and i note, mr. president, that the employer mandate is increasingly unpopular among democrats and republicans. additionally the law's limited physician networks have forced many women to choose different specialists for themselves and their children, thus, making it less convenient for these women to get care for themselves and their children. stories from women across the country underscore these difficult realities. last year a woman from columbus, mississippi wrote to tell me

that her original health care plan was $500 per month before it jumped to $1,500 a month because of the a.c.a. one woman from north carolina gave this reaction to unaffordable premiums. she said "i've never worked this hard in my life, but i'm going to continue working every day to keep hitting the books at night. i'm just trying to keep my head above water." another woman from texas who could not find an obstetrician that would accept her insurance said this: "it was mind-numbing because i was thinking i'm paying close to $400 a month, $400 a month for me to have insurance that doesn't work. so what am i paying for?" women make approximately 80% of health care decisions in america. more choices and lower costs would give them the flexibility they need to get the right insurance plan.

with regard to younger workers, mr. president, they are generally healthier but earn less. and they're faced with daunting realities because of the health care law. specifically, younger workers are forced to pay higher premiums to subsidize coverage for older americans. i was contacted by a constituent from greenville, mississippi, whose healthy 27-year-old son lost his health insurance because of obamacare. the cost of his coverage went from $70 per month to nearly $350 per month even though the benefits improved only slightly. although this young man had health insurance for seven years since he was 20 years of age, he's now questioning whether he can afford it. finally, mr. president, all americans are affected by a health care law that destroys jobs. last month the economy added 288,000 jobs, but only a

fraction of them were full time, as we know. the obama economy is a part-time economy. millions of americans want full-time work. the president's health care law was pushed through with no bipartisan input, and in defiance of public opinion. after the massachusetts special election, this senate should have gotten the message that we needed to regroup and rethink this disastrous law. but the majority party pushed forward regardless, and so it's no surprise that the law remains deeply unpopular today. according to a recent poll, 55% of americans wish it had never passed and 44% said america is now worse off because of the a.c.a. in summary, mr. president, under the affordable health care act,

women are worse off, younger workers are worse off, people seeking full-time jobs are worse off. elections have consequences, and november will be no different. the american people have an opportunity to change the course of this disastrous law in 106 days. thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask consent that i be able to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have the honor to chair the u.s.-helsinki commission which is well known for its commitment to human rights. it's also our participating arm in the organization for security and cooperation in europe, the osce. starting when i first joined the helsinki commission almost 20 years ago, i worked on the

issues of antisemitism and trying to deal with combating antisemitism. this is overt actions against jews and jewish institutions, which was on the rise and we tried to do something about it. in the early 2000's, working with congressman hoyer and congressman hastings and congressman smith and others, we made an agreement in the helsinki commission to bring up the increasing episodes of antisemitism and what we needed to do about it. we saw increased episodes of violence against jews and jewish institutions. we saw that world events was used to try to justify antisemitic activities. as a result of the work of the u.s. helsinki commission, the osce determined it was important enough to do a special conference on antisemitism, and in 2004, we had the berlin conference on antisemitism under the leadership of the united states and germany.

i was proud to be a member of the u.s. delegation to the berlin conference and good work was done in that conference. we developed best practices from dealing with holocaust education to police training to deal with identifying hate crimes. we had the first uniform collection of hate crimes statistics in the osce region. the responsibility of leaders to speak up against antisemitic activities. and we provided technical assistance to countries to deal with antisemitism and to share their best practices. today there are now -- we have recommended a special representative to the chair and office to put a spotlight on antisemitism and ways to combat it. today rabbi andrew baker is that special representative to the chair in office, and the chair in office this year is the swiss chair in office. tomorrow i will chair a helsinki

commission hearing that deals with antisemitism, racism and discrimination in the osce region. there are now three special representatives. one to combat with antisemitism. one to deal with discrimination against muslims. and one to deal with raisms and phobia and other racism intolerance. they are all related. we find that hate crimes are hate crimes and that in a community is susceptible to antisemitic activities, it is also susceptible to any muslim activities or activities against a person because of their race. and there is reason to be concerned. there is reason to be concerned about the rise of antisemitism today. this is ten years after the berlin conference. last year, the e.u.'s fundamental rights agency surveyed all the e.u. countries, and the results were alarming. 40% to 48% of the jewish respondents felt that it was not safe for them to remain in their country. we're talking about in hungary,

france and belgium, those three countries range between 40% and 48%, were considering emigrating to israel because they didn't feel safe in their own country. and these fears were not without justification. the antidefamation league surveyed over 100 countries and documented persistent antisemitic prejudice. in the e.u. elections, extremist parties espousing antisemitic activities made remarkable progress. and hungary and greece extremist parliament parties associated with street militias were successful in elections. in hungary, the extremist party jabak is the second most significant party in hungary and has erected a monument to a war-time leader and declared antisemite. we have also found laws passed in europe that make it more difficult for jews to practice their religion because of making

restrictions on being able to kosher foods and making it difficult to wear head coverings. we've seen, unfortunately, violent acts in kansas and the united states. three people were murdered outside of a j.c.c. in may in brussels, three people were murdered at a jewish museum. i mention this all because even as we visit europe today, we see signs of antisemitism, and it's troubling to all of us. this is the tenth anniversary of the berlin conference coming up this year, and we will be reconvening the osce states in order to evaluate the progress that we've made over the last ten years and additional progress that needs to be done. the helsinki hearing tomorrow will give us an opportunity to concentrate on how the united states can continue to be a leader on this very important issue, and i wanted to share those comments with my colleagues. mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask permission to address the senate as if in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, if a few moments, the united states senate will be called upon to confirm the nirmings of the honorable -- nomination of the honorable julie carnes to the court of appeals in georgia. i stand along with my colleague, senator saxby chambliss, the senior senator from georgia to commend miss carnes to the entire body as an outstanding appointment. and i want to thank the president. senator chambliss and i recommended miss carnes to the president when the openings took place on the 11th circuit court. he and with the advice of kathy rumler, his able assistant on the advisory board, brought it forward to the judiciary committee of the united states senate. i want to thank pat leahy, the senator from vermont, the chairman of that committee, and chuck grassley from iowa, the ranking member of that committee, for doing a judicious hearing, for giving all sides a chance to be heard and commending unanimously on a voice vote julie carnes to the

united states senate. i'm not going to talk for a long time but i want to make a couple of very special points. julie carnes is a very special lady. for 22 years, she has been a judge in the northern district of georgia. the last five years she has been the senior judge. before that she was on advisory panels for judiciaryial sentencing and many other technical and judicial issues. her nomination is the nomination of someone with immense capacity, outstanding integrity and outstanding ability, just the type of person you and i would want to go to the bench. she is as we call them in georgia a double dog. she graduated from the university of georgia in her undergraduate degree and got her juris doctorate degree from the university of georgia law school whose emblem is a bulldog. she is an outstanding individual and will be an outstanding judge on the bench. but there is a point of personal privilege that i want to take for a minute. up in heaven right now at a sunset, charlie carnes is looking down about to see his daughter julie confirmed to the united states circuit court

11th circuit of the united states. charlie carnes was my mentor in the georgia general assembly for 12 years before he was appointed to be state court judge in fulton county, georgia, the largest county in the state of georgia. charlie's looking down on the daughter he is owe proud of and he is so proud that she is going to be confirmed by the united states senate to one of the highest court appointments she could possibly achieve. she is just a chip after the old block. she is proof that an apple doesn't fall far from the tree. charlie was an outstanding georgian, an outstanding american, an outstanding member of our state and our bar and our bench, and i am so proud to be a part of those that recommended this nomination to the president of the united states, and i yield to my colleague, senator chambliss. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise with my colleague, senator isakson, today in support of judge julie carnes who has been nominated by the president to serve as a circuit court judge for the 11th judicial circuit.

judge carnes has been a federal district court judge for the northern district of georgia since 1992, and she has been the court's chief judge since 2009. her time on the district court has prepared her well for going to the 11th circuit, but her preparation started long before she was confirmed to her current seat on the northern district bench. for starters, being a judge is in her blood. as senator isakson referenced, her father charlie carnes was many things to many people. he was a navy veteran, a state legislator, and a loving father, but for those of us in the georgia legal community from whence i came, we remember him best for his 20 years of service as a fulton county state court judge, the last 17 years of which he served as chief judge. after growing up in atlanta, judge julie carnes attended the university of georgia where she earned both her bachelor and her

law degrees. she then went on to clerk for judge louis morgan on the old fifth circuit court of appeals. once she finished her clerkship, she served as an assistant u.s. attorney for more than a decade before assuming her position on the northern district court bench. it's difficult to imagine a more qualified circuit court nominee than julie carnes. and the senate judiciary committee appears to share my confidence. she was pointed out by voice vote without a single objection to her nomination. moreover, this is a seat that needs to be filled and it needs to be filled quickly. the 11th circuit is the third busiest circuit in the country. senator isakson and i have been working very closely with the white house to address this vacancy since it came open two years ago. mr. president, julie carnes is my dear friend. i have known her for many years. she is the consummate trial

court judge, receiving accolades from every single sector of the bar that regularly appears before her. senator isakson and i worked very closely with the president, as he indicated. we also worked with senator leahy and senator grassley and also kathy rumler, the white house counsel who i particularly want to commend, someone who was very persistent. she was very professional in all of her dealings with us, and it was a real pleasure to work with the white house on securing a number of nominees, the first of which to come to this floor for confirmation is judge julie carnes. this has been a long and arduous process, but there is no questioning its results. i am pleased to recommend this highly qualified nominee, and i urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. militias is closed morning business. under the previous order, the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, julie e. carnes of georgia to be united states district judge for the 11th circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally

divided and controlled between the two leads or their designees prior to a vote on the nomination. is there objection? no objection. the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

said

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 94. the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. the majority -- under the previr the senate will proceed to consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, michael anderson lawson of california for the rank of ambassador on

the council of international civil aviation. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on confirmation of the nomination. mr. reid: i yield back any time. the presiding officer: is there objection? not objection. hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the senate will proceed to consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, eunice s. reddick of the district of columbia to be ambassador to the republic of niger. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to --

mr. reid: i ask consent that time be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection. hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. opposed? it appears the ayes have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: mr. president, the motion to proceed to s. -- i'm sorry. the presiding officer: under the previous order the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to diss 2569. is that -- to s. 2569. is that pending? the presiding officer: the motion is pending. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion on that matter. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the motion to

proceed to calendar number 453, s. 2569, a bill to provide incentive for businesss to bring jobs back to america, signed by 17 senators as follows. reid of nevada, walsh, stabenow, klobuchar, murray, sanders, harkin, durbin, udall of new mexico, casey, murphy, baldwin, tester, begich, whitehouse, levin, coons. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i'm very proud to be on the floor this evening with some colleagues who i greatly respect, and we have been working so hard across party lines to call the nation's

attention to the problems that we're facing funding our transportation system. now, we all know there are many things in the world we can't control, and many that are causing tremendous frustration. i went home this weekend, and my constituents come up to me, and they said, senator, we can't even look at the television set. the tragedies that are unfolding. and they feel that, as i do -- and i know our president does -- that these tragedies that we are witnessing have been born out of historic animosities, and it's very difficult. if we could wave our wand and make things better in all these areas, we would do so. and we will try and we will push, and we are having a meeting of the foreign relations committee, and we're going to move to speak sanity to the world. but, mr. president, there is a crisis we can avert, and there

is a problem we can solve. and that is fixing the highway trust fund shortfall. now for those who don't know, the highway trust fund was created by president dwight eisenhower in 1956. he created the trust fund, and it was a brilliant move because he realized and he said that we are developing an interstate highway system. this is one country, and we have to be united and physically unite our country to move goods and people and make this country work. and since then, we have always had bipartisan support for the trust fund. why is it in trouble? the trust fund is in trouble because the federal gas tax receipts have not kept pace with inflation and the rising costs of keeping highways and bridges safe. some of our bridges are well over 50 years, and i've lived

awhile, and i can tell you when you get a little older, you'll need a little attention. and the fact is our infrastructure is aging, and we have to pay attention to it. this is not the time to walk away from this crisis. so i want to take you to a next chart and ask unanimous consent to place my statement in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. this, you wonder why is senator boxer showing a football stadium. this actually is a picture of one of the super bowls. 100,000 people are in this photograph. do you know that there are 700,000 unemployed construction workers, mr. president? and they would fill seven of these stadiums. if i had seven of these stadiums, the good news, there used to be two million at the height of the recession and

we've gotten it down to 700,000 but we cannot afford this. we cannot afford this. now, what's the economic impact of failure to act? pretty simple. millions of jobs because you have the construction jobs and then you have all the benefits to communities when we have the workers around there, whether it's, you know, our cities, being able to have restaurants that are filled and all the kinds of things that when you put people -- that happen when you put people to work in a community. millions of jobs and thousands of businesses depend on the highway trust fund, and those businesses and those workers are counting on us. now, you may say, you know, is there really a problem? well, 70,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient. 70,000. so keep those numbers in mind if

you're asked at a party. 70,000 bridges are deficient. 700,000 construction workers are still unemployed. and 50% of our highways are in less than good condition. so is this a frivolous thing we're talking about here? no. the 2012 urban mobility report from texas a & m said the financial cost of traffic congestion in 2011 was $121 billion. $27 billion of wasted time and diesel fuel from trucks moving goods on the system. a 2013 survey by the national association of manufacturers said 65% answered our infrastructure is insufficient. so let me tell you some of the ideas to fix it because i'm not just out here saying words. i have ideas on how to fix it.

one of the ideas was put forth by senators murphy and corker, and we're going to hear from senator corker. modify the gas tax to meet current needs. pretty straightforward. this is what we've been doing forever. very simple. supported by the chamber of commerce. supported by just about everybody. there's another way to do it that was thought of by a republican governor of virginia. i support this, but i would support all of these. let me be clear. replace existing cents-per-gallon gas tax with a fee on the wholesale price of gas from the refinery. the reason i like that one is it's a broader based way to pay for it because i drive a hybrid vehicle, an electric hybrid and i don't really fill my car up very often. in two years we filled it up four times. so i'm not paying my fair share. this would make it a more broad-based fee. and, third, repatriation, which

is a very interesting concept. i know senator paul supports it. it's complicated in terms of the way it scores, but the fact is it would bring in $23 billion over the first couple of years and it would benefit -- give a break to some of our businesses. so i know there are so many of my colleagues, or certainly a couple that really have so much, have spent so much time on this, i'm not going to go on except to read the supporters. the supporters of the proposal that senators murphy and corker have proposed: u.s. chamber, the triple a, american trucking association. this is huge. and i would also say we have received letters from so many people. i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter i got today from transportation

secretary anthony fox and 11 of his predecessors who served seven republican and democratic presidents. johnson, ford, reagan, george h.w. bush, clinton, george w. bush, obama; they all wrote an open letter saying pass a long-term transportation bill. and what happened is we did it in the environment and public works committee. senator carper and i leading the charge with senators vitter and barrasso. we did our job. now if we can be together with senator sessions and senator vitter and senator whitehouse and senator sanders, we have left to right, right in our committee and they came together for a six-year bill. so what's the problem here? it's ridiculous. and the house unfortunately -- and this isn't good -- decided they wanted to kick the can down the road.

i know it's a cliche but it's true, until may of next year, the end of may. and you know what it means? it means that we won't do anything until then, and you'll be right up against the new construction season. nobody is going to enter into a long-term contract between now and then. so we're hoping that we can change the way the house thought about this and the finance committee thought about it. and my colleagues have been leading on this, and i'm on the carper-corker-boxer amendment that would say instead of funding this highway bill through next year, get our work done this year. and who's supporting that, getting it done this year? u.s. chamber of commerce, association of state highway and transportation officials, the american road and transportation builders, national association of manufacturers, associated general contractors, american

trucking association, international union of operating engineers, and liuna. if anybody knows politics, they know that these groups hardly ever agree on a darned thing, and they agree that we should act this year. so i'm proud of my friends who you'll hear from shortly and i am supporting their effort wholeheartedly and will do everything i can to ensure we don't just do smoke and mirrors here. you explain to me when do you these smoke and mirrors, take -- controlling how people get covered for their pensions, what does that have to do with transportation? the gas tax, yes. a tax on oil, yes. so let's think about this. let's step up to the plate and do the right thing, and i'm very proud to be in concert with my friends and i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.

mr. corker: mr. president, thank you. i want to thank the chairman of e.p.w. for her comments, for her leadership, for her ability to build consensus around the reauthorization as she did in committee. and i do want to say that this is the fifth time since 2000, i've been here since january of 2007, this will be the fifth time that we've done a temporary extension. it is an absolute became. -- embarrassment. not only do we not get the development of just the economic growth that would come from people knowing that there's a program in place, that they could enter into long-term contracts with, they could buy construction equipment with, in addition to that this has the tremendous problem of absolutely being generational theft. i want to get to those comments, i want to thank the distinguished senator from delaware for his leadership and for being here on the floor and i'll be fairly brief and yield the floor to him.

i think if every senator was asked this when pteropods to using budget gimmicks, every one of them would say yes. i'm sure the presiding officer would say the same thing. many claim that budget gimmicks should not be used as offsets to pay for spending but time and time again, congress avoids the tough decision and instead to use -- throws our kids under the bus so we can tell people back home that legislation was passed that was paid for. i've long been against the disgraceful practice of spending money today and paying for it in the future. it's shameful, it's irresponsible and it's generational theft. yet here we are in week looking for a way to pass a bill that would pay for spending that has already -- is already happening by using a blatant budget scheme called pension smoothing. pension smoothing is one of the worst kinds of budget gimmicks. not only does it allow congress to spend money today and pay

through savings accrued in the future, but the gimmick actually loses money. let me say this one more time, the gimmick actually loses money and drives our nation deeper into debt. pension smooth is congress cooking the books. it shifts money that treasury would correct in the future to the present. it starts losing money when it continues beyond the ten-year window. combining a highway trust fund bailout that spends ten years of revenue in ten months -- let me say that one more time. what we're going to be vogue on this week -- voting on this week spends ten years' worth of revenues in ten months. i want to say my republican friends, all of us had problems when the president was trying to pass his health care bill. he used six years' worth of cost and ten years' worth of revenues which is orders of magnitude better than what's getting ready

to happen in this bill this week. again, ten months' worth of spending, ten years' worth of revenues. pension smoothing increases the chance that the taxpayers will be on the hook for the ballot in the future because it weakens the corporate pension system. so here we are, weakening our balance sheet and simultaneously weakening the pbgc. that deficit already exceeds $30 billion. at the spent of taxpayers and workers who rely on pension plans this budget scheme benefits big businesses while allowing congress to avoid real spending decisions. i understand the conventional wisdom is that in the haste to leave town this august, enough senators will be here to support the house bill with pension smoothing gimmick included and not even try to do better. that's the conventional wisdom. also i understand that some will

try to scare members into voting for the house bill by claiming that the house cannot pass anything except this short-term patch endorsed by the president with $11 billion in gimmicks to extend the highway funding until june. although 367 house members voted for this rushed package, it's the responsibility of the senate to weigh in and offer an alcertain tiff. as i have done in previous years, i will continue to oppose these short-term patches to the highway trust fund that allow congress to avoid doing its job and passing a long-term, sustainable solution to reform and pay for the program. at the very least, we should cut the gettics in this bill by $3 billion and do away with pension smoothing. let me just show, i rarely use exhibits, but this is the gimmick of all gimmicks. look at what happens when you use it to pay for a short-term

bill, you collect the money during the window that it's counted and then from then on, you're losing money. this is a double loser. it's amazing that we can even come up with these kinds of schemes to pay for an already insolvent problem, a program, we do it by putting our country further in debt in the future and candidly weakening our corporate pension system. so i'm pleased that there's bipartisan momentum to change this. i hope my colleagues will support the amendment senators carper, boxer and i are offering that would reject the budget gimmicks in this bill and force congress to stop shirking its responsibility so we can work towards passing a long-term transportation bill. there's going to be a push by some to say that we shouldn't take up anything, the rest of this year. i would just say that i would

think every member of this congress that realizes we've allowed ourselves to get in this jam we're in in july, every member would want to show the responsibility of actually dealing with this this year. we have a number of members who are retiring, many who spent a lot of time on issues like this. and i'd like to see them have the opportunity to come up with a long-term solution. i would imagine if we did that, the house would want to support a more physically conservative alternative which is what our amendment achieves. i hope we will back our words with actions and reject this irresponsible pay-for once and for all and do something far more responsible. with that i yield the floor. i want to say as i'm yielding the floor, i appreciate senator carper's continual effort as a former governor to try to do

those things that are common sense, that are pragmatic, that make our country stronger along the way. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, before the senator from tennessee leaves, i want to thank him very much for joining senator boxer and me in this effort to really to create a dynamic that will compel us here in the senate to do our job, to do our job. and he is somebody who horseshoes time and again the courage to keep out of step when everybody else is marching to the ronald reagan wrong tune. so does barbara boxer. she has shown extraordinary leadership on the environment and public works committee. the idea she and senator vitter and senator barrasso with a little help from me were able to guide through committee, report a six-year transportation bill planned -- plan for our transportation, roads, highways, transit system to report utt it out of committee

without an amendment, without a dissenting vote and to bring it to the floor of the senate. about if it were that easy we wouldn't be here tonight but there's other legislation, companion legislation needs to come out of the commerce committee for among other things, freight railroads, for passenger railroads. they have jurisdiction over aviation as well and we are -- the banking committee has jurisdiction over transit systems. there's a shared responsibility here and a shared responsibility to figure out how we pay for all of this. how do we pay for this. we're spending around $17 billion, $18 billion a year for federal share for transportation projects. that's roughly about half of what we're spending if you add in state and local moneys during the course of a year. and we run out of money. we literally run out of money next month to continue for the federal government to do its share. so what do we do?

i tell you what we do, we're not going to continue to put it on a credit card. and we're not going to keep turning around to countries like china and saying how about loaning us more money so we can replenish our general fund, why do we want to be beholding to china? i don't. what we need to do is summon the courage to do what people sent us here to do, that's make tough decisions. senator corker, is a recovering mayor from -- chat nothinga, right? i was -- chattanooga, right? and we have some county executives and all and we have bring those experiences with us. and when -- in your state or your city or your county and trying to plan and fund and permit, contract, roads, highways, writs brits or transit projects, it takes a

long time. and people are watching why do we need a six-year bill, predictability and certainty that money will be will there, it's because they take a long time. it's not uncommon to spend years planning a project. years planning a project. and the problem with -- the senator from tennessee said there were five times we had done stop and go. i think in the last five years there has been 11 times. 11 times we've done stop-and-go funding, we haven't provided the certainty, the predictability that state and local governments are begging for, that transportation authorities are pleading for, the road contractors and folks who little these systems and transit systems, the folks who work on them, labor unions, everybody is pleading with us to do our job. and what we have he we've done, the thousands god bless them, they reported out of the house bill, on a state party-line vote. they reported out a bill that

funds transportation trust fund to allow projects to be built through may 31 of next year. now, some people say that's fine. it's not. it's not six years and it's, frankly, i think senator boxer called it kicking the can down the road. we've done that again and again and again, 11 times in the last five years. there's a good chance next may 31 that we'll say, well, it's too hard to make these tough decisions, how are we going to pay for this stuff? and kick the can down the road again, provide more uncertainty, more unpredicta wilt. it's wasteful, it's foolish. we look impotent and it's not the way for us to do business. what senator boxer, senator corker and i and a number are going to be joining us will call for doing, pretty simple. instead of providing $11 billion for the transportation trust fund from -- i'll call it a bunch of different sources of

revenue, some more equal than others. some of them pretty questionable. but in some cases we're stealing revenues for the next ten years for stuff that has nothing to do with transportation projects and using that money to fund transportation projects for, i don't know, seven, eight, nine, ten months instead of doing what we've done for years, that's a user paid system where those who use our roads, highways, bridges and transit systems pay for them. that's what we ought to be doing. but the problem with -- the problem with -- with what we are -- what the house has suggested that we do is we'll never -- maybe never get back to providing the certainty and predictability we need, continue to drive up cost, and really say to all the folks that are arguing us to do our job, well, we don't have the courage to do it now, maybe we'll have it next year. that would be a huge, huge mistake. i like to think of our nation's economy as a car at the bottom

of a hill, a steep hill. and five years ago, our nation's economy was at the bottom of a steep hill. we literally dropped off a cliff. and we lost, gosh, between july 1 and december 31, 2008 we lost 2.5 million jobs. the first six months of diane we lost 2.5 million jobs. the week that barack obama and joe biden were sworn in we had 628,000 people file for unemployment insurance in one week. 628,000 people in that one week. we know any time that number is over 400,000 people filing for unemployment insurance in a week, we're losing job in the economy. that number stayed over 600,000 for too long but it dropped, down to 500,000, vanely 450,000, 400,000, and a year

or so got under 400,000. that number now is about 300,000. we are adding jobs. we're adding jobs and some would say they're not the kind of jobs we want and need. if you don't have a job, almost any job is better than nothing. some of these jobs are good, pay a fair amount of money. but here's where we were. we were that bottom of a very steep hill five years ago and trying to climb up the hill. and it was slow going and but we kept going. we kept going and we've added jobs. sometimes some months, 50,000, some months 100,000. now we're up to over 250,000 new jobs a month. but we're that car, if you will, we're a car that's climbing that hill and we're making it to the top. we're at the crest of the hill. we're at the crest of the hill. and we have the option, as we look down -- it's downhill now -- as we add more and more jobs every month, we have the option of doing two things.

one, we can mash down on the accelerator, kick it into high gear and kick this economy into high gear, where it needs to go. or we can start tapping on the brakes. start tapping on the brakes, slow things down, introduce uncertainty, lack of predictability. and what we offer i think in our amendment, senator corker and senator boxer and myself and others, what we offer is a better likelihood that we're going to be pushing down on the accelerator next year. we're not going to just put hundreds of thousands of people to work across our country building roads, highways, bridges and transit centers -- systems, but we're actually going to make our transportation system more efficient, which is really in the long haul the most important thing, to move product. whether it's from one coast to the other, north to south or just around the -- around our states, that's the key. how do we do this in a more efficient way? how do we make our economy work

better? so this works on a couple different levels. we have the -- if we -- if we say, well, we're just going to kick the can down the road an and -- into next year and we'll fund these programs until may 31st, i don't know what's going to give us the courage next may 31st to fund a six-year transportation program. as senator corker said, we've we got several people leaving here at the end of this year, they're not running for reelection, they're retiring. and they want to leave here having said, we did this on our watch. it was our job to get this done and we did. and that's exactly why people send us here in the first place, to make those kinds of decisions. i -- this is not something that democrats can do by ourselves. this is not something the republicans can do by themselv themselves. but the thing i'm very proud of, both in committee, is democrats

and republicans voted for -- and finance committee voted for a similar proposal. not quite a majority but a very respectable showing, and we've been working and gaining support literally by the day for -- for what we're trying to do. senator boxer ran through some of the folks and the organizations that are supporting us. a lot of state and local governments. state departments of transportation. folks who build roads, folks who run the transportation -- the road building companies, folks who work and do the actual labor for these projects. the american trucking association, triple-a, you name it. there's a huge bunch of people out there who want us to do our job. they don't want us to wait until some other time. they want to us do it now, and we can do that. we can do that. and we're not here tonight to say that this is how we're going to fund a six-year plan. there's a lot of good ideas and senator boxer ran through some of those. and the idea is to create a situation where we're going to be compelled and will actually figure of all those options and maybe some other ones, how do we

get this done? and the idea of continuing to borrow money -- to borrow money -- over the next 10 years, revenue streams have nothing to do with transportation, nothing to do with transportation, and pretend that that's going to fund our transportation budget for five or six months? that is just a laughingstock. we look so foolish doing that. and it's also highly inefficient, as i said. so i wish i could remember exactly what mark twain once said, senator corker. mr. president, maybe you could help me on this later. but he once said something like this. do the right thing -- he said do the right thing. you'll please your friends and amaze your enemies. something along those lines. for the record, we'll correct it. but please your friends and amaze your -- or confound your enemies. why don't we try that?

why don't we try that for a change? that would be a great way to finish up this year. i have a statement i'd like to offer for the record, mr. president. i want to again thank senator boxer, i want to thank senator corker for joining me in what i think is a noble mission. and i never take anything for granted but i think we're working hard enough, we may surprise some people, and in a good way. the presiding officer: without objection, the statement will be admitted. mr. carper: thank you very much. and with that, i see my friend from texas whose mother was born in wilmington, delaware, one of 17 children, is rising for -- for recognition. i'm pleased to yield back our time. thanks so much. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to discuss the ongoing crisis in venezuela.

with so many crises happening around the globe these days, political turmoil in venezuela has slipped from the headlines and sometimes seems easy to forget. but the situation commands our attention. in venezuela, the protests against oppression go on. with 6,369 recorded rallies this year, the most in over a decade. when hugo cha chavez' death was confirmed 15 months ago, there were hopes that his hand-picked successor, nicholas maduro, would prove more moderate and friendly to the united states. these hopes quickly proved groundless, as maduro doubled down on his predecessor's disastrous socialist economic policies and his close

partnership with castro's cuba, not to mention kamenes' iran. earlier this year, as vens endurevenezuelaendured shortagec goods, from baby formulas to foo caskets, from beginning of life toned and everything inbetween, while an increasingly authoritarian regime trampled their constitutional rights, the people finally took to the streets to protest maduro's corrupt and unjust rule. demanding freedom, they marched peaceably while maduro's cuban-trained militia tried to incite violence. following the wide-ranging protests of february 12, 2014, maduro's regime claimed that opposition leaders were personally responsible for the

violence that maduro's regime had deliberately provoked. six days later, the leader of the voluntad popular party, leopaldo lopez, demonstrated his respect for rule of law when he voluntarily vende surrendered te authorities. he could have stayed in hiding. he could have gone into exile. but he believed that it was only through taking action that change can come to venezuela. here is mr. lopez as he surrendered to the authorities to be thrown in prison. hundreds of thousands of supporters accompanying him to the police van. mr. lopez has been held in the ramilverde military prison ever since.

in early june, a judge ordered him held for trial, which will begin this week. his wife, lilian tintori, is here in washington today to draw attention to his case. she spoke at the national press club powerfully about how she and her children have missed their daddy, have missed leopaldo, while he's been in prison. but they know that their daddy is doing what he must to fight for the men and women of venezuela. maduro's so-called evidence against mr. lopez includes the claim that he was somehow sending secret subliminal messages inciting violence when

he, in fact, explicitly called on his followers to protest peacefully. let me repeat that. mr. lopez explicitly asked his followers to protest peacefully against the oppressive regime of madur ovment anro. and what does maduro say? that apparently mr. lo lopez has the power to subliminally incite violence when his words say, "don't engage in violence." this would be comical and absurd were it not the basis for an indictment that maduro is seeking to lock leopoldo up for 10 years in prison for daring to speak out against oppression. and it's important to understand the trial scheduled this week is no trial in the ordinary term. there will be no jury.

there will be no evidence for the defense. now, not for lack of trying. mr. lopez has denied any opportunity to refute -- mr. lopez is denied any opportunity to refute these bogus charges about his supposed subliminal powers because mr. lopez' defense team asked to submit the testimony of 60 witnesses. the trial court denied all 60, said no witnesses will be allowed for the defense. mr. lopez asked to submit 13 videos. the trial court denied all 13. mr. lopez' defense team asked to submit the testimony of 12 experts. the trial court denied all 12.

so in this so-called trial, which is nothing but a sham, the defense will have no evidence because the trial court has already decided they will allow no evidence in support of someone speaking for freedom, someone speaking for the people. the evidence will be kept out of this show trial. that's not an unusual pattern. dictators, totalitarian regimes from stalin to castro throughout the ages have engaged in the same show trials that they use to brutally silence any who would dare to speak out against them. the undeniable fact is that nicolas maduro has no interest in justice in this case or in the nation of venezuela. the official charges are public

incitement, property damage, and criminal conspiracy. but mr. lopez' real crime is quite simply the exercise of his right provided by article 57 of the constitution of venezuela which states -- quote -- "everyone has the right to express freely his or her thoughts, ideas or opinions orally, in writing or by any other form of expression and to use for such purpose any means of communication and diffusion and no censorship shall be established." that's what the constitution of venezuela says. but nicolas maduro says leopoldo lopez goes to prison and wants him to stay there for 10 years because he spoke out and spoke the truth. mr. lopez freely expressed his

criticism of maduro's failed leadership, and for that he's been unceremoniously thrown into jail and faces a sham trial that could rob his 4-year-old daughter, his 1-year-old son of having a daddy for the next decade. as lilian, his wife, wrote today in "the washington post" -- quote -- "no one should doubt why leopoldo is in prison. venezuelan president nicolas maduro is afraid of him, and he has good reason to be. chavez did not deliver and maduro has not delivered on their promises and they have systematically dismantled our fundamental freedoms -- free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom to vote for candidates of ou our choosing, the most

foundational human rights for advocating for those, lepoldo lopez is in prison. every american should take an interest in mr. lopez' fate. not only is he a good friend to our country, having attended both kenyan college and harvard, but he also advocates the sort of political and economic reforms that would return venezuela to its historic place as a close partner to the united states, a development that would be of great advantage here in our own hemisphere. mr. lopez's case also re-miewngdzs us of the precious freedoms that we enjoy in the united states that can all too quickly be taken away. article 57 should have particular resonance for us, as our right to free speech is

enslinked in the first amendment of -- is sh rhined in the first amendment of our constitution. congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press o. of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a real estate dress of grievances. there is a reason the framers chose this subject for the first amendment and the bill of rights. because upon these rights all of our liberties are built. no freedom is more vital to true democracy than the freedom to worship god according to the dictates of our conscience and the freedom to speak as we choose without government censors. for when these freedoms are restricted, citizens lose their ability to express their opposition to the government.

as venezuela shows us, this process can take place slowly over time, but the eventual result is that a citizen who speaks out is silenced and punished. i have to say, leopoldo lopez's situation is one that has resonance in my family. 57 years ago my father was in a prison in another latin american country, the country of cuba. my dad was 17 when he was imprisoned and tortured in a cuban jail. leopoldo is 43, the very same age i am today. in lee bow leopoldo lopez's cast an isolated case.

in 46 people have been killed. thousands have been detained. and more than 100 are still in prison. his fellow opposition leader, maria corina 13* macharo recently discovered that she, too, had been charged last month with incitement of vcialtion reo the february protest. she had never been informed there was a criminal case against her and now she faces potentially six years in prison as well. maduro's actions are those of a dictator who knows that he is deeply unpopular. that his policies are a dismal failure and that to survive he has to silence the voices of those who oppose him and offer a viable alternative, who oppose him and offer freedom. the people of venezuela showed

in february that they are ready for a change from the long slog into totalitarian socialism that was begun by chavez and is being continued by maduro. now maduro is trying to use a cloud of censorship to isolate venezuelans from each other and from the rest of the world. we should not look the other way. again, from lillian's "washington post" op-ed today, "we need to send a message to the government that it cannot trample the rights of its people with impunity. accordingly, i call on president madure trough release my husband -- to release my husband and the more than 100 pretty well prisoners being held in venezuela. but my actions alone are not enough. my husband needs the support of all countries that stand for

freedom." in this, mr. president, the united states should lead the way. america should speak with a clarion voice, free leopoldo lopez. as the hashtag lee bow lopez, shows the fridge: free leopoldo lopez. the united states should do everything we can to shine the bright light of truth and freedom on this repression by highlighting lee bowl dough lopez's case. president obama should stand up and lead, demanding the freedom of lee bow leopoldo lopez. secretary kerry should stand up and lead. every member of this body should

join together in bipartisan unison demanding the freedom of leopoldo lopez. we should not and cannot let this unjust persecution pass unnoticed but, rather, we should help the people of venezuela choose a different path, a path of freedom, a path of prosperity, and a path of friendship that will return this one-time enemy, the nation of venezuela, to its traditional role of america's partner and friend. mr. president, all of us should join together demanding and working for the freedom of leopoldo lopez. thank you.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent that the quorum call be success spengded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to address the horrific series of events which have occurred in eastern ukraine within the last week. the shooting down of a civilian malaysian airliner and the killing of 298 innocent people is unspeakable tragedy and one that, frankly, speaks out for us to address in terms of the responsibility in this situation in eastern ukraine, there are armed thugs who are in control of the territory where this plane was shot down. they have been armed and financed and inspired by vladimir putin and the russians. that is the grim reality. all signs point to the fact that

putin, the russians, and their supporters in eastern ukraine are responsible for this terrible tragedy, the loss of 298 lives. i was in ukraine a few weeks ago with senator mccain and others, and it was at a time when crimea was about to fall. it was clear then that the ukrainians did not have the capacity to stop this effort by putin to take over territory, and he did. and then that wasn't enough. he had to reach into eastern ukraine for even more territory, stirring up problems, creating havoc, and sadly bloodshed? in the process. bad enough the ukrainian citizens themselves were the victims. but now 298 innocent people on a civilian airliner were shot down over this territory. and as i've said, the evidence points directly to moscow and

its complicity in this horrible event. this is a photo which has been distributed showing pro-russian separatists holding up some of the personal effects of the victims of the malaysia airline flight that were shot down. what is happening there since the crash is also nothing short of horrific. at this moment in time, in virtually every place in the world save perhaps north korea, in virtually any other place in the world, international inspectors would be on the scene determining the cause of that plane's crash and of equal or even greater importance making certain that the recovery effort of the victims of this crash was done by the standards of civilized nations. but the eastern ukrainian separatists, inspired by putin and moscow, have refused to

allow these people in. what we're hearing in reports are horrible, of the corporations of these victims being taken and placed in refrigerator cars on trains.á can you imagine the anguish of the families associated with those victims as they hear this? a loved one shot out of the sky on a civilian airliner apparently because of some folly by eastern ukrainian russian-inspired thugs, and now they cannot even recover the remains of the people that they love, let alone a serious objective investigation about the cause of that crash. it is hard to imagine that vladimir putin could let it reach this point. harder still to imagine that he doesn't own up to his responsibility. and horrifying that we've reached this point where this

terrible tragic scene goes from bad to worse as putin's thugs go through the personal effects of the people who were shot down. there's a list of those who were lost in this, a compilation of victims. and i know the presiding officer being from the state of indiana has a particular attachment to one of the victims. this one, caroline kaiser, student at indiana university from the netherlands. this was well publicized in the midwest that we lost this beautiful young woman who was a victim of this tragic crash. there were more. 297 more who died. they included quinn lukas shanzman, u.s. dutch citizen, born in the u.s. his family moved back to the netherlands when he was young.

he was going to visit his grandfather in indonesia. yoke bankin, a renowned dutch aids researcher traveling to the international aids conference in australia. i mentioned carlean kaiser, a doctoral student at indiana university in bloomington, going on vacation with her boyfriend when this plane was shot down. sister philamine turnman, catholic nunn returning to her school in australia where she taught thousands of students over her 30 year vocation. andre angle, 24, medical student on vacation with his girl. shareets amiara, 84, heading to indonesia to celebrate the end of ramadan.

shanala sholat, flight attendant on the plane. her father told the media this was her dream to be a flight attendant. and this heartbreaking photo of shuba yaya, paul and their wonderful daughter. she was a malaysian actress, her husband a businessman. they were returning to malaysia from holland. these victims of mr. putin's recklessness and their grieving families deserve more than the tragic and revolting actions occurring now in eastern ukraine, and the russian people -- not the leadership, but the people of russia deserve better. the russian people have a proud history of accomplishment in so many different fields. but president putin has created a climate of fear in his country where those who dissent to his

policies will be punished. his use of soviet-style propaganda and intimidation, shutting down independent media and voices and a strong army of other peaceful nations are sadly an insult to the great achievements and legacy of the russian people. i hope mr. putin sees the importance of being a responsible world leader. there is little evidence of it in recent weeks. he can start almost immediately by calling off his shameful proxies that are so disrespecting the victims and their families at this crash site, a site for which they are most certainly responsible. mr. president, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims, to our dutch friends who suffered such an overwhelming loss of life in this crash i want to express our deepest condolences. and to the people of ukraine, baltics, poland and everywhere else facing russian bullying, we

stand with you in your desire for democracy and peaceful relations with the west and russia. i would like to make one closing comment, mr. president. earlier this evening we brought up three nominations to be considered and two passed by voice vote. one of those that passed by voice vote is michael lawson of california for the rank of ambassador during his tenure of service. as representative of the united states of america on the council of international civil aviation organization. the reason i bring that to the attention of the senate is he was considered before the committee last september and reported in march. mr. lawson has been sitting on the calendar. no objection to him. no one had any objection to him. sitting on the calendar because of an objection from the republican side of the aisle. why was his name called today?

because of this tragedy. because this tragedy pointed out the fact that the united states would not have its representatives before this important organization which investigates these airline crashes. it has reached a point in the united states senate where almost 30 ambassadors to organizations and nations are being held on the floor of the senate over and over again until something happens, an upheaval, a tragedy. and then they're brought for a vote. mr. president, the united states of america is a better nation than that. we shouldn't be holding up these fine men and women who are willing to serve our nation in the united states senate. i urge my colleagues to reconsider this approach. let's release these ambassadorial appointments by president obama. for those that are controversial, so be it. let's hold them and debate them. but the vast majority of these are not controversial.

let's give them their chance to serve our nation. mr. president, i at this point -- thank you. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of senate resolution 509 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 509 a resolution honoring the extraordinary and courageous life of mattie pep and stepenek. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that alex rose enberg, an intern on the judiciary committee staff be granted floor

privileges for july 22, 2014. that is a request from senator patrick leahy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, july 22, 2014, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 10:45 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, that at 10:45 a.m. the senate proceed to executive session as provided for under the previous order. further, that following the vote on the nomination, the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. finally that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: at 10:45 a.m. there will be a series of three

cloture votes on the following nominations. andre birotte to be u.s. district judge for the central district of california. robert l. rosenberg, u.s. district judge for the southern district of florida. and john w. diggerfeld. if cloture is invoked on these nominations at twist the senate will proceed to -- at 2:15 p.m. the senate will proceed to voavment if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the