week seems to be the week that if we're going to get anything done to assist the administration with regard to all of these children that are showing up at the border, of which it has diminished over the last few weeks, but nevertheless, there's still been an influx that we all have read about. and, of course, senator mikulski, the chairman of appropriations, has roughly a $2.7 billion supplemental appropriations bill. it would be this senator's intention, and i think i can speak for several other senators, that feel very strongly that we not have addressed the very root cause of the problem, which is that the

drugs in huge shipments on boats coming from south america into those three central american countries, those boatloads of cocaine carle one to three tons of cocaine apiece, have not been interdicted, and it was rifting -- riveting testimony that our four-star marine commander, general kelly of the united states senator command, pointed out that he, his staff, and the joint interagency task force that is headquartered in key west have to watch 75% of those boats coming on the care bean in the east into -- care abean in the east into honduras, guatemala and el salvador and the pacific on the west, they have to catch

75% of them get through, they can't do anything about it because they don't have the navy ships or the coast guard cutters with the helicopters that can interdict them. if we did that, we would diminish a lot of the flow of those drugs. and you wonder why are all the children showing up, well, a number of us have made several speeches about this and i won't go back into all of that. suffice it to say that because the drug lords basically control the countries, and because they and the criminal networks in cahoots have taken over and violence erupts -- remember, honduras is the number one murder capital of the world -- then what is a parent going to do? their child has to join the drug gang or they're going to go to

their child's funeral because they'll kill him if he doesn't, or number three, they're seduced by these coyotes who have this network to get immigrants to the north into texas, and they're telling them, well, you can get in, just send your child, you pay me $1,500, $500 a child, we'll get them in. that's going back to the root cause of the problem if you can stop all the drugs going in, maybe governments like president hernandez of honduras will have a chance of stopping some of the corruption that is so rife in that government in the -- in the local governments and the local police forces. we've gone over and over this before, mr. president, and i just want to say that this

senator and others, particularly senator kaine, who knows this issue well -- he was a missionary when he was in law school, he took a year off from law school, senator kaine of virginia. he lived in honduras. he speaks fluent spanish. he knows this problem as well. and if we could have a greater percentage of those drugs interdicted, then we would seriously start to diminish all of this migration to the north through the rest of central america and through mexico to the texas border. and let me just point out one thing in closing. why are the children not coming from the other three countries right there, belize, nicaragua , panama, costa rica, a fourth country in

central america? the children are not coming from those. they're coming from the three are where all the drugs are. and where the drug lords have taken over. i hope the senate will react with rationality, and as difficult as it's going to be to pass a supplemental appropriations bill down at the other end of this hall, in the house of representatives, putting money in there to activate coast guard cutters -- they got a number of them out in san diego that are just inactivated. activate them, and giving the united states navy the ability to reposition ships, it might actually help us pass this supplemental appropriations bill down there at the other end of the hallway in the house of representatives.

so we've got just a few days to do this. i'm hoping that we're going to be able to. now, mr. president, i came over here for a different reason, to tell you about chinese drywall. you can't see it, this is -- this is a normal piece of drywall. it's cut off here. it's very faint on here that you can see the markings that this is from china. this photograph doesn't tell us much, but let me tell you what chinese drywall has done to the people of this country, making them unable to live in their houses because there is some kind of sulfuric content in this chinese drywall that emits a gas that for the occupy ants of --

occupants of a house like this, they get sick -- i can tell you what it smells like. it smells like rotten eggs. and if you can stand the smell, i have such a sensitive air passages that when i walked in, all of a sudden my eyes were watering, my nose was stopping up, i was starting to cough, and that was just a few minutes in a house with chinese drywall where you can imagine what if somebody that can't sell their house because the mortgage company couldn't wouldn't -- won't cooperate, they're stuck, they can't sell their house because who's going to buy a house with defective chinese drywall? they can't get a loan for their

house because -- and what happens if back at the severe time, in the 2004-2005 time frame, and then they got hit with a big recession coming in 2007 and 2008, what happened if they didn't have a job and they were stuck with the house. and everybody was getting sick in the house. well, the chinese government has had continued and repeated failure to partnership in the legal process of this country to help the homeowners who were severely impacted by this problem, chinese drywall. all right, here's how it started, mr. president.

we had a few hurricanes in 2004, 2005. the big one that everybody remembers is katrina in 2005 but there was one year before katrina, four hurricanes hit the florida peninsula, all within the span of a month and a half. and therefore, there was a lot of cleanup and a lot of rebuilding because of the damage than the hurricanes had done. normal drywall manufacturers and distributors and suppliers, they ran out. so they asked for extra drywall coming from china. it's coming from a chinese company, but it's basically owned by the chinese government. and so we had a housing boom to

recover from the hurricanes, and as a result, you had in the gulf coast area these rebuilding efforts to recover, and a number of builders and contractors imported this defective and sickly drywall. and it started causing problems the minute people walked into that repaired home. they reported that it smells like sulfur, rotten eggs. they would have metal corrosion. let me show you this. this is an air conditioner. now, this photograph doesn't do it justice, but these are all the coils on an air conditioner. and on close inspection, you

can see that every one of these coils, these metal parts, are corroded. i went into a home that had their silverware. mr. president, the silverware was totally corroded. any metal parts in the house were totally corroded, and people started reporting the health effects. and following all these reports, several federal agencies, including the consumer product safety commission, the environmental protection agency, the department of housing and urban development, they started looking into the problem. now, i must say that there were a number of senators that had to start kicking the door down to get them to pay attention. this senator from a state that was severely affected was one of

them, and the senator that sits right there after she had all the problems of hurricane katrina, the senator from louisiana, senator landrieu, she started raising cain. and they found that this sulfur emission from this defective drywall was causing the corrosion and the property damage as well as the health effects. but these agencies, once they did that -- and i must say, we had to urge and urge and urge the agencies. but they weren't able to offer any kind of financial assistance, and i laid out in my opening comments what was a homeowner to do? they couldn't get the bank to go along, they couldn't get the

insurance company to go along. by the way, the insurance company said we're not covering this as a defect in the house. so the homeowners didn't have any other recourse than to go in a lawsuit against the responsible chinese parties. now, much of this litigation was consolidated in federal district court in new orleans in a multidistrict litigation, and after an extensive period of discovery that the judge ordered , it was determined that two chinese manufacturers and their affiliates were responsible for most of the drywall. canalf plaster board tangen and

its associated affiliates, nalf industries, and they were a german company that imported and distributed this drywall. and the other one was thaishon gypsum company and its affiliates. and the nalf entities agreed to appear in court on this litigation and reached a global settlement that allowed many of the homeowners with nalf drywall to remediate their homes, get the plasterboard torn out, they often had to redo anything that was metal like the metal pipes, the air conditioners and so forth, and be able to get on with their lives. but, mr. president, thaishon,

it's refused to partnership in the the multidistrict litigation. and this is ski de-spite the fact that several of the plaintiffs in this litigation served thaishon officials in china. mr. president, this senator wept to china and talked to their equivalent of our consumer product safety commission early on, i talked to them, and in essence they blew me off. well, they served them a legal process in the lawsuit under an international agreement called the hague convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters. it's the hague convention, and of which the united states and china are both signatories.

but taishon thumbed its nose at everybody. it failed to appear in court in cases where they had been properly served in the hague convention. the judge in this litigation then entered default judgments against taishon for damages resulting from the defective dry wall. but listen to this -- rather than pay these claims under court order, taishon then retained counsel. they had refuseed to do anything up to that point. they then when they were docked by the judge, they retained counsel in the u.s. for the sole purpose of contesting the district court's jurisdiction and they appealed the case to the court of appeals.

but in january of this year, a three-judge panel for the fifth circuit unanimously upheld that the u.s. courts had proper jurisdiction over taishan and could enforce the default judgment. and then taishan let the time limit to file an appeal with the supreme court expire. and you would have thought that this would have spurred this chinese company and its affiliates to do the right thing and finally reach a splment, but unfortunately they -- reach a settlement, but unfortunately they thumbed their nose again. instead, taishan told the district court federal judge that it was walking away and would no longer make any appearances in the court. well, there is a judge down

there in new orleans named judge fallon, and needless to say that didn't go over too well with him. and so in july, earlier this month, the judge, judge fallon, issued an order holding taishan in both civil and criminal contempt. he enjoined taishan or any of its affiliates from conducting wisconsin in the united states until it participates in the judicial process. and he also took the unusual step that he wanted everybody in the u.s. government to understand the gravity of his order, he sent the contempt order to the u.s. attorney general, the secretary of state, members of congress to express his frustration on how taishan was and therefore the chinese

government was flouting international and u.s. law. and of course i'm very grateful to judge fallon that he has taken this action to ensure that this rogue company and its rogue government are prohibited from conducting any business in the united states until they participate in this judicial process and take responsibility. now, we can't issue that against the chinese government. it's against this company and its affiliates, but make no mistake -- this company is owned by the chinese government. so what does this say about our policy of letting chinese manufacturers import pretty much any kind of consumer product that they want into this country without mandating any legal recourse if something goes wrong? we thought we had this in the

hague convention. well, the fact that chinese companies routinely ignore service of process under ratified international conventions. mr. president, the reason for this speech is to call on taishan and the chinese government to do the right thing -- stop hiding and finally help the homeowners who have had their lives turned upside-down at great financial and personal health loss by your defective product. and if they don't, then, mr. president, i think it's time for the u.s. senate to take action to make sure that the chinese and other foreign manufacturers are held financially accountable for defective products.

now, mr. president, as i chose, i just want to reiterate why is this case so important? certainly, my constituents are aggrieved, senator landrieu's, a number of the constituents in the commonwealth of virginia are aggrieved that bought this defective dry wall as well, but why is this case so important? its implications are far broader than the issues presented in this litigation. it poses a defining moment for the chinese government and its companies raising grave questions as to the risk of doing business with the chinese. and so will the chinese government and its companies honor their moral and legal obligations under this or any

other commercial contract? will the chinese government and its companies who have profited from the sale of defective products to consumers here in the u.s., will this continue to flee court jurisdiction when sued or will they honor moral and legal obligations to appear in court, defend themselves and satisfy an adverse judgment? and if the chinese government and its companies will flee jurisdiction in this case when they fear or they are faced with an adverse judgment, can any company, can any individual, can any party afford the risk of doing business with the chinese government or its companies?

mr. president, if china will run from the law here in the u.s., won't it run from the law everywhere else? mr. president, i rest my case and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, we are entering a momentous week as congress must face the reality that president obama is moving towards a decision whereby he would issue executive orders in direct contravention of long-established american law that would grant administrative amnesty and work permits to five million to six million persons that are unlawfully in this country. this after congress has explicitly refused demands to change the law to suit his desire. current law is plain. those who enter this great nation by unlawful means or overstaying their visa are subject to removal and are ineligible to work. indeed, i would just read this one portion of the immigration and naturalization act, section 274 making employment of

unauthorized aliens unlawful. in general, it is unlawful for any person or other entity to hire or to recruit or refer for a fee for employment in the united states an alien, knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien. so that's the law of the united states. it's plain, those who enter by unlawful entry are subject to removal and ineligible to work. so that's just one of the provisions, and it is our law. our law is right and it's just and it comports with the laws of civilized nations the world over and if followed will serve the honorable and legitimate interests of this nation and her people. now "the" the national journal," "time" magazine and others are pointing that president obama

and by implication the american people plans by the end of summer by the stroke of a pen to do that which the law expressly forbids -- provide amnesty and work permits for millions. this would be in contravention of his duty and his oath to see that the laws of the united states are faithfully enforced, and it would be a direct challenge to the clear powers of congress to make laws. congress makes laws. executive branch executes those laws. it's that simple. so the president's actions are astonishing and are taking our nation into exceedingly dangerous waters, colleagues. such calculated action strains the constitutional structure of our public. such unlawful and unconstitutional action, if taken, cannot stand. no congress, republican or

democrat, in the majority can allow such action to occur or to be maintained. the people will not stand for it. they must not stand for it. so my petition, mr. president, is that you pull back. it is utterly unacceptable for you to meet with special interest groups, la raza and other passionate advocates, and then promise advocates to them that is contrary to law. mr. president, such actions would be wrong. it would be an affront to the people of this country which they will never forget. it would be a permanent stain on your presidency. i urge you to make clear that you will not do this. now, i'm not suggesting negotiations or any parlay or any compromise. there is no middle ground on nullifying immigration law by the president. some of your people may be --

maybe bright young staffers think the president can intimidate congress, that the chief executive can make such a threat and the lawmakers will just cower under their desks. that is wrong, sir. you cannot intimidate congress or the american people whose symptoms here. simply put, that which you desire is beyond your lawful reach. this is the time for administrative -- administration officials to urge restraint within the white house. it's critical that the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security, the white house legal counsel do their duty and give the only advice they can give -- do not do this, mr. president. you cannot do this, mr. president. that's what they need to say. they know that's the right answer, and they should stand up and say no. some of the best work such

advisors can do is to head off a disaster before it happens. c.e.o.'s, business types, politicians, governors, mayors sometimes get headstrong, and they need to avoid disaster, and their advisors need to stand up and be counted. just as the unlawful daca amnesty for young people created an unprecedented, unlawful flow of more young people, that initiative has now, it seems, encouraged the president to take even more unlawful actions. for millions of adults this time. a 10-fold increase, the papers say, and if millions are given amnesty by executive order, we can be sure that the result will be even more millions of adults in the future coming unlawfully. it will collapse any remaining moral authority of our

immigration law, undermine the sovereignty, really, of our nation. if you don't have a legitimate, lawful system of immigration that you can enforce and abide by, then you have undermined the very sovereignty of your nation. it amounts, in effect, what they're suggesting, an open borders policy that has never been the policy of any developed nation that i'm aware of and has been rejected by congress and the american people repeatedly. in effect, the president is preparing to assume for himself the absolute power to set immigration law in america. we'll, i'll just enforce what i wish to enforce. the absolute power to determine who may enter and who may work, no matter what the law says, by the millions. our response now is of great import. it will define the scope of

executive and congressional powers for years to come. if president obama is not stopped in this action and he exceeds his powers by attempting to execute such a massive amnesty contrary to law, the moral authority for any immigration enforcement henceforth will be eviscerated. anyone the world over will get the message. get into america by any method you can, and you will never have to leave. we're almost there. but it's not too late. i've studied this issue. it is absolutely not too late for us to restore a lawful system that treats applicants who come to america fairly and serves the national interest. this can be done. we just need a chief executive who leads. well, let me state a warning for the more purely political in

washington. the results of recent primary elections show that the american people are being roused to action, and once activated their power will be felt. they will not be mocked. they have begged and pleaded for our nation's immigration law to be enforced for 30 or 40 years. the politicians have refused, refused, refused, refused. they defeated amnesty after amnesty after amnesty, and they will not sit back and allow the president to implement through unlawful fiat what they have defeated through the democratic process. they must not yield to this. so there's one thing that powers in washington fear. that is being voted out of office. for -- before a member of congress acquiesces to any action of this kind they should consider their responsibility to

their constituents. no member in either party, republican or democrat, should support any border legislation that moves through this senate that does not expressly prohibit these planned executive actions by the president and that prohibits any expenditure of funds to implement them. there can be no retreat on this point, colleagues. we simply need to say the chief executive of this united states cannot expend any money to execute a plan of amnesty. surely that would end it. so all of this is grim talk, but the situation is stark. congressional action this week to bar unilateral imperial action by the president is surely the best course to head off what could be a constitutional crisis.

it will be good for the president really because it will stop him from taking a step that will mar permanently his presidency and the office of the president. it will avoid a major governmental disruption at a time the nation faces many threats. it will protect the rule of law and the constitutional order whereby congress makes laws and the president executes them, whether he likes them or not. and you have heard it said well the president must act because congress refuses to act. congress considered his proposal. they looked at existing law today, and congress made a decision. it did not pass what the president proposed t. decided to stay with the current law. so i would say that is a decision and a clear action by congress. and it's not correct in his statement that congress doesn't

act. therefore, i can use my pen to act, is absolutely false and contrary to our constitutional traditions. pulling back at this time will avoid a major governmental disruption at a time when we are facing threats all over the world, as much instability. and someone said the wheels seem to be coming off in every area of the globe and at home. the last they think we need is a major, intense internal battle with the president over illegal actions that he'd like to take. well, he will also protect the rule of law and the constitutional order. to pass such a legislation, it will help reestablish the constitutional power of congress to make laws and perhaps mark the end of this congress's acquiescence to executive

overreach. prefers jonathan turley has expressed amazement that congress has been silent in the face of some of the most imperial presidential actions ever, and he explicitly considers president obama's actions on immigration to be one of those. but there are a host of others. and it will stop millions of work authorizations for those who would then be able to take any job in america at a time of high unemployment, falling wages. and, thereby, it would protect american workers. we have the highest -- the largest percentage of americans in the working ages that are unemployed since 1970's. and a lot of job numbers you see and are excited with such positive spin, you have to know

have unprecedented numbers of individuals on part-time work. these are not full-time jobs, many of them. an unprecedently high number of those jobs are part-time jobs. we're not doing well. this country does not have a shortage of labor. it just does not. it has a shortage of jobs. in recent immigrants, hispanics and others who come to america are having a hard time getting jobs too. will it help them have millions more competing for the limited jobs that are out there? would it help poor working people all over america? would it help african-americans? the experts tell us absolutely not. in fact, the congressional budget office has told us that if this kind of mass amnesty were to be adopted, wages in america would fall for a decade. so let this clearly be known, the congress of the united states and the president of the

united states are given only limited powers by our constitution. they are not unlimited. neither the president nor congress can do anything it wants to do. it was set up that way from the very beginning. mr. president, you work for the american people. they don't work for you. and they will not accept nullification of their law passed by their elected representatives. the american people are not going to accept it. they're going to fight this. i am confident that they will. they will resist. and every member of this congress, republican or democrat, will place a time of choosing this week directly or indetectively. every member -- directly or indirectly. every member would be asked to support and stop this legislation that would be asked by the president. it's not hard to do. it will be a simple choice and

people will remember. the choice is clear. do you support and approve the president's proposed actions? for those who cosponsored legislation to stop this illegality, their answer will be clear. for those who refuse to take simple action to stop it, they will have voted to enable what the national journal has rightly called explosive action by the president. explosive action. and indeed it is, because this immigration debate is important, people have invested time and energy and heart and soul into it on both sides. good people have debated it. congress has made a decision. the president is not now entitled unilaterally to assert his position. he submitted it to congress. indeed, he told some of these activist groups not long ago, he did not have the power to do what they were asking him to do.

now he's suggesting he is before the end of the summer. so i'm calling on all members of congress today to stand up to these lawless action and sponsor legislation that will block him. i'm calling on all members of congress today to oppose any border supplemental that does not include such language. i'm calling on every person in this body and in this house, and in the house of representatives to stand and be counted at this perilous hour. he think it is a peril louse hour. i don't think i've seen a situation in which the president weeks in advance has announced is going to take action that clearly violates law. i've just never seen it in my experience to happen. so i'm calling on the american people. ask their representatives where do you stand on this, senator? where do you stand on this,

congressman? all of us were elected by american citizens to serve them and to serve and honor their constitution. that is our birthright. will we answer that call? where will h -- history record each of us stood at this important time? i believe the answer should be clear. we stand for law, we stand for constitution, we stand for an honorable, lawful immigration system that treats everyone fairly and serves the national interest of the people of the united states. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. president whitehouse: mr. president, presuming we are in a quorum call, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i'm here because in the next week it looks like we're going to vote on a house house bill -- house-passed bill to prevent an impending highway

trust fund gap. now, we must pass this bill to avoid funding disruptions and to avoid all the job losses that would follow from funding disruptions, all of which could begin literally in weeks if we don't pass this bill. but i have to say the house highway bill is woefully inadequate. it is a frankly pathetic measure. it fails at virtually every measure, most particularly failing to provide the leadership and the certainty that all of our states need so badly as they seek to implement their highway programs. the only positive thing that can not said about this bill is that it's better than no bill at all, and a collapse of the highway fund. but that's not much of a commendation.

the american society of civil engineers gives america's roads a letter grade of d, and our bridges only a c plus. in my state of rhode island, we've been around a long time. we were one of the founding colonies. we have a lot of old roads, a lot of old infrastructure, a lot of stuff that dates a long way back. and our infrastructure for that reason is among the worst in the nation with 41% of our roads in poor condition, 57% of our bridges rated deficient or obsolete. last friday i visited one of our bridges, the great island bridge in narragansett, rhode island. this bridge is the sole access to an island community of 350 homes. it has been rated functionally obsolete, and it must be replaced. if that bridge fails, the island's residents have no way

to get to or from their homes. so i will vote for this house bill to avoid that kind of catastrophe, but we are wasting an opportunity to do more, to do a responsible highway bill. we actually have a pretty good model. the senate environment and public works committee on which i serve actually passed a bipartisan, multiyear infrastructure investment plan. that's what we need. six-year bill is what e.p.w. passed and that's the kind of certainty that our highway departments need so they can sign contracts for long-term projects. well, sadly, the republicans in the house couldn't manage that. the housed-passed bill will extend the authorization for a

mere eight months. the e.p.w. bill, the six-year bill, written by chairman boxer and ranking member vitter in bipartisan fashion, would reauthorize our nation's highway programs for six years, through 2020. our committee has done its part to move a six-year bill in the regular order, in bipartisan fashion. the house once again has failed. states need budget certainty to plan multiyear construction projects. that should be obvious enough even for the house to understand. to the millions of americans who depend on federal highway funding, either directly or indirectly, for their paychecks, for their livelihoods, this paltry eight-month extension says to them and their families, you've got work, until next may.

that's not what these workers need and that's not what our 50 states need. they need long-term certainty, and this bill fails them. i plan to support the carper-corker-boxer amendment which would force that debate this year so we do not go home at the end of this congress without having passed a serious highway bill. there's no reason the american people should have to wait until 2015 for the certainty and security of a long-term highway bill. plus, no guarantee that we'll do it even in 2015. if the house can't do a long-term bill now, what makes them think they can do a long-term bill later? so let's roll up our sleeves and pass a long-term highway bill this year. the house bill also fails to provide any real solution to highway bill funding, to the

widening revenue gap in the highway trust fund. the federal gas tax as 18.4 cents per gallon, is not indexed to inflation and congress hasn't touched it in 20 years. so it should be no surprise that it's no longer providing the revenue support that it used to. plus, thankfully, cars get more fuel efficient, which is great for drivers, lowers their fuel expense, but it lowers highway revenues further. the house bill completely ignores that larger problem of how we pay for our highways in favor of a short-term funding patch with gimmicky one-time budget offsets that have nothing to do with highway use. we had the united states chamber

of commerce in the environment and public works committee saying sure, raise the highway tax a little bit. let's get the infrastructure that this country needs built. but, mr. president, instead of crafting a responsible long-term highway plan, the house republicans are running scared from tea party groups. tea party groups that don't think the federal government should invest in infrastructure at all. the club for growth, so-called, went so far last week as to say that the highway trust fund -- and i'm quoting them here -- "shouldn't even exist." funny how republican presidents eisenhower, nixon, reagan, ford, bush, and bush all managed to accept the idea of a federal highway system, not thinking that there was anything

unusual or improper about that. well, today's far right extremists have gone way beyond them and they've gone way beyond the american people. the american people overwhelmingly support federal infrastructure investments. according to a recent poll commissioned by the american automobile association, more than two-thirds of americans believe the federal government should invest more in roads, bridges, and mass transit systems. we may as americans have differing views on many issues, but when it comes to investing in the roads and bridges we all use, there is unsurprisingly, broad agreement. except, of course, at the far right fringe where people hate the government so much that they want the rest of us to drive on

bad roads and obsolete bridges. but that kind of extreme ideology hits americans in the pocketbook. rhode islanders, for example, pay an estimated $467 extra each year for car repairs due to bad roads and potholes. so if you're really looking out for the ordinary american, if you're looking out for the ordinary american consumer, if you're really looking out for the ordinary american consumer's pocketbook, you will invest more in infrastructure so that our cars aren't being banged up and beaten up on bad roads, obsolete bridges and unfilled potholes. so i am going to hold my nose and vote for this house-passed bill because at this point the only alternative is a shutdown of the highway program.

but let's be clear, this bill is a joke that does nothing on long-term investments in our infrastructure, nothing on a sustainable way to pay for them. we should not procrastinate until next may. we should start right now by building off of the bipartisan six-year bill the environment and public works committee passed to give our constituents the infrastructure investments they are counting on us for. i thank the chair and i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: madam president, i come to the floor today to talk about jobs, about manufacturing jobs in particular. as we here in the senate get ready to leave washington and return home to our states for august, it's become popular in the media to say our legislative work is done, that it's mostly about campaigning. from here on out, for the weeks, the months left until the election in november. after all, we hear reported this is a body so divided, so driven by gridlock and partisanship, we haven't gotten a lot done, and the prospect for getting more done is even less. but though i've certainly been frustrated by the pace of progress at times, madam president, this story not only gets a lot of things wrong, it's counterproductive and at times even self-fulfilling.

let me start with the fact that we can and we have gotten important things done together for manufacturing and for our economy and for our states as a whole. last year 26 of my democratic colleagues, including the presiding officer, joined an initiative called manufacturing jobs for merg, or m.j.a., the goal of manufacturing jobs for america has been simple. to put together a collection of our best ideas, our best ideas to spur manufacturing job creation, to work with republicans to find common ground and to get these bills passed. we're focusing on manufacturing as a group of senators because it's the foundation of our economy. it's the foundation of the pathway towards a middle class. manufacturing jobs pay more in benefits and contribute more to the local economy than any other sector, fueling growth in other

sectors. manufacturing is also incredibly innovative. manufacturers invest the most in research and development of any industrial sector. so we focused on four different broad areas in the m.j.a. initiative: training a 21st century workforce. expanding access to capital for businesses looking to expand, invest and grow, leveling the global trade playing field, and opening markets abroad. and focusing our government on a national manufacturing strategy. these are the four main areas of focus for manufacturing jobs for america. and together we've introduced over 30 bills, nearly half of which are now bipartisan bills with republicans joining us in advancing these ideas. and together we've made real progress in moving the ball forward. already five of these bills have passed out of committee, three of them would take further steps to give start-ups and small businesses access to the research and development tax credit. they came out of the finance

committee. several others, two others, passed as part of a single package to create a national manufacturing strategy and improve stem education in our high schools and colleges that came out of the commerce committee. there is no reason, madam president, that working together we can't get these bipartisan bills pass the full senate before the end of this congress. this isn't just wishful thinking. we've already seen seven provisions from manufacturing jobs for america bills enacted into law as well. in last year's defense authorization act, we included an m.j.a. that streamlines regulations and makes it easier for small businesses to do work with the federal government. recently as a result of our work to ensure innovative small businesses and start-ups can access the research and development tax credit, the administration took executive action to implement another m.j.a. provision. and just last week the house and senate came together to pass the broad bipartisan workforce

innovation and opportunity act to reform and streamline our nation's job training programs, a bill that ultimately included five separate m.j.a. provisions within it and a bill that's now been signed into law by our president. now the workforce innovation and opportunity act was really years in the making, and its success is in no small part due to the relentless efforts of my colleagues, senators murray and eye sock son, democrat -- isaac son who have worked for years fo get this over the finish line. their success in crafting this bill and building bipartisan support for it is a lesson for all of us and it is a large example of what we've tried to do bit by bit for other manufacturing bills. to me, it's really about determination. we've shown that it's possible to get things done if we relentlessly see common ground, if we engage outside groups, if we strengthen the quality of the ideas and if we build bipartisan paths towards success.

one of our country's biggest challenges is the rapid pace of change in our globally interconnected economy. the middle-class jobs of today and tomorrow require higher skill levels than ever before as the economy continues to evolve. america needs a system that emphasizes life long learning, learning on the job, constant adjustment. this is a challenge that members of both parties are well aware of and are dedicated to stepping up and meeting. and that's what the workforce innovation and opportunity act is really all about. to put it in some context, by 2021, we're projected to have 11 million fewer workers with postsecondary educations than our economy will need. but the wioa, by consolidating 15 outdated or redundant federal job training programs, by creating new board accountability standards, and by giving cities and states the flexibility to meet their economy's unique local needs,

the workforce innovation and opportunity act will help us make up that shortfall. i was at the bill signing last week at the white house along with the senators who i cited who really led the charge on this, and it was uplifting to see the positive impact that came out of uniting in such a broadly bipartisan way on such an important issue as jobs skills for the modern manufacturing workforce for america. on a week when congress came together to improve our investment in america's workers, vice president biden also released a critical report that had great contributions from the secretaries of commerce and of education and of labor. a critical report that details a number of other steps the administration is taking as a complement to that new law, the workforce innovation and opportunity act, to equip our workers for the 21st century economy. now as we get ready this week to return to our home states and to hear from our constituents in august, there is no reason to

stop legislating this week and when we return in september. that's why i'm going ahead with introducing another bill as part of manufacturing jobs for america, a bill called the manufacturing universities act of 2014. this bill will take on a simple but important challenge. because today's manufacturing jobs require higher skill levels than ever, higher skill levels than yesterday's assembly line jobs, so our schools and in particular our universities need to be equipping students with those skills. and since innovation, research and development keeps leading to new materials and new technologies that are critical to keeping american manufacturing at the cutting edge of the global economy, we also need to connect our universities with our manufacturers. the manufacturing universities bill would create a competitive grant program that would ultimately designate 25 american -- that would ultimately designate 25 american

universities as manufacturing universities. the competition would incentivize schools to build engineering programs that are targeted, that are focused on 21st century manufacturing and the skills our workers need to thrive. this would allow the cycle of innovation that can begin in the laboratory, that can mature in a factory and that can produce more competitive products at the market to be fully harnessed around the challenge of meeting the 21st manufacturing environment. that would build on important work that's already being done to link universities all the way through to the shop floor but where we're not doing as much as we can and should with federal grant funds that go to universities for research to make them relevant and to make them current and to make them competitive. for example, in my home state of delaware, this bill, if enacted into law, could help the university of delaware bolster its work with the private sector, focus its work with the delaware manufacturing extension partnership, focus the partnership between delaware

technical and community college, delaware state university, and our manufacturing community in delaware to ensure that manufacturing becomes a larger part of the university of delaware's engineering curriculum and the training and research and outreach conducted by del state and del tech. the competitive challenges of the 21st century are big but we have every reason to be united around meeting them. manufacturing jobs for america bills like the manufacturing universities act takes simple steps to invest in america's workers so they can drive our innovation and growth today and tomorrow and take simple steps to make sure that we are being as competitive as possible, that we are growing the best jobs possible for our home states and for our whole country. let's come together on this in a bipartisan way. let's build on the success we've already seen across the different skills initiatives i discussed. just because elections are coming up this fall doesn't mean

we can't continue to get behind great ideas, whether democrat or republican, whether from the house or senate to move our nation forward and to create great jobs for all our states and all our communities. thank you. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: last week i explained why i oppose the nomination of pamela harris to the fourth circuit. i'd like to raise several other aspects of her record today that i find troubling. but before i address the specifics of this nominee, i need to place this nomination in context. last november when the distinguished majority leader decided to toss aside an

institution almost as old as the senate itself, he claimed that breaking the rules was necessary because of the imminent crisis in the d.c. circuit. not a judicial emergency. the numbers made it plain that there was no judicial emergency. but a crisis that required radical action. and that was after we had already confirmed the president's first nominee to the d.c. circuit by a unanimous vote of 97-0. as i said, in november there was no crisis. according to the administrative office of the u.s. courts, as of september 2013, the d.c. circuit had 149 pending appeals for each active judge, by far the lightest caseload of any of the

nation's 13 circuit courts of appeals. and the number of cases filed in that circuit decreased by almost 5% during the year 2013. so the only crisis that the distinguished majority leader was responding to was one that he and the obama white house had manufactured. instead, in an exercise of raw political power, he decided to stack the d.c. circuit by ramming through three of the president's nominees simultaneously. it turns out that the crisis was just an excuse for a political power grab, plain and simple. and everyone knew it. despite the denials from the other side, all the signs were there for anyone and anybody who cared to see those signs.

in may of last year, the distinguished majority leader said that the d.c. circuit was -- quote -- "wreaking havoc with the country" and that he was going to do something about it -- end of quote. i'm not going to recount how many of my democrat colleagues repeatedly blocked president bush's nominees to that court when they were in the minority. those were and remain nominees of the highest quality who deserved a vote but never got such a vote. suffice it to say then that during the bush administration when the parliamentary shoe was on the other foot, the distinguished democrat leader claimed that the filibuster was a sacred institution. times surely have changed. so now after the other side has succeeded in stacking the d.c.

circuit, democrat appointees outnumber republican appointees by a 7-4 majority among active judges. the distinguished majority leader wasn't going to leave anything to fortune, and he rammed those three nominees through. i'm recounting how the majority leader took the senate nuclear because it all came to another head last week. you see, on tuesday the three-judge panel of the d.c. circuit deciding the cas decidig case. the d.c. circuit panel got it

right. as the panel held, the text of the affordable care act states on its face that tax credits are available only to individuals -- individuals who purchase their insurance plans through an exchange established by a state. so the i.r.s. can't make the tax credits available, as the law clearly says, to those who bought plans through the federal exchange. and you don't have to take my word for it. putting aside the ample evidence mussemustered by the d.c. circut opinion, as early as 2009, the former democrat chair of our finance committee suggested that tax credits were aimed to cover only state exchanges. additionally, economist jonathan gruber, one of the key architects of obamacare, has been very clear on this

question. according to "the new york times," mr. gruber's role in designing obamacare was so crucial that -- quote -- "the white house lent him to capitol hill to help congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation." end of quote. so what did the administration's own expert economists have to say about the availability of tax credits under obamacare? here's his quote from 201 explaininexplaining -- from 2012 explaining how credit credits. a long quote but let me quote. "i think what's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't see -- set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits.

but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill, so you're essentially saying to your citizens, you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. i hope that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize that there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges and that they will do it. but, you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this." end of quote. well, mr. gruber is right. the politics have gotten very ugly around this. after the panel ruled against h.h.s. secretary in halbig last week, it only took the administration about an hour to announce that it would seek review by the full d.c. circuit.

and that's where the majority's power grab is paying off. you see, breaking the senate's longstanding rules and stacking the d.c. circuit was a premeditated political calculation from the very beginning. and so last week when asked whether his decision to stack the courts was vindicated by the halbig decision, the distinguished majority leader told the press -- quote -- "i think if you look at simple math, it does. simple math, you bet." end of quote. simple math was the other side's calculation. the simple math of stacking the d.c. circuit with left-wing judges who will do in a court what the president and the other side have been unable to do through the legislative process.

it's what they've been unable to do through the proper channels of government designated by the constitution to resolve these issues through the congress. but the president has been complaining for years that he can't accomplish his legislative agenda that way, so he went looking for alternatives to that constitutional process where the constitution says that the legislative branch so legislate and the constitution says that the executive brafnlg should only execute. faithfully executing the laws is not something this president concerns himself with. by now everybody has heard the president's boast about his pen and his phone. as of july 18 this year, the president wielding that pen and dialing that phone has

unconstitutionally amended obamacare by executive or administrative fiat a grand total of 24 times, and that could be a very conservative estimate of everything he's done. the president's unilateral executive actions were not minor. they unconstitutional altered basic aspects of the law's design and operation, things as fundamental as delaying the individual mandate, ordering the i.r.s. to make subsidies available through federal exchanges in direct contravention of the law, extending noncompliant plans, delaying the employer mandate not once but twice, and exempting unions from reinsurance fees which will create costs that will be passed on to consumers who aren't fortunate enough to be employed

by the president's political allies. all of these and more in violation of the law. by his own admission, the president has used these aggressive and lawless tactics because he can't prevail in the legislative process. but time has shown that executive action has been insufficient to realize a failed legislative agenda. so the president turned to the courts to do what he couldn't otherwise do legislatively, what he couldn't do within constitutional constraints, because it's all about just simple math. well, that's not the way the constitution works. high school students know otherwise. the president isn't entitled to

a rubber stamp from a congress on unpopular legislation, and he's not entitled to stack the courts with radically liberal judges when his political initiatives fail legislatively. so i want the other side to remember this when they inevitably, under just the politics -- the way politics works, find themselves in the minority once again. i want them t them to remember w realities of the so-called simple math that they resorted to in order to accomplish legislative projects through judicial proxies instead of through the democratic process. the d.c. circuit wasn't the only appeals court to rule on the obamacare subsidies issued last week, and that brings me back to professor harris' nomination

that we will be voting on today. the first -- fourth circuit has ruled but in contrast to the d.c. circuit it upheld the administration's subsidies regime in a case called the king case, and that's where this nominee comes in. as i explained to my colleagues last we, the timing of the -- last week, the timing of the vote on this nomination is not coincidence. professor harris is being fast-tracked to the fourth circuit just in time for another en banc appeal, should one materialize. the professor, one of the president's most stridently liberal nominees to date, is jumping ahead of other circuit nominees on the executive calendar. now, why? for one simple reason: the administration is betting on

more simple math to defend obamacare in the fourth circuit. just like they're betting on simple math to save them in the d.c. circuit. my colleagues need to face facts. professor harris is a rock-solid vote for saving obamacare's unlawful subsidy regime, which many commentators have described as the economic linchpin of the entire law. all we need to do is look at the nominee's record, which shows time and again how this nominee confuses politics with the law. for years prior to her confirmation hearing, she advocated a legal philosophy in which left-wing politics actively guides and actively shapes judicial decision making. she's explained in detail that

she believes the constitution is made and remade over and over again by political movements at the so-called constitutionally critical junctures. so we even need to ask -- so do we even need to ask whether professor harris thinks that passage of obamacare was one such critical juncture and that the law is worth preserving at all costs? the question answers itself. just look at professor harris' record. before my colleagues vote, i want them to have a clear picture of what this nominee stands for, so i'm going to mention a few truly remarkable positions she's taken in addition to the many i discussed with my colleagues last week. professor harris is on record that extra legal considerations

should influence how a judge rules. she -- but she also expressed her belief that the personal characteristics of the judge should matter as well. i think it's fair to say that she is acutely concerned with the personal characteristics of the judge. in 2010, she even told "the los angeles times" that the president should consider a judicial nominee's religious beliefs when filling supreme court vacancies, even though our constitution says there can be no religious test for any office. she said -- quote -- "it's hard to see -- it's hard for me to see religion as especially different than all other things that the president takes into consideration. i don't even know where to start with that, and perhaps the less said about it the better. but i'd be interested to know

where religions -- what religions the nominee thinks are suitable or unsuitable for representation on the federal bench. i'll leave you with another example of just how out of mainstream this nominee is. professor harris is an outspoken advocate for abortion rights. over the years she has made a number of controversial statements about abortion and the supreme court's abortion precedents. shockingly, on one occasion last year, she described partial-birth abortion as merely -- quote, unquote -- "lahiatish abortion." court gin up medical controversies unintentionally and in bad faith in order to justify restrictions on late-term abortions.

she denigrated restrictions on part-birth abortion because in her view -- quote -- "you could find one guy to say i don't know it's safe to create medical un certainty that will allow state regulation" -- end of quote. those are definitely not the views of mainstream nominees. so my colleagues need to understand this nominee's views fully before they cast their votes. this is a nominee who describes herself as a -- quote -- "profoundly liberal person" -- end of quote and who thinks the constitution is a -- quote -- " profoundly progressive document" -- end of quote. this is a nominee who actually thinks the constitution embodies her personal left-wing philosophy and has said it this way -- worst pretty close to

where -- quote -- "pretty close to where i am" -- end of quote. this is a nominee who suggested that a judicial nominee's religious faith is a valid consideration for service on the federal bench. this is a nominee who thinks partial-birth abortion is just -- quote, unquote -- "latish kind of abortion" and who criticizes state partial birth abortion laws as ginned up by fake controversies and bogus data. and i explained earlier a vote for this nominee is a vote in favor of obamacare. that's why she is being hurried onto the fourth circuit ahead of two -- other nominees to other courts of appeal. it's the majority leader's simple math. this is perhaps the most liberal judicial nominee we've seen from this president so far, which is why i'm going to vote no on this

nominee and urge my colleagues to do likewise. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i rise today to speak about a subject that troubles me greatly. the state of affairs in this body, the united states senate. i spoke on the floor earlier this week about how the senate has historically lived up to its unique and essential role in our constitutional order. today i'm compelled to offer an account of this institution as it operates today. but i believe this message is important both for the american people whom we all serve and for my colleagues in this body. when i spoke on the floor earlier -- well, it was last week, i noted the widespread perception that the senate has fallen into dysfunction. the pervasiveness of this view is striking. among the public, and the media and even among current and former senators of all political and ideological stripes, and

it's true. the senate is in worse shape now than ever before in my 38 years of service here. we must properly locate the source of the problem if we are to have any hope of correcting it. political discourse about the state of the senate is dominated by those who call for the senate to be more productive, more efficient. to these critics the senate's rules are an acronyms, historical accidents, relics that must be swept away for the senate to race through more legislation and nominations. not the least of which we've just heard from senator grassley on. as i said out on the floor earlier this week the purpose of the senate is not to duplicate the work of the majoritarian house of representatives, our work is of a different sort. the senate was to refine the

unbridled passions of popular will, to produce thoughtful legislation aimed at the common good. structuring a body of such unique character occupied much of the framers' time during that hot summer in 1787 and beyond the senate's constitutional architecture, the body's rules, traditions and precedents have developed over more than two centuries not as flukes but as means of reinforcing and facilitating its purpose. during the past 227 years, the right to debate and the right to amend have become the twin pillars that upheld the senate's lofty purpose. as robert c. byrd wisely observed -- quote -- "as long as the senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate the liberties of the people will remain secure" -- unquote. many of the greatest legislative achievements of this body during my 38 years as a senator were

only possible because our open methods of deliberation and andament. i think of my partnerships with senator kennedy and others, senator harkin, senator d.o.d., henry waxman, you can name quite a few. senator kennedy and i fought like brothers but became the best of friends. this. the united states senate allowed us to find areas of mutual interest and ultimate agreements for the public good. last week i named a few of these landmark accomplishments. the 1981 budget, the blueprint of how we turned the economy around in the reagan years, the 1997 budget deal in which we cut taxes, balanced the budget for the first time in decades, and created the state children's health insurance program. the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act, a vital criminal haw law that curtailed the abuse of our courts and the

religious freedom restoration act, a landmark piece of legislation sadly attacked by many of my democratic colleagues to gin up a phantom war on women to save their lagging electoral fortunes but in reality a bipartisan agreement that passed almost unanimously. madam president, these are just a handful of our legislative achievements through the past four decades. like so many others, the roots of these successes lay in the senate's characteristic deliberation, including unlimited debate and an open amendment process. guaranteeing each individual senator the full right of participation, enhanced the quality of the final product. crowds sourcing good ideas rather than limiting input to a small gathering in the back room capitol offices. giving each senator the opportunity to have his ideas discussed and debated gave us all it was that the final

product represented the best, most considered judgment of the whole body, encouraging senators to support sometimes imperfect but decisively beneficial legislation. allowing modifications to the initial iteration of a bill while often frustrating for partisans and purists often created a broad base of support for lasting reforms. emphasizing an open and inclusive process encouraged partnerships even among ideological opposites like ted kennedy and myself, to find areas of mutual agreement and reach broad consensus. and respecting the limits of a majority party's power established confidence that when the positions of the parties switched, the rights of the minority would remain protected. madam president, the atmosphere of facilitated by our long-standing rules and traditions represents the senate at its best and the senate functioning as it should and so

often has over much of my time here demonstrates that these procedures and traditions aren't flukes of history meant to be swept away as soon as they politically inconvenience or you from a majority party. rather they are vital to the senate's ability to serve the american people. this is why the first adlai stevenson in his farewell address to the senate as vice president warned -- quote -- "it must not be forgotten the that the rules governing this body are founded deep in human experience, that they are the result of centuries of tireless effort in legislative halls to conserve, to render stable and secure the rights and liberties which have been achieved by conflict of interest. by its rules the -- conflict. of those who clamor against the senate and its methods of procedure, it may be truly said they know not what they do" --

unquote. sadly, these critical and defining practices are under attack. some who once defended the right to amend when in the minority have acted -- acted consistently to deny that right now they're in the majority. on february 28, 2006, the senior senator from nevada serving as minority leader defended a procedural maneuver. he stated unequivocally -- quote -- "this is a very bad practice. it runs against the basic nature of the senate" -- unquote. that maneuver referred to as filling the amendment tree allows the majority leader to use his right to be recognized before any other members as a means to block any and all other amendments by filling up all amendment slots with his own amendments. and thus prohibiting anybody

else from having any rights of amendment. less than a year after condemning the maneuver of filling the amendment tree as a very bad track practice inconsistent with the nature of the senate, the senior senator from nevada became the majority leader. rather than take his own wise counsel from just months before he instead began a consistent pattern of procedural abuse using that very same destructive practice. the majority leader employed that tactic 21 times during the 110th congress and 23 times during the 111th congress. as the 11th congress opened, the majority leader pledged to use this tactic only -- quote -- "infrequently" -- unquote but went on to employ it a record 26 times in the following two years. the congressional research service confirms the current majority leader has used his position to deny amendments to

the minority twice as often as the six previous majority leaders combined. get that. he has used his position to deny amendments to the minority more than twice as often as the previous six minority leaders combined. six senators led this body as majority leader between the 99th and 109th congresses, three democrats and three democrats. i served here under all of them. together they denied amendments to the minority 40 times and in those 22 years. no individual leader used this tactic more than 15 times. as of this month in less than eight years, the current majority leader has denied amendments to the minority a staggering 87 times. the right to amend is indeed a part of the basic nature of the senate, a defining feature of this body that allows us to conduct legislative business differently than in the majoritarian house.

the right to amend allows different voices to be heard, different issues to be raised, and different decisions to be made. denying that right changes the basic nature of the senate and prefers power over liberty. hardly a day goes by without the current majority confirming my point. earlier this month the majority leader discussed the possibility of allowing amendments to the bill. they said they want to kill the bill but he pledged to consider amendments that in his view would -- quote -- "lead to passage of the bill" -- unquote. in other words, the minority has only those opportunities to partnership in the legislative process that the majority leader says they do. he was right back in 2006, this is a very bad practice, and he is only making it worse. consider another way of looking at this problem. recently almost a year went by during which the majority leader allowed votes on only 11

republican amendments. think about that, madam president. only 11 amendments in nearly a year. all 45 republican senators together got fewer votes on amendments than, for example, one house democrat congresswoman sheila jackson lee. indeed, the republican house majority allowed votes on 174 democratic amendments during the same period that the majority leader here allowed votes on only 11 republican amendments. why, there are senators who have been here six years and have never had an amendment of theirs voted upon. that's pathetic. on both sides. the other defining feature of the senate, the right to debate, is fast becoming a thing of the past. this practice has been a central characteristic of the senate for more than 200 years. and like the right to amend allows voices to be part of the legislative process that would otherwise be shut out.

when i was first elected, this body included only 38 of us republicans. even fewer than the threshold in our senate rules to prevent cutting off debate. i know from long experience that the right to debate can often allow the majority by empowering the minority. but debate and deliberation far more than expediency or efficiency is essential to the nature of the senate. and both sides have been annoyed from time to time, but nothing like this. senate practice and rules have for more than two centuries required a supermajority of senators to end debate before the senate can vote on a pending legislative matter or a nomination. the current majority leader has compromised the minority's ability to debate in both areas. under the rule adopted in 1917, ending debate begins with a motion to invoke cloture or end

debate. the current majority leader often files a cloture motion on a bill at the very same time he brings it up for consideration. he has used this tactic far more often than previous majority leaders and its effect is not to end debate on legislation but to prevent it altogether, and whenever those of us in the feinstein have resisted his demand that we end debate as soon as we begin consideration, the majority leader wrongly labels this a filibuster. last november, the majority leader claimed there had been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. the majority leader used this supposedly unprecedented level of december trucks to take the drastic step of abolishing extended debate, altogether using the so-called nuclear option. but the majority leader was counting cloture motions, not

filibusters. a cloture motion is simply a request to end debate. a filibuster occurs when the debate cannot be ended because the cloture vote fails. in fact, most of those were not filibusters. they were falsely called that. there have been only 14 filibusters of president obama's nominees, and that practice was on decline. the senate had, in fact, had confirmed 98% of president obama's nominees. there was never a problem there. the majority leader's current opposition to filibustering democratic nominees is simply impossible to reconcile with the 26 times he voted to filibuster republican nominees, but even as destructive as the nuclear option has been, some of the less visible changes to the management of this chamber have proven just as damaging to the functioning of the united states senate. take the committee process. the primary forum for both

deliberation and amendment. the majority leader has set a record for completely bypassing the committee process, bringing most of the bills we have considered lately up in essentially final form, shooting them -- shielding them from deliberation and amendment on both the floor and in committee. and each congress since he became the majority leader, the senior senator from nevada has set a record for bypassing the committee process. in fact, within six months remaining in this congress, he has already used this tactic more in one congress than any other majority leader. and what are these matters that the majority leader brings to the floor? an unschooled observer might imagine that after the negotiation of the ryan-murray budget agreement, an imperfect bargain but a breakthrough for cooperation nonetheless, that we would join the house in pursuing the appropriation process through the regular order, that we would use the opportunity to exert our influence as legislators and how -- on how

our constituents' hard-earned dollars are spent. instead, the majority leader brings up bills that have no chance of becoming law in order to score political points to reinforce disingenuous narratives about a supposed war on women or so-called economic patriotism. mr. president, the current majority leader's abuse of the senate amounts to a national travesty. he has broken down so much of what makes broken downs -- that makes institutions serve the nation's interests in order to advance its own party's temporary political gain. such a betrayal of the public trust is nothing short of tragedy. to my 56 colleagues who have never served in a senate when this body lived up to its potential greatness, we can indeed restore the senate's rightful place in our

constitutional order. this body can again be the source of great legislative achievements borne out of thoughtful deliberation and inclusive consideration. but this majority leader's slash and burn tactics are not the path to achieve these worthy ends. they are a dead end, leading only to the destruction of this institution that has served our nation so well for so long. instead, restoring the senate will require us all, republicans and democrats alike, to stand up for the institution's rules, traditions and precedents and for our individual prerogatives as senators. madam president, the majority leader's my friend, but i have got to say these criticisms are valid, they are honorable, and it is about time that people on both sides of the floor start to realize that, hey, we can't keep going this way and still call this the greatest deliberative body in the world.

madam president, it's pathetic. i think people on both sides know it's pathetic. and it's time for it to stop. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: madam president, it is hard to imagine a more pressing need for our people, for our economy and for our quality of life than

reauthorizing the highway trust fund. the senate has previously entered into a unanimous consent agreement to have votes on four transportation funding amendments. the reality, however, is the time is running out to hold those votes before they would become what amounts to a meaningless exercise. we all know that this week the senate still has to vote on veterans health care, emergency funding to deal with wildfires raging in the west and the challenge of those child immigrants coming across the border from mexico. that, in my view, madam president, is all the more reason why the critical issue, the urgent issue of transportation funding should not just be left to the last minute. left to the last minute, in

effect, this body would simply be surrendering its ability to have a genuine impact on an urgent national issue, an issue critical for our people, four -- for our economy and our country in the days ahead. now, madam president, if the senate were to vote tomorrow on transportation funding and the majority leader, senator reid, has assured me that that would be acceptable to him, there would still be time to work out any differences between the senate and the other body before the congress recessed at the end of this week. however, if the votes are delayed until later in the week, my judgment is, as chair of the senate finance committee, where senator hatch and i have put together a bipartisan bill, a bipartisan bill, madam president, if the votes

are delayed, for example, on the bipartisan hatch-wyden amendment, it would become almost impossible for the senate to have any input into the final transportation bill that goes to the president. and, madam president, just from my own standpoint, i think it would be legislative malpractice for the senate not to have a real voice in this premier economic issue now before the congress. the highway trust fund, colleagues, is going to be reauthorized this week. that is nonnegotiable. and the reason it's going to be reauthorized this week and we'll not accept anything else is that the stakes are just too great if our country was to have the government equivalent of a shutdown in the transportation field. more than 700,000 jobs could be

affected. coming on the heels of a slowdown in home construction which we've just seen in the last few days, it would be a devastating blow for the construction industry and our whole economy. beyond the short-term impacts and the threat to the already shaky recovery, my view is every senator, every democrat and every republican understands that transportation funding and improving our infrastructure is critical to our country's future. the reality is it's just not possible to have big league quality of life with little league infrastructure. and now, as i wrap up, madam president, i'd like to talk about a couple of other points that are relevant to how the senate conducts its business, and i'm special grateful, madam president, to senator hatch, who has consistently met me halfway. as we know, our distinguished

colleague, former chair, intawks, now our -- former chair senator baucus, now ambassador to china, took up that issue in february and from the very day that i became chairman of the committee, senator hatch has been willing to work with me, meet me halfway, and in particular has talked about the importance of the senate functioning in its regular order. and i would point out, madam president, that a number of colleagues have been saying just that and that the senate hasn't had a chance to vote on amendments to legislation this year, and that's not how this great body is supposed to operate. we now, with respect to this transportation bill, madam president, if we can get it up tomorrow night so we can have a real debate, a real debate on this critical issue, we could have two bipartisan amendments, and two from the minority that will shape not

only transportation policy but also policies in vital other areas, including taxes, pensions and trade. and if the votes on these amendments, bipartisan amendments, fairly structured so that both sides would have a chance to weigh in, if the votes on these amendments are going to be given full and fair consideration and not just be some kind of exercise in futility, they have to be held in the next day. so i hope that we'll be able to work this out, madam president. i thought about coming here and advancing a procedural motion. my hope is that we can work this out so that we can really debate these critical issues. i do think the other body goes too far on the issue of pension smoothing. and given that position, the

country's likely to have two big challenges in the future. one, how do you fund transportation? and, second, what are we going to do about the hopes and aparticipations of all -- hopes and aspirations of all those workers relying on pensions and the future of the pension benefit guaranty corporation. so i do think that the bipartisan senate proposal that senator hatch and i have authored, and there are other bipartisan proposals, i think give us a chance to in effect have the senate weigh in in a meaningful fashion on this critical issue, and i know we're going to have votes here in a little bit and there will be discussion between the leaders and colleagues. i may come back tonight later, madam president, to discuss this further. but i simply come this afternoon more than anything else what i sought to do, madam president, is to try to advance exactly what senator hatch has been

talking about. regular order, the chance for both sides to be heard on critical issues, and try to get beyond some of the polarizing, divisive kind of rhetoric that certainly you hear outside the capitol. i was home this weekend marching in parades, getting out across the state. that's what i heard continually, people coming up and saying. ron, can't the senate, can't the congress find a way to come together? senator hatch and i did that on a bipartisan proposal. there are other bipartisan proposals, proposals that ensure the minority have a chance to be heard. and i just hope that we can work it out this evening, madam president, so that both sides will have a chance to have a fair debate on this issue at a time when it is still meaningful. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor, and i'd note the absence of a quorum.

quorum call: mr. wyden: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to divide the time during the quorum. the presiding officer: senator, we're in a quorum call. mr. wyden: i dispense with the quorum and ask unanimous consent to divide the time while we're in a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, in a few moments we're going to have the opportunity to vote on the confirmation of pamela harris for the fourth circuit court of appeals, and i'm very proud to join senator mikulski in recommending to president obama the appointment of pamela harris to the fourth circuit. i've interviewed many candidates for judicial appointments, and i can tell you pamela harris is at

the top as far as her qualifications for this appellate court position. she's an extraordinarily talented person who's devoted the primary part of her life to public service and seeks this appointment for the right reasons, to continue her public service. i mentioned that senator mikulski and i both recommended her appointment. senator mikulski is set up as the senior senator from our state, a process from which we solicit the strongest possible candidates of interest to fill judicial vacancies. we understand these are lifetime appointments. we understand the importance of these appointments. we have a screening process and an interview process in addition to the white house and justice department's vetting processes that we think will give us the highest quality person to fill

these lifetime appointments. in pamela harris' case we are extremely proud and i want to thank senator mikulski for her commitment that gives us the very best people to fill these positions. pamela harris is the granddaughter of polish-jewish immigrants who came to this country to seek a better life for their children. pamela's mother worked her way through law school. pamela herself went to yale college and then yale law school. she was helped in the process through pell grants. she is a product of the montgomery county school system. we're very proud of the fact that she has really lived the american dream and has been able to accomplish so much on her -- in her career through hard work and believing in this country. when you take a look at her professional accomplishments, i don't know what else we could ask. she has the highest rating from the american bar association,

who, as you know, gives us that information on the candidates that are up for judgeship. she has clerked for judge harvey edwards of the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia. she's clerked for justice john paul stevens of the supreme court of the united states. she's been a professor at the university of pennsylvania law school, codirector of harvard law school's supreme court and appellate practice clinic, visiting professor at georgetown university law center. she's -- she was in the justice department office of legal policy. but at georgetown, she has developed the georgetown university law center, her clinic is what prepares lawyers for their arguments before the supreme court of the united states. in other words, she is basically the person who teaches and gives practical experience for those

who have to appear before the highest court in this land. it's interesting, she's dedicated about half of her time to civil indicates, abou cases,o criminal cases. so she is well-versed on the responsibilities of our appellate court. so i don't think we could have found a more qualified person to fill this extremely important position on the fourth circuit. i also want my colleagues to know that she understands the responsibilities of a lawyer and a judge to provide access to all. she will take an oath, if she's confirmed -- and hopefully she will be in a few moments literally -- to serve justice regardless of a person's wealth or poverty. as a private attorney, she helped develop a relationship with the public defender of maryland to provide help to

indigent individuals who needed additional services. she's committed to pro bono. she's committed to equal access of justice, in addition to everything else she has done in her career. so she really understands -- she has the talent, she has the commitment to all in our community, and she understands what the appropriate role is for a member of the befnlg, fo benca judge. and i know that senator grassley ahas mentioned his concerns on the floor. these are lifetime appointments. i fully support that. but let me give you pam harris' own words in response as to understanding the difns betweene difference between an advocate and a judge. when i practiced larks i gave

everything i could to help the clients i represented. i didn't always 100% agree with their position, but it was my responsibility to advocate their position. that's how our system of justice operates. that's our rule of law. and pam harris said, and i quote, "i fully recognize that the role of a judge is entirely different from the role of an advocate. if confirmed as a judge, my role would be to apply governing law and precedent impartially to the facts of a particular case." end quote. she gets it. she understands the role of a judge. quite frankly, i want people who are active in the legal system to apply and become our judges, because they understand the importance of the work that a judge does. pam harris went ton say, and i quote, "it is inappropriate for

any judge or justice to base his or her decisions on their own personal views or on public opinion. if confirmed as a circuit judge, i would faithfully follow the methodology -- met, applying the interpretative approaches, and only the interpretative approaches used by those courts. " madam president, that's exactly what we want from our judges. we want them to be worldly. we want them to understand the law. we want them to have been involved in the law. we want -- in pam harris' kairks she's been a professor, she's taught the law. and, yes, she's been actively engaged. but once they become a judges, they need to apply the precedence from the circuit and the supreme court. that's exactly what she said she

would do. her reputation for being straightforward and telling it exactly the way she believes has been well-documented in the record before the senate judiciary committee. i want to thank senator leahy for the incredible manner in which he operates the judiciary committee, in the best traditions of the united states senate. they had a full hearing on pamela harris' heerk. they had a full record. one of letters that's part of that record, that's also part of the record of the united states senate, was a letter -- around e got numerous literac letters of. i am going to quote from one letter that was signed by more than 80 of her professional peers including representatives appointed by republican presidents and democratic presidents to key spoations including the former solicitor general for george w. bush. that letter where she is 80 signatures to that letter

strongly endorse pamela harris' confirmation for a judge on the fourth circuit, that letter said in part, "we are lawyers from diverse backgrounds and varying affiliations but we are united d in our admiration for pam's skills as a lawyer and her respect for her integrity, her intellect, her judgment and her fair mindedness." the letter continues, "many of us have had the opportunity to work with pam on appellate matters. she has been cocounsel to some of us, opposing counsel to others, and a valuable colleague to all. in her appellate work, pam has demonstrated extraordinary skills. she is a quick study, careful listen,acute judge of legal arguments. she knows the value of clarity, candor, vigor and responsiveness. of equal importance, she has

always conducted herself with consummate professionalism, grace, congeniality, and has a humble and down-to earth approach to her work." the letter goes on, and i continue to quote, "her well-rounded experience makes her well-prepared for the docket of a federal appellate court. pam'sen sub-stan:15 knowledge and low-key temperament will be a great asset for the positions for which she has nominated." end quote. madam president, point pointed out before that there were many questions that were posed to pamela harris during the confirmation process, and i just encourage my colleagues to take a look at those. i did. i read her answers to those questions. they were very well-documented. and very professional. her reputation is one of being a

straight shootered and saying exactly what's on her mind. read her responses. she understands the role of the judge. she is well-qualified to serve on this circuit. she has the strong endorsement of the two senators from her home state and i would just urge my colleagues to vote for her confirmation. we'd be very proud of her record on the fourth circuit. with that, madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate

equally divided prior to a vote on the harris nomination. mr. cardin: madam president, i would ask consent that time be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nomination. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 50, the nays are 43. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations: consumer product safety commission, elliot f. kaye of new york to be a commissioner.

elliot f. kaye f new york to be chairman of the consumer product safety commission. joseph p. mow who are vich of illinois to be a commissioner. nomination: department of defense, brian p. mckeon of new york to be a principal deputy yonder secretary. -- under secretary. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will twok minutetwo minutes of debat. the majority leader. mr. reid: i yield back whatever time is available. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection. hearing no further debate, the question occurs on the kaye nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the kaye

nomination. hearing no further debate, all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the mo who armohorovicnomination. those in say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question occurs on the mckeon nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have t the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are

considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of -- mr. reid: mr. president, did we do the -- kaye twice? the presiding officer: we did kaye twice. mr. reid: i'm sorry. i was dozing. the presiding officer: no worries. under the previous order, the senate will precede to legislative consideration to resume consideration of s. 256 the. the clerk: s. 256, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america. mr. reid: i have an amendment desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid proposes an amendment numbered 36936783. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas

and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. reid: i have -- the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid proposes an amendment numbered 3694 to amendment number 3693. the presiding officer: i have a motion to commit s. 2569 with instructions which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid moves to commit the bill to the committee on finance with instructions to report back forthwith with the following amendment number 3695. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3696 to the instructions of the motion to commit. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an nement numbered 3697 to amendment number 3696. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion, which has been filed. i ask the chair to order it reported. 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, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america, signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, the reading of the names not be necessary. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i now move notify proceed to calendar number -- the presiding officer: the the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion, madam president, at the desk. 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, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 488, s. 2648, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. signed by 1 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory

quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: now -- a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i rise today in support of a simple and straightforward resolution cosponsored by 20 of our colleagues that would simply express the sense of the senate that climate change is occurring and that it will continue to pose ongoing risk and challenges to our citizens and to our country. that is all it says, mr. president. we know we have a problem. we don't pretend to give every solution in this resolution. it simply gets us to the point of saying, we have a problem. and i'm pleased today to be joined by two leaders on this

issue, senator sheldon whitehouse as well as chairman barbara boxer, the chair of the environment and public works committee. mr. president, we have an obligation to our constituents and to this country to address global climate change. we must tackle the challenge head-on. this is an issue facing all americans, from farmers struggling with extreme weather from drought to floods to seaside communities threatened by rising waters to habitat changes that are impacting our hunting, fishing, and outdoor economy to businesses trying to mitigate the financial risks posed by the effects of climate change. it is clear that climate change poses a grave threat to food security, the environment, and our national security as well as to our businesses. and yet achieving a commitment to at least admit that this problem is going on in the united states senate has fallen short. that's the point of our direct resolution that simply states

the facts, the science about climate change and the impact that it's having on our country. the resolution draws from the 2014 national climate assessment which was drafted by 300 climate experts and extensively reviewed by a 60-member advisory committee and the national academies of sciences. the national climate assessment states the science very simply: the most recent decade was the nation's warmest on record on u.s. temperatures are expected to continue to rise. the department of defense, our own department of defense of this country, of the united states of america, our own department of defense's 2014 quadrennial defense review reiterates climate change is de-stablize's effect stating that "the pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world."

and the defense science board report concluded that -- quote -- "climate change will only grow in concern for the united states and its security interests." all the resolution says, mr. president, is that it is the sense of the senate that global climate change is occurring and will continue to pose ongoing risks and challenges to the people and the government of the united states. we know the costs. the 2012 drought was the worst since 1956 and caused over $30 billion in damage nationwide. the current drought in the west and southwestern states is estimated to cost billions and it remains ongoing. last week there was a newspaper map showing that about -- that about 34% of the contiguous united states was in at least a moderate drought as of july 22. those are the numbers. those are the facts. we've seen heavy downpours increasing nationally.

we've seen hurricanes increasing in intense tivment and if we continue on our current path, by the year 2050, between 66 billion and 106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide and $238 billion to $507 billion will be below sea level by the year 2010, so what are we hearing from the business community? well, we have conservative business people, mr. president, like the former u.s. secretary of the treasury under george bush, hank paulson, speaking out. he, along with former new york mayor michael bloomberg and eight other prominent business and policy leaders, recently released the first comprehensive assessment of the economic risks our nation faces from the changing climate including increased coastal storm damage, reduced productivity because it becomes too hot for outdoor work, strained energy networks

and expanding public health impacts. this report represents an important first step towards a true accounting of the risks of climate change so that the american business community can begin to work toward effective climate risk management. and just this past thursday, former clinton treasury secretary and cochair of the foreign relations council bob ruben wrote an article in the "washington post" advocating that although it is clear that the u.s. economy faces enormous risks from unmitigated climate change, policy and business leaders are not taking into account the cost of inaction, which means decisions are being made based on the flawed picture posed by climate change in our economy. so now we have scientists, mr. president, business leaders, church groups, outdoor groups, all out in front on this issue and in fact a recent poll found that 63% of americans believe that this is occurring. 63% of americans believe it is occurring, yet where is the

united states senate? where are we? well, mr. president, we have an opportunity today and that is to pass this simple resolution saying that it is the sense of the senate that global climate change is occurring and will continue to pose ongoing risks, continue to pose those risks and challenges to the people and the government of the united states. this should not be that hard for this congress to simply say that. think of what this senate has done in the past. this is a senate -- this is a senate that when we saw what was going on in south africa, it was the senate that overcame a presidential vietnam t veto to e the anti- atied act. it was the that the that took the lead on civil rights action. it was the senate that took on the watergate hearings. it was the senate that took on consumer issues. it was the senate that a passed

the clean air act. and we just have to take one step here today, and that is simply tell the world that we know that there's a problem. we're not here trying to i have go all the solution. we know colleagues disagree it depending on terms of what we should do, depending on where they are from-on-or what states they represent. but to start having those discussions, we have to admit that there is a problem. i urge my colleagues to support this simple, straightforward resolution. i urge them to support it because it is so important to our country. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 524, expressing the sense of the senate regarding global warming, that the resolution be resolution be be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, motion te motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is

there an objection? mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, the -- i have to say this: that the resolution by senator klobuchar truly demonstrates the vast political influence of the president's global warming advocates, what they've been doing over time. you know, this is not something that's new. this is something that started in this chamber, oh, late see, about 15 years ago, at the time the clinton-gore effort took place down in south america. it wassen signed on to the -- it was sign the on to the treaty down there. it never came up to be ratified. but the resolution cited 13 different government agencies that are colluding together to merge their policies to promote global warming, which underscores how effective the

environmental activists like tom steyer has been at getting their agenda into the obama administration. while some democrats may be convinced that global warming is continuing to occur, the scientific record does not agree. in fact, for the past 15 years tefns across the -- temperatures across the globe have not increased. let's think about that. is anyone listening there? teaches have not increased over the -- temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years. this isn't just -- "nature" imagine diseen had an article, "the economist" did. even the scientists at the ipcc. let's keep in mind that the whole thing was starre started e nucht u.n. they started this group called the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. they have been promotin promotir since then. even the ipcc says that we've had no warming for the last 15 years. there are also some 31 --

senator wicker at a hearing last week, senator wicker from mississippi, said that there -- and pointed out also some 31,000 american scientists, 9,000 of whom have ph.d.'s who have signed a petition noting that there is a lack of scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. looking at the political side of things, the senate has been debating this issue for nearly 15 years. i can remember standing down here right here at the this podium, the first bill that came down was the mccain-lieberman bill. that was to legislatively do a cap-and-trade bill. it would have set up an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. it failed by a vote of 43-55. ness ththis is in the senate. a short while after that, they had another bill, that was in 2005, it failed by a larger margin. then in 2008, the warner-lieberman bill came up.

it failed also. each time it fails, it fails by a larger plurality, which lead me to question how people can possibly say that the majority in this senate have an interest in this legislation, because they feel -- they fail every tiesm the last time the bill was considered in congress was in 2009. that was the waxman-markey bill. it passes the house but thefer got a vote in the senate because they knew it would fail. you might ask, why is it -- what changed from the time when the polling showed that americans were interested in this thing, and i'll tell you when it was. i happened to be at that time chairman of the air subcommittee and the environment and public works committee. they had at that time a study came out. it was by the scientists from the wharton school of economics talking about what the cost would be if we were to pass cap and trade. that figure was between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.

let's keep in mind that would constitute the largest tax increase in the history of america. as if it is just one group, m.i.t. came out, the massachusetts institute of technology, and agreed with those figures. they said $300 billion to teds 400 billion a year. then charles rivers came out and said the same thing. now, since that time, there's been a wake-up call to the american people and i don't know what my good friend from minnesota, who maybe she'll elaborate a little bit on these polls. but i can remember back when the gallup polls used to say -- and this is some 15 years ago -- that global warming was either the first or the second major concern that people had. a gallup poll came out just two weeks ago said that it was number 14 out of 15. in other words, they said, you know, name the 15 greatest concerns that we have. and the 14th out of 15, it was global warming.

and the pew research center came out just the other day, they said that 53% of the americans who believe in global warming -- these are the ones who really believe that the globe is worming and we're all going to die. when they asked about the cause of global warming, they said either they don't believe there's enough evidence to blame man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, or believ caused by natul variation. it probably explains why it has been difficult for tom steyer to have been able to re-engender a lot of interest in this thing. he is committed to raise $100 million. he promised to help democrats win elections this fall. he put $50 million of his own money -- this is him talking. i mean, he admits he's doing this. and he's going to raise the other $50 million. we found an article in

"politico" two weeks ago says the most he's been able to raise of the second $50 million is $is.2 million from outside donors. so far. maybe over the weekend he had a good weekend. i don't know. that's a possibility. what we should be doing is learning from the international community. just last week, australia repealed its much-hated carbon tax, the same thank that's been promoted right now either cap and trade or tax on carbon is what they passed. in australia. and they did overwhelmingly. then they realized the real cost of this thing and tony abbott, the prime minister, he should be heralded as a leadership for his courageous leadership to help the poor when energy prices needlessly rise. upon passage of the bill to repeal the tax he told the australian people, this is his quote, listen very carefully, mr. president, -- quote -- "the today the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone.

a useless, destructive tax which damaged jobs, hurt families, cost of living and which didn't actually help the environment is finally gone." he's talking about the tax that they passed in the country of australia and just recently have rescinded that thing. and, by the way, there's a guy, senator cory bernardi -- bernardi came out, i happened to see him three or four days ago in washington. he was here and he was one of the senators who actually had promoted this to start with and then changed his mind and realized that this is something that is worth repealing, and they did it. so the australian people are thanking their prime minister and i believe that we will be able to protect the american people from the sentless global warming policies in the united states. it's something they've tried for 15 years now.

every time they stand up and say, oh, the science is settle and then we come up with more groups. i remember the first time they said the science is settle, 12 years ago. look at my web site. i named a handful of scientists who had been intimidated by the ipcc -- that's the united nations -- into saying yes, we want you to partnership but to do this, you've got to believe this stuff on global warming. and, of course, they -- it didn't happen. so we started listing, we got several hundred and then several thousand scientists that we still have on the web site, you can access them. it's not just recently scientists have changed their mind on this because they started a long time ago. and, by the way, the -- i know that this is a fine person, tom steyer, we're reading from "politico" there and later on he made the statement, he said it's true that we expect to be heavily involved in the midterm elections.

we are looking at a bunch of races. my guess is that we'll end up involved in eight or more races. this is a guy talking about what he's going to do with $100 million. it's something that is not going to happen, and it sounds real good to stand on the floor and talking -- talk about the world coming to an end. but that wasn't in 2003 when they had the first, and it's salable today. so it always bothers me we have are a president who tries his best to get things done legislatively and didn't do it that way so he's trying to do it through regulations. so anyway, having said all that , i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i appreciate very much having had the opportunity to hear those words from what i can only describe as an alternate reality from the one that i inhabit,

anyway. first let me say that the very first paragraph of the resolution is this -- whereas, the 2014 national climate assessment stated the most recent decade was the nation's warmest on record, u.s. temperatures are expected to continue to rise. there is some evidence that certain temperatures have been flat for a few years. atmospheric temperatures. what that little rhetorical device omits to consider is two things. one, 93% of the heat of the earth from global warming goes into the oceans. and maybe 3% or 4% actually goes

into the atmosphere. 9 -3. so if there -- 93-3. so if there is any change in the ocean which regulates the temperature of the earth, then it's going to have a pronounceed effect on atmospheric temperature. and the ocean continues to warm. people will say the -- it hasn't warmed for 12, 15 years, whatever they say, no. if you look at it the oceans are continuing to warm. there has been in step in atmospheric temperature at a certain level. the other thing that gets left out when our friends say that is that this isn't the first step. you look at the history of how this got to be the hottest decade on record, and over and over you can look at the graph and you see these steps. to pretend that each step is the last one runs completely against

the science. so to say that we have no warming is just not factual. to say that the government -- he used the word colluding. is colonel you'ding together. that's -- colluding together. that's a fairly tough word to use. let me tell you some of the government agencies who are so-called colluding together. how about nasa? we trust them to send our astronauts into space. we trust them to deliver a rover the size of an s.u.v. to the surface of mars safely and drive it around, sending data and pictures back from mars to us. you think these people know what they're talking about? we voss noaa with our weather predicting and that's what they tell us. no one is saying they're incompetent, don't listen when people warn about storms. how about the united states

navy? the commander in chief of our pacific command, english lockhere has said the number one problem is from climate change. is he colluding when he says that? this is a career navy man who the people of america have trusted with the security of our pacific theater. it's exactly consistent with what the department of defense quadrennial defense review says last time four years ago and most recently. and if you want to ignore the federal government, if you live in a world in which you think the federal government colludes with itself to make up things that aren't rue true, okay, but look at the property casualty insurance and reinsurance industry. they're the people with the biggest bet on this. they have billions of dollars riding on getting it right and they say climate change is real, carbon pollution is causing it, we've got to do something about it. so does the u.s. conference of catholic bishops because they care about the poor and the effect this will have on the

people who have the least. so does every major u.s. scientific society, every single one. so you can take a poll or a petition and say that it has 30,000 names on it, i'm told that among the names on that petition are the spice girls. are people from mash like dr. frank burns. it's almost a comedic effort. and when you say there are 9,000 that have degrees, that's, what, .0003% of our population of 300 million, maybe i got a zero wrong there. the fact you can't find 9,000 people who think the earth is flat is a bit of a stretch and the idea that we should base our policy on a petition that imaginary people are on rather than on what nasa and noaa and

the united states navy and the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and every major scientific society in the entire property casualty reinsurance industry are telling us, it's just extraordinary. if you want to go into the private sector you have to look no further than coke and pepsi, no further than wal-mart, look no further than mars. go over there to the candy drawer and get wonderful mars products. it's a huge company. they're going carbon neutral and are desperately concerned about climate change. look at nike, look at google, look at apple. american company after american company. the only place other than, of course, the 9,000 people who joined the spice girls and major frank burns on this petition, where denial is anything credible any longer is here in congress where the money from the fossil fuel industry still has such a pernicious effect.

but even among the republicans, i'll close by saying this and yield to my distinguished chairman, even among the republicans they're using their young voters on this. people know better. people know better. you poll republicans who are under the age of 35 and a majority of them will say that somebody who believes in climate denial is ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. that's what the young republicans think about that position. so time is on our side. the day will come when the united states senate can face the fact that climate change is real, and i want to thank senator klobuchar and salute her for her effort to bring such a noncontroversial proposition to the floor in the form of a resolution. such a noncontroversial and factual proposition, and it's a measure of our times and a measure of this body and a measure of the influence on it that it was not passed by unanimous consent but was objected to by the republicans. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from california. mrs. boxer: well, i thank senator klobuchar from the bottom of my heart for writing such a sensible resolution, and people who don't know amy klobuchar as i know her may not know that she is terrific at bringing both sides together. she does it every day of the week. and i could list all the issues but up won't take the time to do that. the record speaks for itself. but on this one, on this one, this simple statement of fact our republican friends won't even let that go. this is amazing. this isn't a document, mr. president, that says this is how we should fix climate change or this is how we should address it. she doesn't get into that. she stays away from that because there are legitimate differences. some people say let's make more electric cars, some people let's focus on energy efficiency in our homes. some people say shut down the

old coal power plants, they're dangerous to breathe that air and they're adding to the problem. she doesn't get into that. all she does in this beautifully elegant, simple resolution is state the facts. and first the resolution acknowledges that the national climate assessment report which is congressionally required, that congress set it up, states that serious impacts are happening all around us. that report was drafted by more than hundred experts and guess what it shows and this is what she points out, there are more frequent heat waves, wildfires and droughts. coming from california, i can tell you we are in a terrible fire season. and we go to bed at night not knowing what we're going to hear in this morning the morning when we wake up about the raging wildfires in our great state.

and we see them in all of our neighboring states as well, whether it's washington or oregon or arizona. the least we can do is acknowledge that we have more frequent fires, that we have a terrible drought in the west, and that this is a fact in evidence. it's not a fact not evidence in. -- in evidence. second, it acknowledges the top military leaders at the pentagon have concluded the impacts of climate change are growing concern. mr. president, sometimes when the military makes a statement, it's hard to understand it. this one is really clear. you know what they say? they say that climate change is moving from a threat multiplier to a catalyst for conflict. let me say that again. they used to think it was a

threat multiplier. so if there was a problem, say in syria where there's a horrific drought and some people think that whole conflict has a lot of roots in that drought, where it used to be a multiplier, now they are saying it could actually be the reason why there are conflicts. now, i cannot believe that my republican friends would cast away the words of our military leaders and stand up here and object to this resolution. all it says is climate change is happening, these are the people who say it's happening, and it's a risk to the american people if we don't address it. now, i will close with this -- in our committee, senator whitehouse had an incredible hearing he organized. it was amazing. i sat through the entire hearing. he invited four former

republican e.p.a. administrators who served under the last four republican presidents -- richard nixon, ronald reagan, george herbert walker bush and george w. bush. listen to this. richard nixon, ronald reagan, george herbert walker bush and george w. bush, all of these former administrators said climate change requires action now and it should not be a partisan issue. mr. president, i ask rhetorically when did the environment become a partisan issue? when i first got into politics, it was a while ago but it was completely bipartisan. we -- we addressed this issue together because the health of the american people, the ability to go to work and breathe clean air and not have an asthma attack or a heart attack, the desire to make sure your kids were swimming in safe, clean

water and they were drinking clean water, this wasn't partisan. now, the latest thing we know -- and this is critical to put in the record at this time -- is that when you clean up dirty, filthy carbon pollution, you also make sure that the air is cleaner to breathe. this is critical. that's why the administration's plan is going to lead to healthier communities. we can't afford to sit around here debating whether climate change is real. we can't afford that. all we wanted to say is in this resolution and all senator klobuchar says is climate change is happening, the experts are telling it, the peer review scientists are telling us, the military is telling us. everybody's telling us. yeah, as senator wows said, there's a small group of people. there always have been and there always will be, but we didn't

wait before we protected our people from tobacco smoke because 10% of the scientists said no, no, no, it doesn't cause cancer. i would love to be able to bring back the lives of those we lost when the tobacco companies put their dirty money all around the capitol and stopped us from acting. so i'm proud to stand with my friends. when history is written, trust me on this one. they're going to look at us and say what did they do? what did they do to step up to the plate? president obama did, and we're protecting his rules here, but we have a job to do, and it all starts with acknowledging there's a problem. if you don't acknowledge there's a problem, you will never fix it. i want to thank my friend, senator klobuchar, for her leadership, and i hope she will not be deterred because i want to be back on this floor with

her, senator whitehouse and others as many times as she is willing to put this forward because it's that important. thank you, and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much, senator boxer, mr. president. i know we now have 21 cosponsors. we are adding them daily. we have sponsors, of course, from states that are coastal states, states like hawaii certainly sees the effect of the water all around them. states like maine with independent senator angus king, a cosponsor of this resolution. we have states like colorado with senator udall and senator bennet who are -- who understand the risks of wildfire and what they have seen with climate change. we have states in the midwest like iowa with senator harkin, with michigan and senator stabenow, the chair of the agriculture committee that understand what droughts mean to

farmers. this is not just a coastal problem, mr. president. this is a problem across the united states as we are seeing the disruptions of climate change. so i ask also, mr. president, that i could put in the record a report that was issued in june of 2014 called "risky business, the economic risks of climate change in the united states." thank you, mr. president. i wanted to follow up on the good words not only of senator boxer but my colleague senator whitehouse as he took on some of the words we were hearing from our colleague from oklahoma, senator inhofe, as he talked about collusion among the people in this area. collusion i guess he meant with the president of the united states. i just look at some of the names on this report. hank paulson, hank paulson the treasury secretary, former u.s. secretary of the treasury under george bush. i'm trying to imagine him colluding with president obama. i just can't picture it right now, mr. president.

greg paige, someone i know, the former head of cargill, a multinational company, based in minnesota, now the executive chairman of cargill, a report to the business community, looking at what the risks are for the business community. i can tell you he is not colluding with the president of the united states. olympia snowe, talk about an independent. a former republican senator from the state of maine, part of this group that issued this report, not colluding with the president of the united states. you look at, as senator whitehouse pointed out, all of these military generals and people from all the branches of our military who look at this as a security risk, who are looking at this and literally following the oath. they are doing what they are supposed to do. their duty, their duty to protect our country, and they see this as a threat to national security for the united states and a threat to our standing in the world and the scarce

resources that we're seeing with water, not only in the united states but all across the world as a threat. this is not collusion. this is science. these are facts. and in my state, mr. president, we embrace science. we brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the post-it note. we are the home of the mayo clinic. we believe in science. and what this resolution says is it simply states the science. drafted by over 300 authors, the 2014 national climate assessment, extensively reviewed by the national academy of science, with senator with the facts from the department of defense, the department of state. the 2014 quad really yen defense review of the department of defense stating the climate change will influence research competition while placing additional burdens on societies, economies and government

institutions around the world. all this says is let's get the facts straight. it's a sense of the senate that global climate change is occurring and will continue to pose ongoing risks and chals to the people and the government of the united states. that's all it says. we are going to have major debates on how to solve this. those debates are going right now. but unless we can at least get a vote and some support in the senate that this problem is happening when 63% of americans know it's happening, we look silly. the people are in front of us again. the businesses are in front of us. the church groups are in front of us. the scientists are in front of us. the hunting groups in my state are in front of us. it is time that we acknowledge that we have a problem and then we move on to fix it. and as senator boxer posed at the end of her remarks, yes, we will be back because i am someone that likes to get things done and i believe the first thing we need is to get an

agreement here on the fact that we have a problem. and once we have done that, we can move on and work on those solutions. thank you very much, mr. president. i see that senator whitehouse has -- he now has been the leader in the senate on this, has been out there, has been to those coastal communities, not only in rhode island but up and down the coast, looking at that damage, seeing what's happening in virginia, seeing what's happening in florida, and i'd like to turn it over to him for some closing remarks. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, senator klobuchar. it's been a caliber working with you on this, and this was an important step today. it was the most benign, factual, noncontroversial statement of virtually undisputed facts that one could imagine, and yet here of all places it was unable to achieve consent. let me just close by mentioning

that this is not something that happens off in some other place. it's happening right in our homes. in rhode island, the tide gauge at naval station newport is up ten inches since the 1930's. we've had big storms before, we've had big hurricanes before. they do a lot of damage to our state. add ten inches more ocean to throw at our shores, that's serious for my state. that's deadly serious for my state. and you can't argue with a tide gauge. it's not complicated. it's a measurement. and can you look at the experience of rhode island fishermen who are hauling up fish like tarpon and grouper. fishermen have told me that they started fishing on their granddad's boat and they fished on their dad's boat and in their lives they never saw these fish, but because of the warming seas that i talked about earlier, these tropical fish are coming

up into rhode island waters. and when the seas warm, they get bigger. it's called the law of thermal expansion. it's not a law that we passed. it's a law of god's earth. and to deny that is to deny the fundamental premises of this planet. and if you think that the rhode island gauge is weird, go down to fort pulaski, georgia, where i went on my tour of the southern coast. tides are up there as well. same thing. the ocean is warming, the seas are rising, and it creates much more risk for our coastal communities. can you go as far away from rhode island as you like. can you go to utah, how about that? and the park city foundation which represents the skiing community -- a lot of people go to utah to ski. says climate change is serious. carbon pollution is causing it. we're going to lose a lot of business because we're not going to have as much snow. it's going to shorten our season and make life much more difficult. and it's the same in new hampshire, back on our coast.

i just went up to new hampshire a little while ago, met with the ski industry. they're seeing much more need to make snow because they're not getting the snow that they used to. and if you want to go cross country skiing or if you want to go on a skimobile tour, they can't make snow on those trails, so they're getting clobbered. and what's really getting clobbered from the lack of snow is that iconic new hampshire animal the moose. evidently the way ticks breed, snow kills them off and when the moose are walking around on snow they are protected from ticks, but when the snow is not there, the ticks come at them. i was told in new hampshire about young moose calves that had not a tick on them, not 100 ticks on them, not 1,000 ticks on them. 10,000 ticks on them. the adult moose have been found

with 100,000 ticks on them. they are sucking so much blood out of these animals that they can't keep up. they sicken and they die. that's from the new hampshire scientists, including the people of the university of new hampshire, state universities. the utah senators can deny that this is real and refuse to talk about it, but utah state universities both have climate change programs. they both have people studying climate change. how can their state universities have programs and people studying climate change in their home states and then come to washington and pretend that it's not real? it doesn't make any sense. how can a new hampshire senator not come here and admit that it's real when the university of new hampshire is so active in all this? and florida, i'll stop with florida because florida is probably the worst of all. because florida is getting hugely hurt by sea level rise. one of our great cities floods

at high tide down there, and i went down on my visit and i stopped at the army corps of engineers. now, people may think that the army corps of engineers is some liberal organization that is colluding with somebody to do improper stuff and they can't be trusted, but that's not the way people behave around here on any other subject. when the army corps wants to build lakes or damn rivers or anything else, we have 100% confidence in them. so you have to take with a grain of salt some of the skepticism about the army corps of engineers. the army corps of engineers expert in florida says that as the sea level rises, it shoves saltwater by pressure into the limestone that southern florida is made of and you can actually measure the infiltration of saltwater into what used to be freshwater wells, and the line moves back from the coast as the sea level rises and creates hydraulic pressure. and as you try to create

counterhydraulic pressure, which they do with freshwater to push back in this hard limestone sponge, they raise the water level for freshwater. and as he said, florida is in a box. there's no way out. you're either going to flood with sea level or flood with freshwater. there is no way out, he said. this is the army corps of engineers expert in jacksonville, florida. why won't our colleague from florida listen to the army corps of engineers expert about his home state? we have got to get through this, and we will, but it's going to take pressure and it's going to take leadership and it's going to take the kind of leadership that senator klobuchar showed this evening on the floor. i'm immensely grateful to her, and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business. senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that tomorrow, july 29, the senate execute the order with respect to calendar number 952, mcdonnell, that the only debate time occurring from 12 moo ton 12:30 p.m.

from 2:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. equally divided in the usual form. at 2:45 p.m., the senate proceed to vote on the monopoly nation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: following senate consideration of calendar number 9525, mcdonald on tuesday, july 29, the senate remain in executive session to consider calendar number 599, polashec. upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote with no remaining action or debate on the nations in the order listed. any roll kaw votes following the first be ten minutes in length. the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order to the nomination, any statemented related to the nomination be printed i in the record and the senate then resume legislative session. officer sphe without objection.

mr. reid: for the information of all senators, we would hope that we can do those by voice. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 525. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 525, designating july 30, 2014, as national whistle-blower appreciation day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there are two bills at the desk due for their first read, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 2673, a bill to

enhance the strategic partnership between the united states and israel. h.r. 3339, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to consolidate certain tax benefits for educational expenses and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading on both of these but object 0 to both of them. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will receive their second readings on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from s. 2352 afned the bill be referred to the committee on foreign relations. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid:man, the president pro tempore of the senate has asked that joshua goldberg, an intern in his office, be granted floor privileges for tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m.

tomorrow july 29, follow the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be 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, following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 12:, noon, the time divided between the two leaders or their designees, the republicans controlling the first half, the majority the final half. at 12:00 noon, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 952, as provided under the under the previous order, further that the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. upon disposition of calendar 899 and resuming legislative serks the senate iks cute the order with respect to h.r. 5021. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: at 2:45 tomorrow, there will be a roll cal vote on the confirmation of mcdonald to be secretary of veterans affairs followed by several vo votes. we will then turn to consideration of the highway

transportation funding afnlgt the senate should expect five roll call votes tomorrow evening and passage of h.r. 5021 as amended, if amend. senators will be notified when those votes are scheduled. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask had a it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

>> we crafted an amendment that said under 702 of the act you can collect data. and you now know from the notice of closers that it is a lot of data. that may also include the information of americans, even though that cannot be the purpose of the collection of the datasets. with the amendment said was that if you want to search that lawfully acquired database for americans you should get a warrant. not that you can't get the information. get a warrant. >> is the major premise of the dot com act is to make sure that when this last control oversight over the domain name system,

that we know we are getting ourselves into. >> democratic representative from california and illinois republican representative tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicator's on c-span2. >> tomorrow on washington journal the veterans' health care bill in immigration policy. also tomorrow, the house judiciary committee holds a hearing and immigration services be a spectator but the situation of every children on the u.s. southern border. the director of u.s. citizenship

and immigration services will testify. you can watch his remarks live tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern. also tomorrow marks from ukrainian foreign minister on recent tensions between ukraine and russia, the atlantic council , his comments live at 1:00 eastern also on c-span three. >> next month on book tv former republican congressman from texas and presidential candidate ron paul has written more than a dozen books on politics and history with his latest on america's education system. join the conversation as it takes your calls, e-mails, and we fly for three hours sunday, august 3rd at noon eastern. and tune in next month for author, historian, an activist. in a october supreme court expert discusses court sessions past and present. best-selling author and historian is our guest in november. in december american enterprise

institute president and noted musician arthur brooks. television for serious readers. fifth. >> earlier today secretary of state john kerry released a report. here is more. >> what you to come out here on the other side. thank you. i am going to make a statement, and then i need to rush out of here because i have a phone call in about ten minutes. end of will leave tom and david here with you. david is a nominee. i wanted to have a chance to introduce and all of you. as we release the international religious freedom part which we

believe it is of very important statement that underscores a major challenge around the world , it is also a pleasure for me to introduce president obama's nominee to serve as our ambassador in large international religious freedom. and he come away confirmed and if confirmed by the united states senate is going to lead our efforts to make progress on these issues of religious freedom across the globe. rabbi david simper steam. before we began i just want to say a very few words quickly about the events in gaza and what is happening and what we're trying to do. as you all know, i just returned from the middle east and from paris where i had a series of discussions aimed at the escalating the conflict, ending

their rocket and tunnel attacks against israeli civilians and easing the suffering of innocent people everywhere, gaza, israel, and the west bank. today we are continuing to work toward establishing an unconditional humanitarian cease-fire, one that could honor and stop the fighting allowing desperately needed then medicine and other supplies into gaza and enable israel to address the threat to fully understand the threat posed by tunnel attacks had to be able to do so without having to resort to combat. that is what becomes from a cease-fire. we believe the momentum generated by a humanitarian

cease-fire is the best way to be able to begin to negotiate and find out if you can put in place a sustainable cease-fire, one that addresses all of the concerns, long-term concerns as well, began to talk about the underlying causes of the conflict in gaza obviously it will not resolve the context of a sustained will cease fire discussion. it is important to try said began to move in a process. and that is what we're trying to achieve. that is the only way ultimately that this conflict is going to be resolved. copley if we can make some progress the people in this region who deserve peace can take one step toward that elusive goal by stopping the

violence which catches in a sense on all sides in the crossfire and began to try to a build a sustainable way forward. we also believe in that any process to resolve the crisis in gaza in a lasting and meaningful way must leads to the disarmament of all terrorist groups. and we will work closely with israel and regional partners in the international community in support of this gold. we continue to have discussions. our discussions succeeded in putting a 12 our humanitarian cease-fire in place. then, as several overtime occurred regrettably there were misunderstandings of 12 hours versus 24, four versus 24. and so we're trying to work hard

and see if these issues can be clarified in a way that allows parties, is her out, the palestinian authority, a palestinian -- the other countries involved working through these to be able to find a way silence the weapons long enough to be able to, again, negotiate. now, the cause of peace and understanding is what brings us here today. sixty years ago i was very proud to join my colleagues in the united states congress in passing the international religious freedom act, a law that mandates the annual state department report in order to shine a light on the obstacles that so many people face as they seek nothing more than the ability to be able to worship as they wish.

and the release of this report here today is a demonstration of the abiding commitment of the american people and the entire u.s. government to the advancement of freedom and religion of what. freedom of religion is at the core of who we are as americans. it has been at the center of our very identity says the programs and fled religious persecution and landed in my home state of massachusetts. many settled in the city of salem witch takes its name from the words salaam meaning piece. we are reminded before long even their newly founded in order to get away from religious sites. unfortunately religious persecution of arrived on the scene. women were accused of witchcraft some were burned at the stake.

emerging differences between religious leaders in massachusetts and some congregations were led as a result of that to break away and found new settlements. rowen was founded by people who wandered through the woods leaving massachusetts and wondered for an entire winter until they broke out on this expanse of water and made it providence province loses. one hundred years after the pilgrims set sail for religious freedom the catholic woman was executed on the boston commons for the crime of being her rosary. so we approach this issue -- i certainly do -- very mindful of our past. bush and work and struggle and live up to the promise of our own founding. john winthrop their

disagreements with the anglican church inspired him to lead a ship full of religious dissidents to come to america to seek freedom of worship. and he famously said in a sermon that he delivered before they landed, we must consider that we will be as a city upon a hill the eyes of all people are upon us and have been ever since then worshiper as freely as here in the united states of america. it is something that we are extraordinarily proud of. but freedom of religion is not an american value pleaded is a universal value enshrine in our

constitution and ingrained in every human heart. the freedom to profess and practice once faith is the part five of every human -- human being. that is what we believe pities rights are properly recognized under international law. the promotion of international religious freedom is a priority for president obama and it is a priority for me and the secretary of state. i am making certain and i will continue to, religious freedom remains an integral part of our global diplomatic the engagement the release of this report is an important part of those efforts. this report is a clear eyed objective look at the state of religious freedom around the world. when necessary it tester to shine a light in a way that makes some countries, even some of our friends uncomfortable. but it does so in order to try to make progress.

today, of all days, we knowledge a basic truth is human freedom, and that is why i am especially proud to be joined today by president obama is nearly minted nominees, our next ambassador at large or international religious freedom. when it comes to the worker protecting religious freedom it is safe to say that it david sat kristine represents the gold standard. think about the progress of the last 20 years in elevating this fight. david has been at the lead every step of the way serving as the first chair of the u.s. international commission, director of the religious action center for reform today as a man is a member of the white house counsel on faith based and neighborhood partnerships. when the resin is not just a

list. that is why he pushed for u.s. government to engage in partnerships with communities that work across state lines. that is why he has worked toward a deeper partnerships with women of faith that works to advance peace and development command that is why he has worked to engage american muslim communities in their groups on global muslim engagement prepares. that is why he made it his mission to promote mutual understanding. i have witnessed his exceptional skill, his patience, as billy listen, sense of humor and his tenacity as an advocate of a course of my years on capitol hill believe he is simply one of america's most compelling and committed voices and religion and public life. i could not be more grateful for

his willingness now serve on the front lines are global push to expand religious freedom. to his rapid confirmation by the united states. one thing is push or -- one thing is for short, the rabbi is joining an important effort at a very important time. when countries undermined or attack religious freedom had not only unjustly threatens people that the target, it also threatens their own stability. that is why we today have dirt minister and to add to the list of countries a particular concern. we have seen reports that people entered minister and our beaten, tortured because of their religious beliefs. the government of turkmenistan has passed religious laws that prohibit people from winning -- wearing religious attire in public places or that impose

fines for distributing religious literature be in the a police continued to arrest and imprison jehovah's witnesses who are conscientious objectors to the military. i want to emphasize, this effort to is not about naming countries in order to make as feel somehow as if we have spoken the truth thing. of what our designations to be grounded in can and action that helps to change the reality on the ground and actually help people believe that is why we are committed to working with governments as partners to help to make sure full respect for the human rights of all other citizens. and a and 75 percent of the world's population still lives in countries that don't respect religious freedoms, let me tell

you, we have a long journey ahead of we have a long way to go when governments kill, the taint of torture people based on their religious belief. north korea stands out again in this year's report for its absolute and brute oppression of religious activities. members of religious minorities are written and their families, isolated, and political prison camps. ..

>> we will continue to call for his release and continue to work for it and continue to stand off for religious minorities leaders in danger around the world from a variety of backgrounds. we have a long way to go to safeguard these rights.

and a long way to go where national governments use government as an excuse to punish the people. in russia they have extremism to justify people of faith. in china authorities harass christians and arrest tibetan b budhist for pictures of the dali lama. these tactics continue to pose an incredible test.

one of the troubling trends identified in this report is how violence continues to displace families and devastate communities. thousands of muslims have been displaced in burma in the wake of sectarian violence. and in pakistan, militants killed 500 muslims and brutally murdered 80 christians in the single church bombing last year. the pakistani government has yet to take adequate steps to bring those responsible to justice. in nigeria, boko haram has killed 1,000 people over the last year and that is christians and muslims and individuals near churches and mosques.

worshipers and bystanders alike. and we have seen had brutality with the islamic state of iraq and had slaughter of muslims and the forced conversions and the rape executions and use of women and children as human shields. all of these acts underscore the stakes. it was declared any remaining christians in mosul must convert and pay a tax or be killed. they have been crystal clear about what they stand against and we have to be equally clear about what we must stand for. we stand for greater freedom,

tolerance, respect for rights of freedom of expression and conscious. with this report, i emphasis we are not telling people what to believe. we are not telling people how they have to live every day. we are asking for the universal value of tolerance and for people to have respect for their choices. we are asserting a universal principle for tolerance. the faiths have to find new meaning in the old notion of our shared descent. what really is our common inh r inheritan inheritance? what does it mean to be brothers and sister and express beliefs in mutual tolerance.

it was said all that is necessarily for the triumph of evil for good men to do nothing. this report is the work of good men and women doing something profound in the face of bigotry. let me share with you around the world some of today's greatest advocates in this cause are doing their part every day some at great risk and danger. they are doing it in order to force light into darkness. in pakistan, following the militant attacks i mentioned, members of the muslim community formed human chains around churches. in egypt, muslim men stood in front of a catholic church to protect the people from attacks.

in london, an orthdox jewish team helps muslim leaders protect their mosque and prevent future attacks. there are many examples of people standing up for this universal value of tolerance and doing it at great risk. there are many whose names and communities and watch teams we will never know but they will not receive prizes. they may never receive recognition. but their courage is remarked and that makes it all of the more remarkable because they put their lives on the line facing beatings, imprisonment and death in the sacrifice they will be anonymous. while serious challenges to religious freedom remain, i know the power of had human spirit

can and will triumph over them. it is not just up to the rabbis, bishops -- it is up to all of us to find the common ground and draw on what must be the common resolve to put our universal commitments into action. tom will speak now. and i am thankful for being hear and introducing you to the president's nominee. [inaudible question] >> thanks, everyone. sorry i am not the secretary.

let me just pickup where the secretary left off and talk a little bit about the report and some of the highlights, some of which of course he already mentioned. the 2013 international religious freedom report documents how, where and when the universal right to religious freedom was violated or protected in nearly 200 countries around the world. it reflects the commitment the secretary expressed to advancing religious freedom for everybody's. it is fundamental to my because it holds us to held our deeply convictions. being deeply held and personal religious beliefs are often contested. but the most significant abuses, those involving large scale

discrimination, persecution and killing, rarely arise from religious differences from ordinary people. there is usually the additional factor of cynical calculation by political forces seeking to maintain power or exploit religious differences for political ends. authoritarian governments can't tolerate independent communities beyond state control. when i was a kid visiting the country where i was born, poland, in the 1980's, i remember seeing how threatened the communist were by catholic communities where every sunday places were committed where people didn't fear the government. monasteries in burma played a similar role and were persecuted. likewise the chinese government restricts the ability of unregistered spiritual groups to

meet sometime banning them outright and persecuting their defenders. we urge chinese authority to release gow as scheduled on august 7th and allow him to return to his family without restrictions to his movement. in tibet authorities continue to assert control over the budhistthere. and they retrict the religious practice of muslims including banning fasting during the month of ramadan. broadly targeting an entire religious community in response to a few actions only increases the chances for violent extremism. in vietnam there were reports of

harassment, attention and surveillance throughout the year. the government is making some progress on religious freedom registering over a hundred churches in 2013 and inviting with united states special member of religious belief to represent the country. there is one country on earth that bans people from under the age of 18 from participating religious activities. some were beaten, tortured and denied a place of practice. in sudan laws are on the books prohibiting you from converting from muslimhood. these are examples of government that fear people that practice their faith. abuses of religious freedom

happen when political forces exploit forces between their communities. it is an old tactic. take a religious group shitte, and sunnis and cultivate hate of that group and use it to build support for your side or at least distract people from opposing you. in burma if you fear your country's progress you will probably fraught convince people by convincing them democracy is the answer but you might get places separating the lines on things long interface marriage. we have seen the 9-6-9 movement supported by monks. in pakistan, violence targeted members of religious minorities

and human right defenders, underscores the government's failure to provide adequate security. we were deeply saddened earlier this year by a lawyer and human rights defender, who despite threats to his life, was representing a university prep professor accused of blasphemy. in iran, the secretary mentioned the case of pastor abdeni. we have urged the iranian government to press to his release. and the government continues to persecute as well. secretary kerry described the abuses of isil which is on all of our minds. we condemn the 13 sunni cleric

murders. sill has enforced the moreatorium to expel non-muslim and shitte in mosul to force them to convert to islam or leave the city or face execution. in europe, many countries are seeing a rise of nationalist political parties that target jews and muslims along with non-religious minority groups. in hungry, the government didn't speak about about bringing up world war round up memorial. we urge them to rethink that decision. in france, we are concerned by the 11% increase in anti-muslim

incide incidents recording in

>> it says 2013 saw the highest level of displacement in recent memo memory. i am wondering if you can quantify that and secondly i

think the law that mandates this report also gives the u.s. power to sanctions countries that are engaged in severe abuses. i am wondering, given the use of severe in relation to saudi arabia treatment of religious minorities, if there is any possibility that the administration is thinking about using this sanctions power with respect to this report. >> on the first question, i am wary of precise quantifying when we are talking about places where hundreds of thousands or millions of people have been displaced for a variety of reasons. we made that statement at the front of the report because as we look at places like iraq right now, syria of course over the last few years, central african republic -- it seems we have not seen the numbers of people pushed from their homes

in conflicts that have a religious or sectarian dimension. beyond that i don't want to throw out numbers because i don't think i could do that. >> can you throw out country names? >> i think the greatest in terms of number right now is why looking at in terms of recent displacement it would be syria, iraq, i mentioned the car and we can get back to you with more. as for sanctions, it is an appropriate tool. we have employed a variety of sanctions with respect to a number of countries that have been listed in the past. the test for me and us is what is going to be effective in any particular case and that is case-by-case judgment. >> how do you raise issues like

lack of religious freedom with countries like saudi arabia? you say you must do this or that? >> we raise it in all kinds of ways. we raise it publically. the report pulls no punches on the laws in pakistan, saudi arabia and a number of other countries around the world. we have absolutely raised blasphemy laws in numerous meetings and in private. we have asked countries that have such laws that we oppose. we believe it is never okay to punish people for professing, changing or talking to other's about their religious beliefs and we have raised that with officials of numerous countries

around the world. >> some of the countries that have very tight in terms of not tolerant of religious freedom they are less tolerant for those that want to practice freedom from religion. how do you deal with that? with the countries where liberal al lies like jordan or lebanon for people to come together as atheist. >> it applies to the freedom of believing in any faith or no faith. >> one of the countries listed in the report as well as the last years is china. last year the u.s. is -- and

china issued a dialogue and i am wondering the status of that. >> we had a dialogue with china that was human rights and we raised to the highest level about our concerns of human rights. we had a counter terrorism log here and raised the persecution of the people in china's far west and the impact it has on the shared interest we have with china on extremism and violence. we don't have a date for the next formal human rights dialogue but it doesn't stop us from raising the issue. >> there was concern regarding religious structure being dem l

demollished without church leaders knowing. and from releasing the report we heard there is churches in the china that were demolished without agreement by church leaders. is this a worrying trend? do you have comments on that? >> there have been cases like that and we are aware of the recent one you mentioned and absolutely are concerned about it. people should have a right to express their religious beliefs and that is a value we will continue to stand up for. >> in august 2011, the state department extended sanctions under irfa related to restrictions on s ports of crime control and detention

instruments. can you elaborate on that? >> let's get back to you on that. >> two more here. >> as christians are persecuted in iraq and much of the middle east there is one region where it is welcome for the christians. does your report have anything to say about the state of religious freedom in that region? >> yes, and i refer you to the report for specifics. i would say with the immediate chris of mosul and the other communities being cleans one of the steps is talk to the people in that region and encouraging them to accept people that are fleeing for their lives and we are pleased they are doing so. >> i have a question for the rabbi. >> he is not answering because

he is still a nominee. >> i was wondering foyou can talk about what the secretary did when he was at the table with iran to intervene for this american citizen? >> i can say in numerous occasions we have urged the government to release him. >> has the secretary intervened himself? >> yes, i believe the secretary has raised his case. >> one more. >> in the recent years, it is obvious that central governments are not playing a role in controlling what is going on with what is happening in iraq, syria more or less and egypt in some cases. the report is made like we are talking about government and how do you handle this trend of

middle east in dealing with what the jihadist are dealing with? >> in many cases we are dealing with non-state actors like isil and related groups in iraq and syria. and the report is very clear in making those distinctions. governments do have greater responsibilities at the same time. and often governments through repressive practices create conditions that enable non-state groups to arise and to grow and flourish and ultimately we do in this area as in all human right issues we hold governments to a high degree of responsibility. >> great. thank you all. thanks for coming. >> thank you, everyone.

>> we will be looking for your calls, facebook comments and tweets on washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. also tomorrow, the house judiciary committee hold as hearing on immigration services and we expect to hear about the situation of immigrant children on the u.s. southern border. the director of u.s. citizenship

leon rodriguez will testify tomorrow at 10 eastern on c-span three. and comments from the ukrainian prive minister. his comments live at 1 eastern also on c-span 3. >> former republican congressman from texas and presidential candidate ron paul is our next in-depth author. join the conversation live for three hours sunday august 3rd at noon eastern. and next month mary francis berry and the rest of the list for the months are lined up

there. indepth, on booktv, television for serious readers. coming up on the "the communicators" we talk about technology. and then the report on social security and medicare. >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> host: this week we talk with two members of congress about health communication issues that congress is confronting. our first represents a lot of companies in the