economy growing again. but the majority leader has chosen not to use the senate for that for the purpose of actually legislating. this is the killing field for good bipartisan ideas that have come from the house of representatives now more than 380 bills. but, unfortunately, the majority leader has refused to take any of those up. we stand read y to work with our colleagues across the aisle on serious legislation that will through an open and deliberative process that our constituents are demanding. there's a reason why the approval rating of the congress is 14%. people look at washington, d.c. these days and reelsz that it's completely broken -- and realize that it's completely broken and nowhere else is it more broken than the united states senate where senator reid has decided to grind this what used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body to halt.

and now we're going to pass a continuing resolution and adjourn with 49 days left -- probably 48 or 47 by the time we do it, left until the election. it is really beyond dismay. but i would ask unanimous consent that the senator modify her request and that it be in order for the minority leader or his designee to offer an amendment and then for the majority leader or his designee to offer an amendment, and it be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in an alternating fashion. in other words, i would ask for an open amendment process on the legislation that the senator is proposing. the presiding officer: would the senator from massachusetts so modify her request? ms. warren: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i thank the senator from texas for his remarks. as i stated previously, there are 58 senators who have supported moving forward to

debate this bill, but it hasn't passed the senate because of a republican filibuster. now, i welcome republican ideas to address the exploding student debt crisis. and for months senator stabenow and others and i have reached out to our colleagues to put ideas forward so that we could have a real debate on this. but allowing an unlimited number of amendments on any topic forever is not a reasonable way forward on a student loan debt refinancing bill. we face a student debt crisis now, and we need to act on it now. if my colleague from texas is not willing to provide a reasonable path forward to debate, improve, and vote on this bill, then i object to his request and ask that he agree to my original request that we take

up and pass this piece of legislation. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modified request. is there objection to the original? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would say that the best way to get this piece of legislation resolved on the senate floor is what used to be called the old-fashioned way. that's where both sides of the aisle get to offer amendments and vote on them. but this is what has happened to the senate. it has become completely dysfunctional, and, frankly, the american people are disgusted with all of us because they see us unable, even when republicans and democrats would like to debate legislation and offer solutions, to be able to do so. and this is solely within the control of the majority leader, senator reid. and he has decided that it is better to shut things down than to pass legislation that both sides of the aisle would like to

see passed. so i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, what is dysfunctional is republican filibuster of a bill that 58 senators want to move forward for debate. allowing an unlimited number of amendments on any topic going on forever is not a reasonable way forward. we want to be able to debate the student loan refinancing bill, and we want to be able to do it now. young people are struggling and they're counting on us. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i appreciate the great talent and credentials that the senator from massachusetts brings to the united states senate. unfortunately, whether you're in the majority or you're in the

minority, the senate hadn't been able to function for the last four years. i've been fortunate to be in the senate at a time when any senator who wanted to could come to the floor and offer an amendment and get a vote on that amendment. you know, what's to me completely ironic is that even if you're in the majority you can't get a vote on an amendment. if you're in the majority. how do you explain that to your constituents back home, that you are rendered completely ineffective because of the way the united states senate is being operated under the current majority leader? so, mr. president, i want to turn to another topic briefly, and that is the matter of the president's proposed strategy on the floor. ms. stabenow: out of respect for my colleague, i realize that we're going into the next hour that is controlled by the republicans, but i did want to take just one minute to wrap up if that would be acceptable with my colleague.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. is there objection? no objection heard. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. i wanted to say we can go on record saying there's thousands of excuses for reasons not to do things. we're talking about a very specific bill, a very specific vote that would put money in the pockets of 25 million americans. we could do that right now. people can have lots of reasons. it reminds me a lot about hearing from my kids have hundreds of excuses why they can't do something, because of somebody else and this and that and the other. i think the american people just want to get stuff done. we want to get things done. and the motion that senator warren put forward is about getting things done. a vast majority, 58 people, have already said yes, they want to move forward on this; yes, we want to move forward on this and we need to get this done for 25 million people and then move on and work with each other across

the aisle to do other things. i greatly regret this and just tell the american people that we will be back and back and back until we get the american people the relief they need. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas, the minority whip. mr. cornyn: i appreciate the senator's frustration at the senate not functioning the way it should but the complaint should be with the majority leader. republicans are open to having a complete and open amendment process. we're not talking about amendments ad infinitum. we've talking about a reasonable number of amendments. but we've been down this lane before, and we know that the majority leader rules this body with an iron grip. and that in the waning days now of this session, there is going to be verityably nothing done because that is wait the majority leader has chosen to use his authority.

it would make sense, if we had an opportunity to offer house legislation -- as i said, there are 44 different jobs bills and more than 385 bipartisan pieces of legislation that have passed the house which would be great for us to take up and to work our way through in an orderly and deliberative sort of way. i agree the american people want to see us get things done, but they can't. we can't get things done when the majority leader essentially says you know what? it's my way or the highway. those of you who are elected from red states where you're elected by republicans, you can't participate in this process. so what's the use of being elected to the united states senate, what's the use of states like texas having two united states senators and not being able to participate or shape the legislative process?

that's an unreasonable demand by the majority leader. i nope my colleagues on the democratic side, many of them are frustrated by that too. i would tell them in this election turns out in 49 days the way i hope it does, we will have a new senate where republicans and democrats can come to the floor, offer amendments and get votes as long as they want to get votes on the amendment. that used to be the way the senate operated. it is not the way it operates now and is a disservice to the american people. and i'm saddened by the majority leader's choice to create such a situation in the senate. mr. president, turning to another important topic, we will be voting along with the continuing resolution, i'm told the house will add an authorization that's been requested by the president to train and arm some syrian rebels which we hope will be an effective force in defeating

isis or isil, the islamic state and the levant that al qaeda kicked out because they were so barbaric. they wanted nothing to do with them. but who are now one of the best financed terrorist organizations in the world and erasing the border between two countries. this is a threat not only to the region and to the people of iraq and syria, but it is a threat to other dmunts that -- other countries in that region. if you believe the king of saudi arabia, he said in a month they will export their terror to europe and they will then a month later export their terror to the united states. the biggest threat to the united states is there are, it's documented that there are people who have gone from the united states, and from the united

kingdom to the region and trained as fighters for isil. and the problem is that because of the visa waiver program, if you are from the united states or united kingdom passport holder, you can come to the united states without a passport and you don't even need a visa. this is an opportunity for the terrorist nation to infiltrate the united states and threaten our national security and safety. but in particular in syria, it's ironic and indeed it's tragic to note that after refusing for three and a half years to provide even moderate assistance to opposition groups in syria, president obama is now asking congress to give him the necessary authorization. now, this is not an authorization to take the fight to degrade and destroy eiffel. -- degrade and destroy isil.

the president said that is his goal. i think you would find a lot of support for that kind of authorization. what the president has done is basically ask for money for a more limited task and that is to recruit and train so-called moderate syrian opposition to fight isil in syria. but he has chosen to go it alone once again on this broader effort to degrade and destroy isil. i know the president is famous for saying what he will not do. and of course they always add no american boots on the ground. but this morning the chief of staff of the united states military, general demsey, has said that if the air campaign is unsuccessful in degrading or destroying isil, we should not take the prospect of some limited number of american boots off the ground off the table,

because military expert after military expert has said airstrikes alone will not turn the tide on isil in iraq and syria. but i'm glad the president has at least made this limited request. we ought to have a broader debate about his authority to take the fight to isil and syria and iraq. and i note with interest our colleague, senator mccain of virginia, wrote what i thought is a compelling piece arguing that the president should come to the congress for that authority. that was published in "the new york times" today. i thought he made a very important case. if the president is concerned that he'll come to congress and he won't get the authority, i think circumstances have changed where he would get that sort of bipartisan vote to give him authority. and there are prudential or practical reasons why he should

do so. first of all, there's the constitution which the president seems not to care most about, but assuming the president has the authority, i think if he came to congress, it would provide a broader basis of support in congress and across the country. of course you don't want to go to war without the support of the american people. if you believe the public opinion polls -- and i think they are pretty persuasive -- the american people do support airstrikes against isil, particularly in the wake of these barbaric beheadings of both british and american citizens. but as we know, the tide of war can turn very quickly, and it's important that the president have broad support here in congress and broad support from the american people in doing what we know we have to do regardless of how popular or unpopular it may be. but i do have questions about

how the different rebel groups will be vetted and how the u.s. military aide will advance our larger policy of destroying isil. while i still have those questions, i will support the authority and the money to train and equip the moderate groups as part of our broader strategy. i remain deeply concerned, though, about president obama's understanding or lack of understanding of just what has gone so wrong with his policies in the middle east. after all, the first step in fixing a mistake is to admit that you have made one, not for the purpose of embarrassing the president but from learning from those mistakes and then going on to correct them. last week, he discussed his control record with a number of outside analysts at two separate meetings. according to one story in "the new york times," by peter baker, the president admitted no errors along the way.

it's pretty breathtaking. i don't know any human being, any mere marty, certainly me, who has not made a mistake, and these are enormously complex judgments, and i understand that and we ought to cut the president some slack in trying to execute this war and this fight to degrade and dismantle dismantle -- dismantle isis. but to say, you know, i have not made any mistakes, my judgments have been perfect is not helpful. he said there are no errors, he has made no errors,ing there nothing that needs correcting, no changing conditions because of misjudgments. but we know that despite the creation of a massive tristen clave spanning iraq and syria, despite the explosion of a huge refugee crisis in syria, jordan, lebanon and turkey, millions of

syrians have been displaced by the civil war there alone, along with about 200,000 syrians who have lost their lives. we have also seen as a result of the president's policies the emergence of a failed state in libya where in september, 2012, four americans were killed by al qaeda-related affiliates. we have seen yet the emergence of another failed state in yemen and we have seen the embarrassing decline of u.s. influence in countries such as egypt and other gulf nations. despite all that, the president says that he hadn't made any mistakes and it's just -- it's somebody else's fault and not his. i would just contrast that with the conduct of president george w. bush when he announced the troop surge in iraq and the counterinsurgency strategy in 2007. he was admirably forthright

about the fact that his iraq policy was not working, and indeed it was not. president bush said at the time we need to change our strategy in iraq. boy, it would be a breath of fresh air if president obama would say we need to change our strategy rather than saying i haven't made any mistakes. there have been no misjudgments. we don't need to reconsider any of our activities abroad. i think people understand that we do. when we look at america's middle east policy failures under president obama, it is painfully clear that once again we need to change our strategy, but by refusing to acknowledge his mistakes, the president raises troubling questions about the credibility of his new policies. despite announcing the military aid to the more moderate rebels will be the centerpiece of the u.s. policy in syria, the president still publicly rejects

the idea that arming those rebels a few years ago would have been a good idea. and oh, by the way, arming the rebels a few years ago was -- was the recommendation of all of his most significant national security advisors, but the president rejected them. if it's a good idea to arm the more moderate rebels today in hopes of countering yiels, then sure -- countering isil, then surely it would have been a good idea to arm them before isil took over syria and 200,000 syrians lost their lives in that civil war. likewise, if we are now sending u.s. military forces back to iraq to conduct bombing raids against isil terrorists based there, then it was a mistake to withdraw all u.s. forces from iraq back in 2011, without leaving a transitional force there to help be the glue in that famously sectarian driven

part of the world. but the president will admit no mistakes and no lessons learned in either iraq or syria. of course, the thing about acknowledging your mistakes, as i said earlier, is that you can learn from them, and president obama's recent foreign policy failures are no different. the lessons we've learned can and should form our strategy against isil, but first the president needs to accept, internalize and then allow himself to be guided by those lessons. if he -- if he does that, america's military campaign against the islamic state will have a much better chance of succeeding. and i would say again, mr. president, we want the president's plan to be successful. i think it's virtually universal here in the senate that we want our military in conjunction with our partners, coalition partners to degrade and destroy isil

because we believe it is a serious threat, not just to the region but to the united states and our allies and our interests. but if the president won't learn from the lessons of the past and if he won't work with congress to come up with an effective strategy and if he won't listen to his own military leaders and experts, i'm just very concerned that that strategy will end up being a failure, and that need not be. mr. president, i see a colleague from north dakota on the floor. i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask for ten minutes or as much time as i might need to discuss an important energy issue. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate my esteemed colleague from texas and his comments, and i want to share my agreement with the important points that he just made so well. i rise today to present the

north american energy infrastructure act. it's a bipartisan piece of legislation that i think is very, very important to helping our country build the infrastructure we need to truly become energy independent or energy self-sufficient. energy secure, if you will. this is bipartisan legislation. it's legislation that's already passed the house. it was sponsored in the house by representative fred upton, who is the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, cosponsored on the democrat side by gene green, congressman from texas. i have bipartisan sponsors for this legislation in the senate as well on the -- on the republican side, senator lisa murkowski who is the ranking member on the energy committee, and then i have two other members of the energy committee that are democrats cosponsoring this legislation as well,

senator joe donnelly from indiana and senator joe manchin from west virginia, and certainly senator manchin, mr. president, is recognized as one of the leaders in the senate on important energy issues, so i'm very appreciative of having him join me on this legislation as well. i'm introducing it now, this is the sixth anniversary of the application by transcanada for a permit to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. they applied for approval of a pipeline project, the keystone x.l. pipeline project six years ago as of friday this week. can you imagine that? you know, americans fought and won world war ii in less time than this application has been pending before the president of

the united states, yet still no decision from this administration after six years. and this is vital infrastructure we need to truly make this country energy secure. working with canada, we can truly produce more energy than we consume and make our country energy secure, but we cannot do it without the necessary infrastructure, the roads, the pipelines, the rail, the infrastructure, the transmission lines, the energy infrastructure we need to get energy from where it's produced, places like my state of north dakota, which is now the second largest producer of oil in this country, second only to texas. we produce more than a million barrels a day of oil, but we have got to get it to market. it's getting loaded and overloaded on rail. we have tremendous congestion on rail. our farmers can't get their ag products to market anymore because we have so much congestion on the rail, and yet here we have got an application

that has been held up for six years by the president of the united states without a decision, and that's after -- i mean, last year he came to the republican caucus, told us point blank that he would have a decision before the end of 2013. no decision. here we are in 2014, sixth anniversary. well, look, we can't -- we can't continue to have that problem. wove got to find a way to build this process. and even though we're working on keystone on a separate track, and i believe we will have the votes next year to pass it, we will have the 60 votes in the senate we need to pass it. we're at 57 right now. we're very close. i think by next year, we'll have the 60 votes to passkeystone, and we'll work to do that and attach it to legislation that the president won't veto, so we'll continue to work on keystone on that track, but at the same time we have got to avoid this problem in the future, with oil pipelines, with gas pipelines, and with transmission lines. we have got to be able to build

that infrastructure not only in this country, but we have got to be able to cross the border with canada. canada is a huge producer of energy. and so working together, we have this incredible opportunity if we can build the infrastructure to do it, and it's not just for fossil fuels, it's not just for oil, it's not just for gas. it's for renewables as well. canada produces an incredible amount of hydro which is of course electricity. we need transmission lines to bring that renewable hydro across the border. this is about all forms of energy and this is about working with our closest friend and ally to truly address that energy issue. it's a job creation issue. it's a national security issue. so what does this legislation do, the north american energy infrastructure act? what it does it expedites, streamlines the approval process for crossborder construction of oil pipelines, gas pipelines and electric transmission lines. well, how does it work? first, oil pipelines. right now, the presidential

national interest determination is needed for approval or authority to build an oil pipeline across the canadian border, and of course that's the problem we see with keystone. that has been held up now for six years. so this changes that process for future projects. this changes the process for future projects. it's already passed the house overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly. i think pretty much all of the republican votes, i think more than 50 votes on the democrat side, also very strong bipartisan support in the house. and what it does, it changes that approval process for crossing the border with an oil pipeline, to the state department, so the state department will make that determination approving across-border transfer. and it will be subject to the nepa process. you will still have to do an environmental impact statement. but the focus of that e.i.s.,

environmental impact statement or the nepa process will be on the border section. not on the entire length of the project throughout all the states that pipeline may cross. it will focus on the border section, and the state department has to come up with reasonable rules to determine what that distance is that constitutes crossing the border with canada. and then the rest of the nepa process will continue just as it does today for any other project that doesn't come across the border. right now states have their jurisdiction in some cases, federal government has their jurisdiction in some cases depending on whether it's private land or whether it's public land, whether it's federal land or maybe it's water, a body of water, whatever. so the nepa process continues as before driven by the states or the federal government, depending on what particular

part of the country, the type of land or body of water that you're crossing. and i think that's why it garner ed such strong bipartisan support. we continued that process and those protections, but we don't allow the determination on the crossborder process or the crossborder piece to be held up by all of the nepa process and all of the sightings that may be covered in all the respective states that that pipeline crosses. those processes are already in place. don't use crossing the border as an excuse to tie up all these other processes and basically usurp the authority of the states that are affected by that -- by that project. so i think it's a very reasonable process and it's one that i think we should be able to come together on in a bipartisan way and say it's open, it's fair. that's why we have got bipartisan support in the sponsorship. senator donnelly, senator

manchin, senator murkowski and myself, all people that work on energy because we have struck that -- that balance. it's about creating a good business climate that will encourage that investment to create the infrastructure we need, to move the energy from where it's produced to where it's consumed in the safest way possible, in the safest way possible and the most economic way possible, right? that's what it's about with the best environmental stewardship. isn't that what we all want? obviously, it is. but if we don't do this, where are we? if we don't do this, where are we? right now we're waiting six years, six years, for a determination on the keystone x.l. pipeline and here's another example i'll give you you. the baca north pipeline is a pipeline that goes from north dakota to cushing and they have been waiting for a year and a half on an ownership name

change. from the department of state. a year and a half to change the name. really? does that make sense to anybody? if it takes that long for something that simple, what do we do when we actually need to build this infrastructure that's so important for the energy future of our country? what about gas pipelines? gas pipelines will be covered by ferc, the federal energy regulatory commission. what we see is look, they'll go through the nepa process through, as we described with the department of state on an oil pipeline, they'll take that cross-border piece, do the same thing. do a nepa process, you have environmental impact statement, cover all the bases but then 30 days after that they have to make a decision. they can't just sit on it. and the rest of the nepa process continues just like we described on an oil pipeline. again, very simple, very straightforward, and it

comports with the free trade agreements that we have with canada, and with mexico. and then the third piece, electric transmission lines, that process will be overseen by the department of energy, we simply streamline the process. right now there's two applications or two permits required, one that's driven by the administration, one that's congressionally driven, we just combine those, make it one process. again, cover all the bases, as i've described, with an oil pipeline, or a gas pipeline, but we make it one process instead of a duplicative process. when we look at what's going on in the world today, we see why this legislation is so important. look at issa. look at issa -- icele in in -- isil in the middle east right now. we are con stationary front confronting how we need to address this very significant challenge, how we need to work with allies in the region to take out isil. do we really want to continue to

be dependent on oil from the middle east? i think you could ask every single american that question, it would be a resounding no. there's no way we want to have to get oil from the middle east. but we still are today, aren't we? yet we can produce more oil and gas in this country, particularly with canada, than we can consume. why would we continue to want to be dependent on the middle east or venezuela or any other place that is antagonistic or hostile to our interests? we don't. this is a national security issue. it's an energy issue. it's a job creation issue. it's an economic growth issue. and it's for darned sure a national security issue. which is why every time you ask the public about it more than two-thirds say yes, build that infrastructure, build that keystone pipeline. let's work with canada to get our energy, our closest friend and our ally in the world. and look what's going on in europe. look what's going with russia

and ukraine. look at the situation a country like ukraine or the european union is in because of russian aggression and particularly russian aggression at a time when where do they get their energy? where does ukraine get their energy? where does the european union get their energy? they get a third or more from, yeah, russia. russia. the same country that's invading ukraine, the same country that's occupying crimea and the even part of the ukraine and when we try to get the european union to join with us to push back, what do they say? jeez, i don't know, we can't because russia is going to cut off the gas. and it's fall and it's getting colder. does that make sense to anybody? does -- is that the situation we want to be in? it's vet pretty compelling. do we want to get oil out of the

middle east with isil operating the way they are? i don't think so. these issues are all interrelated, and they're not short-term issues. they're not short-term issues. you can't just start building that infrastructure today and have it done tomorrow. these are billion-dollar investments. they don't cost the government a single penny but they're billion-dollar investments that private enterprise is willing to make, provide that energy, with better environmental stewardship and address our national security challenges. that is a long-term plan. that type of energy plan is a long-term plan for this country and it's one we need to start now. it's one we need to start now. six years. six years we're waiting for a decision from the president for a decision on a

multibillion-dollar pipeline project that will not only bring oil from canada to the united states but will move oil, 100,000 barrels a day from my home state to refineries in this country, that by the state department's own admission will create more than 40,000 jobs, that will create millions, hundreds of millions in tax revenue, that will help us create energy security or our country, that will allow us to work with our closest friend and ally, canada, rather than telling them no, no, we're not going to work with you, send that oil to china. something the american people overwhelmingly want by about 70% in most of the polls, that i guess is being held up for special interest groups or by special interest groups. look, this is about how we run this country. this is about who we work for. this is about having a long-term plan to build the kind of energy

future for america that i believe the american people very much want. let's go to work and pass this bipartisan legislation. thank you, mr. president. with that i note an 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 rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i join my colleagues to urge the senators to take up and pass the bank on students loan and refinancing act led by my colleague from massachusetts, senator elizabeth warren. this is about fairness, it is about our values and it is about what's best both about students and our shared economic future. earlier this month senator whitehouse and i held a round table about student loan debt. rhode island ranks in the top five for the amount of debt students incurred or earned in an undergraduate degree. we helped from a peerch -- teacher, a parent who worried about how she will help her son

make payments while she is making payments herself. we heard about the impact stload stload -- student loan debt is having on the housing market. as the g.a.o. reported, from 2002 through 2013, the number of individuals whose social security benefits were offset to pay student loan debt increased fivefold. now, think about that. these are senior citizens who are paying off student loans. actually their social security benefit checks are being affected. that is something that i find disturbing and completely unpredictable. if you'd ask me two or three or four years, certainly asked me 30 years ago when i was in my 30's or so, i would say no, that

wouldn't happen, that's impossible because we had a country where supporting children for college, the pell grants are such that people had a chance to pay them off rather quickly, go on to buy a home, go on to establish families and then use their resources for their retirement or help their grandchildren a little bit with their student loans. so when it comes to student loans, we're just in this incredible situation. since 2003, student loan debt has quadrupled to be an estimated $1.2 trillion and the interest rate on undergraduate is it student loans was 3.86 it% last year yet many are locked into loans at 6.8 or higher with no way to refinance. last year the g.a.o. estimated the federal government would earn an estimated $66 billion from student loans originated

between 2007 and 2012. again, in the 1950's and certainly in the 1960's but particularly after the pell grants in the 1960's, we were investing in students. they were our future. they weren't profit centers. and we're now generating over these five-year period, $66 billion. student loans are supposed to be an investment in helping individuals reach their potential, strengthen our communities, not just a revenue generator. approximately 25 million americans could benefit from refinancing, including 88,000 in rhode island. they could lower their monthly payments if they could just refinance. so one of the ways we're trying to help is by allowing borrowers with high fixed rates on student loans to refinance at lower rates. that's the very cogent, direct premise behind the bank on students emergency loan

refinancing act that i am proud to cosponsor with senator warren. in june the senate fell just shy of another vote needed to move forward with it. today once again the republicans blocked us from taking up this legislation. while i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their opposition because student loans could help people get ahead, not weigh them down with debt, holding them and our economy back. looking forward, we also need to work together to tackle the drive of student loan debt, rapidly rising college costs and a rollback of state investment in higher education. we need to get back to the idea that educating americans is fundamentally in our national interest and that we have a shared responsibility at the federal, state and local institutional and individual levels for investing in our people. we need to ensure that this generation and future generations have opportunities to develop their talents and pursue their dreams in order to secure a brighter future for them and our country.

i urge my colleagues to join us in providing student loan debt relief to millions of americans. help us pass the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act. help us relieve this burden of debt on so many americans. young, middle age and remarkably so, based on the recent studies, some senior citizens. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? is the senate now having a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. reid: i ask consent that be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 12:00 noon tomorrow, september 17, the senate proceed to executive session to consider these nominations -- calendars numbered 956, 536, 548, 964, 965, 871, 924 and 912. that there be two minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the anonymous that is were listed. any roll call votes following the first in the series be ten minutes in length. if any nomination is confirmed, the motions to reconsider be

considered made and laid on the table. with no intervening action or debate, that no motion be in order to the nominations and any statement related to the nominations be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: for all senators, we expect one roll call vote on the bass nomination and the other nominations considered in this agreement to be confirmed by voice vote.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here this afternoon. i'm also pleased to see on the floor my colleague from north dakota, senator heitkamp. she and i have legislative interest in a matter now pending before the house of representatives, and it's at least my desire to see that the senate utilize this opportunity, a bill passing the house, to also be considered by the senate and hopefully be approved when it has been a challenge throughout this year and throughout this session to get legislation to the floor and voted on. i would not want us to pass up the chance for this legislation to be approved and sent to the president for signature. the legislation that we're talking about is the tribal

general welfare exclusion act. the house of representatives i say is considering h.r. 3043 this week. this is legislation that i am absolutely certain will enhance the economic opportunities and the quality of life for our native americans in this country. the constitution states a core responsibility of the federal government is to promote the general welfare of the people. the federal government has a trust responsibility to protect tribal interests. these two things come together in this legislation. certainly it would be an understatement to say that the federal government over the years has fulfilled its trust responsibility. we know that not to be the case. in an effort to fill that void, tribal governments have taken actions to meet their tribal members' needs. things such as cultural programs and education, social services, health care, and unfortunately at a period of time, over a

period of time, those benefits have been treated as income and those benefits have been subject to the internal revenue service code. we need to make certain we don't add to the burden that the tribes too offense have encountered from the federal government and these benefits would not be subject to income taxes and these benefits and the tribes would not be subject to i.r.s. audits because of them. the tribal general welfare exclusion acts extend to native americans the same tax privileges provided by our states, namely that the value of government services provided by the tribes to their members just like the services provided by a state to its citizens would be excluded for tax purposes. the federal and state government have enjoyed the privilege of having such services as education, social welfare, housing, as well as cultural programs exempt from that taxation and native americans have not been as fortunate.

the house is close to correcting this problem and it is my plea and hope that the united states senate will follow suit this week. the i.r.s. recently issued a notice that establishes the tribal general welfare exclusion. it now is a matter of treasury policy and this is appreciated, a step in the right direction, but we want to make certain that this policy is extended and codified. the general welfare issue should be put into law to protect against future policy changes and among other provisions this legislation establishes a tribal advisory committee within the department of the treasury to advise the secretary on indian tax policy and declares that any ambiguities of the act would be resolved in favor of tribal governments. it directs the i.r.s. field agents to be educated and trained in matters of federal indian law and government trust responsibilities. this is a reasonable, commonsense, constitutional

piece of legislation, it fosters fairness within our tax code and promotes better understanding of the federal government's trust relationships. four years ago a similar exclusion rules for native americans health benefits was passed, and we have before us now the opportunity to clarify the exclusion as it should be. this legislation makes a lot of sense. it adheres to the constitution, recognizes tribes as sovereign nations. this has been affirmed by congress many times in the past, it's clearly part of our united states constitution. the economic benefits are obvious. our tribal territories, reservations, our native americans need not be worrying about the onerous i.r.s. audits and should not be paying taxes when no one else is required to pay taxes on similar benefits. this legislation is revenue neutral. something that is very pleasing.

the joint committee on taxation has deemed any impact on the revenue of this -- our federal nation would be negligible. as a person who cares a lot about the fiscal condition of our country we ought to be reducing our deficit and boosting our economy. this piece of legislation does not increase the deficit and it does boost the economy particularly of tribes across the nation. here in the senate, senator heitkamp and i have introduced s. 1507, a companion bill to the one the house is considering. this piece of legislation has broad bipartisan support, more than 20 senators from alaska to georgia have joined us in this effort. i'm grateful for the members of the finance committee and the indian affairs committee who have lent their support to this legislation. not a member of either one of those committees but there are four tribes in kansas and i have an interest in their well-being as well as that of all native americans.

native americans aren't seeking to play here by any different rules, in fact, it's quite the opposite, they simply want to enjoy the same benefits accorded any other government in our country. they've emphasized to me the principle of tribal sovereignty and self-government. this legislation reinforces those principles. more than 40 tribes in 240 states, a dozen national organizations and a number of regional tribal organizations representing tens of thousands of native americans support this legislation. it's not just native americans, in fact, the u.s. chamber of commerce has recognized this legislation as one that will foster economic development and supports its passage. as we are preparing to depart washington, d.c., take a time away from the nation's capital, it would be a terrible mistake on our part, a missed opportunity if we don't take advantage of house action this week while the senate is here in the senate this week to see that this legislation is approved. my hope is that that can be

accomplished by unanimous consent and i know that senator heitkamp and i others and i have been talking to members of the committee as well as the leadership of the united states senate to see that we accomplish this. it's a wrong that can be righted. it's a wrong that should be righted quickly, not at a later day, and this certainly is one of those pieces of legislation that is a win-win for all. if we see the house pass the tribal general welfare exclusion act i urge my colleagues to join with me, with senator heitkamp and republican and democrat senators who are supportive of this legislation to see this legislation arrives on the president's desk in the most expedient manner possible. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i ask that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: thank you. it is truly a great honor to stand with my colleague from kansas. as we are on the cusp of actually passing legislation that has very real consequences for a lot of our american citizens, especially our native american citizens. and i will tell you as someone who represents indian country in my state, this is the number-one priority. the number-one priority for our tribes. and it's interesting because a lot of people would look at this and say why this issue? and i think it goes to the heart of native american sovereignty. it is -- what has been happening as it relates to 1099s and the potential of taxing services provided by tribal governments, basically begs the question do we really understand or do we really appreciate that

these are sovereign governments. the same way the states are sovereign, the same way the counties and cities would be sovereign, and i think in many ways it has very real economic consequences, but a great value in this legislation is in the symbolic consequences of having this body recognize the importance of recognizing these treaty rights, recognizing the value of treaties and trust responsibilities. now, as a former attorney general and as a lawyer, i view treaty rights and trust responsibilities like a contract with the united states. and our native american tribes. as a united states citizen, i view these treaties as sacred obligations. we have not done a good enough job living up to our commitments to tribal nations, and as a consequence, tribal governments have been forced to supplement

services that the federal government promised to provide. and yet for years, the i.r.s. has audited indian tribes for providing health care, education, or housing assistance for those in need. here are just some of the stories that i've heard from native americans in north dakota and across the country. i've heard about the i.r.s. wanting the tribes to issue 1099's -- 1099's, basically saying you got something of taxable value -- to tribal he woulders who receive blankets as honorary -- honor a isaria for performing ceremonies. i've heard about the i.r.s. questioning providing backpacks and school supplies to elementary school children as a taxable benefit to the families of the children. i've heard about the i.r.s. imposing a tax on the value of a

handicapped ramp, a value of $2,000 erected by the tribal government to help a tribal elder access her home. and the stories go on. the status quo isn't fair, and it isn't right. and this practice certainly does not fully respect that tribes are government. that's why i joined with senator moran to introduce this bipartisan tribal general welfare exclusion act last year. the bill would fully recognize that indian tribes as sovereign nations are responsible for making certain government programs and services best fit the needs of their citizens. just as state and local governments are determined to decide what is in the best interest of their citizens, like scholarships, elder or child care, or housing assistance, we have to recognize that tribal governments have the right to make those decisions without tax

consequences. with this bill, we're supporting tribal self-determination and taking a step towards living up to our trust and treaty obligations. indian tribes and their members should not be subject to height ened i.r.s. scrutiny, and i think senator moran has outlined that issue so well, because some people may see that what we're doing here is carving out an exception, creating an extra benefit for tribal members that's not enjoyed by the entire citizenry of this country. nothing could be further than the truth. nothing could be further from the truth. in fact, we are leveling the playing field. the act will bring parity in the tax treatment of indian governments. it will recognize the unique relationship with tribal governments that they have with their citizens and allow them the opportunity to craft

programs which best fit their community need. i want to just take a moment and suggest to all of you that if you've spent time in indian country, and if you've looked at the benefits that tribal governments provide, and you think about the resources of the i.r.s., and where you might go to actually collect dollars that would enhance revenue, the last place you should look in this country is in indian country. the last place you should look in this country is in indian country. i'd like to address a issue few really important reasons why this bill is so critical. the i.r.s. recently issued helpful guidance and we're very appreciative of that work, about with that being said, we also must make sure that parity provided by that guidance is in statutory language. that way, we've weighed in, they're a certainty, no one can do a look back and no one can change it without that change

coming to this body and coming to the house of representatives and being enacted in law. in addition, the tribal general welfare exclusion act includes two items that are critical to the advancement of a better relationship between tribal government and the federal government. first is the training requirement. we must make sure that i.r.s. field agents are well versed in federal indian law, and the unique treaty and trust relationship the federal government has with their tribes. second, as the training is taking place, our bill also suspends all audits and examination of tribal governments for one year to allow this education to take place. it isn't rare for congress to pass legislation that supports guidance issued by the federal agencies to give more weight to the issues and make sure there is no potential misinterpretation. that is what we are doing this week. with the help of a lot of our

colleagues who believe in this legislation as well. we want to supplement the i.r.s. guidance to expand rather than restrict the safe harbor provisions. when i joined the united states senate i promised to be a partner, to honor and respect the sovereign rights of native americans, just as i always have. this bill is a step in the right direction. now, i fully anticipate that as we move forward this week we will, in fact, enact this legislation. i fully anticipate that we will send the right message to tribal governments that we see you the way you are. you are a sovereign government entitled to make the decisions that you need to make to the benefits of your citizens without undue and irrational interference from the i.r.s. and i think that the bipartisan nature of this bill is a tribute to my friend from kansas, who

understands completely what we're attempting to do. it is -- it is one of those rare moments that i've had since i've been in the united states senate where you see a good bill being debated, a good bill being discussed, and then have an opportunity to actually do the right thing. and so i thank my friend from kansas for the opportunity to join with him as a cosponsor of this legislation. it is critically important that this message get sent and that we have an opportunity into the future to continue to work with tribal governments to act in the best interest of tribal citizens and provide the services that are essential for a growing population of native american citizens, but also a population that lives in a great deal of poverty. and so i thank my friend from kansas. i look forward to seeing this bill signed into law, which i think will happen.

i think that the stars are aligning, and it will be a great day and a very important step in securing a better relationship of all governments with native american people. with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

height mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitcamp: i had skee that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitcamp: i ask first for unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitcamp: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the sneat senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 483, s. 2539. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: tar calendar 483, s. 2539, a bill to amend the public health service act and so

forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to froaght measure? without objection. ms. heitcamp: i further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitcamp: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 504, s. 1214. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 504, s. 1214, a bill to require the purchase of domestically made flags of the united states of america for use by the federal government. ms. heitcamp: i ask unanimous consent that the bill -- the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. ms. heitcamp: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the

motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitcamp: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 505, h.r. 4194. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 505, h.r. 41 4-rbg9s an act to provide for the elimination or modification of federal reporting requirements. the presiding officer: is there objection frog to the measure? without objection. ms. heitcamp: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered, the carper amendment, which is at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. heitcamp: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 522, s. 2117. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 21717, a bill to amend title 5, united states code, and so forth and for other purposes.. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent that the warren substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 552, s. 2511. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 552, s. 2511, a bill to amend the employee retirement income security act