senator john f. kennedy who argued vigorously vigorously for a 30-day waiting period prior to the election. as he said, there should be at least a 30-day interval between the request for an election and the holding of an election in which both parties can present their viewpoints. the 30-day waiting period is an additional safeguard against rushing employees if into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues. unquote. again, that was a quote by senator john f. kennedy speaking directly to the need for fairness to employees. the 30-day waiting period provision he supported did not ultimately become part of the law and obviously it's not a law today. instead the nlrb adopted a practice of a 25-day waiting period in almost every case. but this caution about the need for employees to have a chance to become familiar with the issues is just as true today. employees who are not aware of

the organizing activity at their work site and even those who are need to have an opportunity to learn about the union they may join. they will want to research the union to ensure it has no signs of corruption. they'll want to know how other work sites have fared with this union and whether they can believe the promises the union organizers may be extending. employers should have every chance to understand the impact of unionization. for decades -- four decades ago senators recognized the opportunity to gather this and relevant information before casting their votes. unfortunately, the nlrb is choosing to ignore this caution and rank and file employees will suffer. this situation is exactly what the congressional review act was intended for when an agency goes too far and tries to impose rules or regulations that are unnecessary or harmful in this case it's both, the congressional review act gives congress an expedited process

for repealing the regulation. it's a process that can't be held up and can't be stalled and can't be put off to ensure that congress can act when it needs to stop an out-of-control agency. by any measure the current law and certification system for union elections ensures that the process is fair for all parties and that all parties have the opportunity to exercise their rights and fully understand the implications. the national labor relations board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. they can't make the case because the data doesn't support it. i want to repeat, the national labor relations board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. they can't make that case because the data doesn't support it. there's no need for this rule which is just a handout to big labor that relies on pushing union elections forward before businesses and employees have a chance to study and understand

all the effects. this rules resolution will preserve the fairness and swift resolution of claims which occur under current law it will not disadvantage unions or roll back any rights. it's important to say that again because there is going to be a lot of misinformation about what this resolution does. this resolution does not disadvantage unions oriel back any -- roll back any union rights. what it does is ensure that small business employers and employees employs in america are not unfairly disadvantaged by a burdensome process and that employees are not misled with insufficient or incorrect information during the union election process. under a --. the presiding officer: the senator has used ten minutes. mr. enzi: i'd ask for one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: under a successful congressional review act disapproval the agency is prohibited from issuing any substantially similar regulation. that means the national labor relations board could not just

reissue the regulation again and again just like they've currently done. i encourage my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that the national labor relations board understands that this rule is a no-go and that we will stand up to ensure a fair process. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i rise in support of michael botticelli and our effort today to confirm him as the director of the office of national drug control policy. the state of massachusetts like too many other regions of this nation, is being ravaged by the scourge of prescription drug and heroin addiction that is breaking apart families and burying communities under a mountain of despair. massachusetts experienced 114

deaths in december, and that doesn't count our biggest cities like boston and worcester and springfield. drug overdose deaths fueled by prescription painkillers approximately 100 americans die from an overdose every day. as a senator from massachusetts i have a deep appreciation and respect for michael botticelli's accomplishments, addressing addiction during his nearly two decades serving in the massachusetts department of public health, he is a public health and drug policy pioneer and he lived in my hometown of malden massachusetts while did he this job. immediately prior to joining the office of national drug control policy as deputy director, mr. botticelli was the director of the bureau of substance abuse

services at the massachusetts department of public health. while he was there he pioneered innovative effective approaches to substance abuse challenges. he was responsible for launching a program that expanded treatment and recovery opportunities in local community health centers including a focus on providing a continuum of care for those suffering from substance use disorders. mr. botticelli also expanded innovative and nationally recognized strategy, he established and implemented jail diversion programs, reenter services for those leaving state and county directal facilities and overdose prevention programs. though there is always more work to be done it is because of mr. botticelli's efforts and the legacy he left behind that massachusetts is in many ways a leader in addressing a prescription and heroin abuse

epidemic. mr. botticelli has been public about his personal history of struggling with an alcohol use disorder as a young professional and seeking help that has led him into long-term recovery. he recently celebrated 26 years of sob rightty and i -- sobrietyity and i applaud him for that. when he joined me in recent roundtable i convened in boston about this crisis, he spoke about it in human terms. he reminded us that there is a family a loved one or a friend or child behind each and every one of these statistics statistics. his openness about his struggles and his path to recovery helped shed needed light on the issue of addiction which has lurked too long in shadows of shame and stigma. i believe his story helps encourage others to seek treatment. he truly truly is leading by his own personal example. the drug problems facing our

country have changed dramatically since the office of national drug control policy was created in 1988. mr. botticelli has an excellent understanding of the mission of this office, the changing needs of the addiction community and the urgency for solutions to halting the rise of substance use disorders in this country. i believe he is going to make a superlative director, bringing his strong heart keen mind and his malden, massachusetts roots to the office of drug control policy. i am honored to talk in support of his nomination on the floor today and look forward to working with him in the years to come. i recommend in the strongest possible terms michael botticelli for the office of director of the office of national drug control policy and i yield back the balance of my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i want to speak about the ukraine.

lord knows the president of the united states has enough on his plate and he's trying to make the right decisions about what to do in giving assistance to the ukranian people and to the ukranian army to hold off vladimir putin's troops that are masquerading as rebels but, in fact are bringing in russian equipment and russian soldiers that put on different uniforms. it's because of that that i think that the wise choice would be for the united states to give lethal armaments to the ukranian people. i was there in august, i spoke with all the members of the government from the prime minister the defense

minister the foreign minister minister the head of their defense council. at the time i was surprised that they did not ask for lethal assistance but instead wanted up-to-the-minute intelligence, which was so important and training. and if my memory serves me correctly, in the defense bill we provided about $350 million for that assistance. but the question of lethal armies so that -- armaments so that they can withstand the russian tanks if we want them to be successful, that is exceptionally important in this senator's mind and my point of view. now, there's another reason.

ms. america -- mrs. americale is in town and her position is that she does not want europe to provide lethal assistance. well germany, of course, is not sharing a geographic line with the former soviet union now russia and germany is not feeling the heat, even though a major component and member of nato like so many of the other nato members further to the east. so if you take some of the baltic states, estonia latvia lithuania they have

substantial russian populations. they are frightened that the realistic possibility is if putin is successful in eastern ukraine like he has already taken a russian-speaking part of ukraine, namely crimea, where it fell into his hand like a ripe plum and is now moving on other parts of eastern ukraine to establish a land bridge down to crimea, what they fear is that suddenly the russian army will amass on their border and use as a pretext just like putin has done in eastern ukraine the coming in and rescuing and protecting the

russian-speaking elements of those particular countries particularly the baltics. there's a huge percentage of the population in estonia that is russian. likewise in latvia and also lithuania. i met with the president of lithuania a woman that a lot of people refer to in very admiring terms as a tough cookie and that is apparent when you meet her. but the concerns about the russian aggression are clearly there, and they are very concerned that if eastern ukraine falls they're next. and thus that's another reason, i think that these courageous people who had had so many years

after the breakup of the soviet union so many years of corruption and bad government now having thrown off the shackles of corruption having a new government after all of those are protests in the center of the capital city of ukraine, and i think it's incumbent upon us to help that little country defend itself against the russian aggression. when a russian tank is bearing down on you you need something that can penetrate the steel armor of that tank in order to stop that tank and all the other tanks' advance.

let me stop right there and shift gears. department of homeland security. the clock is ticking and we're about to run out of money at the end of this month. if we go into a situation where the very department that is tasked with protection of the national security here at home does not have the funding to protect our borders, to be the central location for directing defense against cyber attacks to protect us as we get on airplanes through t.s.a., to patrol the waters of the coastal united states through our coast

guard, if we don't have the money appropriated then that, to this senator is inexcusable. and all of this over a dispute about immigration because some people want to have it their which and only their way -- have it their way and only their way? and, therefore, they cannot stand what the president has done by legal authority in issuing executive orders. that's not the way for us to protect ourselves against all these adversaries. when i came to washington as a young congressman many moons ago, it was very clearly understood that partisan politics stopped at the water's edge. when it came to matters of national security, there was no

partisan politics. when it came to matters of foreign policy, there was no partisan politics. oh my how times have changed. and now with the injection of ideological politics, it's time for us to move on. and the third and last subject madam president that i'd like to speak about is that hopefully tomorrow at about 6:00 in the evening we will have the launch of a major spacecraft/satellite for the interest of the united states and the free world. i was there at the cape last night thinking that the discover

satellite was going to be launched atop a falcon rocket on pad 40 at the cape canaveral air force station and all systems were go, save for the radar system on the eastern test range of the air force test and evaluation center. and the radar system went down and, obviously you can't launch a spacecraft, a rocket, if you can't track it precisely in case it were to err from its course and it had to be destroyed. so it was postponed and it has now been rescheduled for tomorrow night approximately around 6:00. why is this important? it is important because there are three major instruments -- there are many more, but the

three that i will mention are number one it will constantly aim an instrument at the sun so when there is an additional solar explosion, which is a nuclear explosion on the face of the sun and all that additional radiation starts coming in what is known as solar wind to the u.s. that we can prepare for that nuclear radiation save our satellites save certain electrical grid systems warn piments thatpilots that are flying a route over the poles where the magnetic force of the earth does

not protect and repel against the nuclear radiation coming from the sun all of those extremely important to commercial satellites, to commercial systems on the ground, as well as -- especially so -- our military warning satellites. we are fortunate that there is a satellite that was put up in the late-1990's -- it's acronym is a.c.e. --," "-- it had a design life of five years. that would have been the early 2000's. this satellite keeps producing but it measures the solar wind, or nuclear radiation coming from the sun about every 40 minutes. it was supposed to have been

dead years ago. it's still perking. this is to replace it and to give us warnings of a nuclear blast not every 40 minutes but in a much more rapid -- like every one or two minutes; thus, that we can save our systems on the ground and in orbit. that's one instrument. now, since this payload will be at a neutrally buoyant point where the ernl's gravitational pull -- where the earth's gravitational pull stops and the sun's gravitational pull stops called the lgegrangin point

number one -- it is approximately a million miles from earth and because of the much greater gravitational pull from the sun, it is about 92 million milesmiles from the sun. it constantly looks at the sun in one direction and in the other direction it looks at the earth. and these are the other two instruments. one instrument will constantly measure the heat coming from the sun being absorbed in the earth and that instrument then also measures the amount of that heat that is reflected off of the earth and radiated back out into space. so if you want to measure exactly how the erming is

heating up -- how the earth is heating up, you get this very precise measurement of what's being absorbed minus what's being radiated back out into space, and you have the exact amount that the earth is absorbing in the heating up of this planet. and the final instrument is one that was conceived of by the then-vice president al gore, who at my invitation was there yesterday, and i don't know if he's going to be able to stay over until tomorrow until the launch. and what al gore knew was that now 42 years ago was the last time that we had a full sunlit picture of the earth.

42 years ago by the apollo 17 astronauts on the face of the moon. and they got the earth just at the exact time full one half of the earth lit by the sun behind the astronauts on the moon. that's the last time we have a full live picture of the earth. we've had many other pictures, but what they are is there's a strip here and a snippet there and they're all stitched together even though they're taken at different times to make a composite of what the earth simulated looks like. what this satellite discover, will do as its camera looks straight back at earth taking

about 13 photographs in a 24-hour period. since the satellite is between earth and sun looking back with the telephoto lens, it will always see the sunlit side of the whole side of the earth as it rotates about its axis every 24 hours. and as it rotates about the sun every 365 days. that will give us a new perspective of the overview effect of what this home is that we call planet earth and what it

looks like on a daily basis every two hours. madam president i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, madam president. the keystone legislation is likely to move to the president's desk this week after the house takes it up, and he will veto it. the votes are not there to override a veto, either in the senate or in the house. legislation has a natural life cycle, and this piece of legislation is reaching the end of its life cycle. this debate is almost over. so where are we when it comes to american energy policy?

the debate that occurred on keystone was no doubt an important one but it was exactly upside down. congress and the media treated the keystone bill as if it would settle american energy policy once and for all when in fact it is and was a tiny sliver of the debate. american energy policy is not defined by one project or one piece of infrastructure, however contentious is may be. but in order to have a real energy conversation, we have to agree on the facts and this body can't be the only place where there's a lack of queen -- consensus on the basic facts. that's why my amendment senator hoeven's amendment and those of many others were so important. last week -- excuse me, last month's climate votes were illuminating and encourage. first senator whitehouse's language which simply stated that climate change was not a

hoax received a nearly unanimous vote and believe it or not that is progress. but my amendment stwaited that climate change -- which stated that climate change is real, caused by humans, and has real and significant impacts received a bear majority of the votes with five republicans supporting it. senator hoeven's amendment had similar language as well as some pro--keystone language and a-- pro-keystone language and attracted a dozen or so republican votes. without acknowledging the problem, we cannot even begin to work on it. the wall of denial has begun to crack. so now we have a denial of, depending on how it's phrase phrased even a potential supermajority? the senate saying that climate change is real. now most every serious person in public life either admits the basic facts of climate change or is on their way to et going there. -- to getting there.

so that's a good thing. now the question is, what should we do? given our regional differences our ideological difnses differences and the partisan divide, what comes next? later this year or next we'll see efforts to repeal a number of important environmental rules, especially the administration's clean power plan, which will regulate carbon pollution from existing in new power plants. but that, too is highly unlikely to result in anything other than a presidential veto. so are there any areas for potential common ground? well i think we've seen real glimmers of hope and possibility during the keystone debate. several of my republican colleagues made the argument during the debate on keystone that while climate change is a real problem we must be aware of how energy costs influence economic activity. i could not agree more. you don't hear this often from folks on my side of the debate,

but price matters. no climate policy is a real solution unless it strengthens both the national and global economies. aas we pursue clean energy, we must understand its impacts on consumers, especially individuals and families in lower-income communities as well as businesses. we miss an opportunity to find common ground if we move too quickly past the question of cost and the social and economic context in which this transition is going to occur. we can contend with these problems and challenges in congress through a legislative solution. we can provide incentives, create market-based mechanisms, look at regional differences fund r&d to help develop new and less expensive solutions. e.p.a. certainly has the authority and the obligation under the law to regulate carbon and other greenhouse gases. and so i support the president's

clean power plant because carbon pollution is real and it ought to be regulated under the clean air act. but if we want to be more comprehensive, if we want to be more nuanced more flexible, more responsive to communities we need a bill, structured properly a bill has the advantage of creating economically efficient solutions that be reduce carbon pollution from a much wider range of sources. that's why a well-designed fee on carbon is critical for our economy and our environment. but look, i understand that the politics are nearly impossible right now. but if you think about our ability as legislators to remunerate communities struggling during a transition to ameliorate certain economic challenges you may agree that legislating provides us the tools to achieve greater pollution reductions at a much lower social and economic cost. and so once the clean power plan

is established once it's litigated and once it's full-on reality, i believe there may be room for a compromise. one more thing on the question of price we've got to do our collusions on an -- our calculations on an all-in basis. that includes environmental standards, health impacts and other so-called externality. there is evidence that indicates clean energy technology is considered with fossil fuel technology when costs are added in. additionally the costs of solar and wind is dropping precipitously and in many places is competing successfully in the free market even before we consider the costs of pollution. so we will have a couple of battles that are unavoidable. the clean power plan and likely another run at keystone. but there are a couple of areas that in my view don't have to be a battle. energy efficiency and energy research. we ought to start with the

shaheen-portman energy efficiency legislation. i have little doubt that democrats would support this as a stand-alone bill. energy efficiency is just common sense, and the energy experts remind us of something that our mothers and fathers taught us growing up: waste not want not. in other words the straightest line towards saving money for people businesses and institutions is to help them adopt the latest energy efficiency practices and technologies. even this has unfortunately become a partisan issue in the last several congresses with people worried that light bulb efficiency standards were part of some orwellian plot. but that's not what these department of energy standards do and that's not what shaheen-portman does. as its core, energy efficiency is simply this: use less and get the same result. using less means paying less. getting the same result means not having to sacrifice your way of life. the idea is not to ask people to

do without. the idea is to just get more for our money. it's an old school conservative idea, and of course the shaheen-portman bill doesn't cost the taxpayers a dime, and projections are that it will create nearly 200,000 jobs. i also think there's a lot of room for good bipartisan work in advanced technology research in the energy space. the kind of that the department of energy did for the state of hawaii in developing a grid system that can accommodate unprecedented levels of intermittent renewable energy, the kind that made major advances in hydraulic fracturing the kind that helped the price of solar panels to drop 80% since 2008, the kind that's making breakthroughs in battery storage which has fallen in price by 40% since 2010, the kind that is working on carbon capture and sequestration. america must lead on energy, and

that requires that we do the kind of basic research that private companies can eventually use at a relatively small increase in research funding on the fossil and renewable side has been shown to make an enormous impact on our economy. distribution and transmission systems, grid stability and security and fuel systems will enable america to lead in energy for decades to come. these are the kinds of investments that we would see in a comprehensive energy bill, and i was so encouraged last week that the chairwoman of the energy committee the the senator from from alaska indicated her desire to pursue comprehensive legislation this congress. and she is a real killed bipartisan legislator -- real skilled bipartisan legislator and i'm looking forward to working with her on these issues. i'm especially encouraged by her openness to climate provisions as part of that bill, something she mentioned as recently as

last week. just as she has listened to the concerns i and others raised about climate change during the keystone debate so should we listen to her call for reliable, affordable clean and diverse energy supplies. several proposals contained within the president's fiscal year budget could become a part of the a bipartisan bill, including ideas to more fully promote carbon capture and sequestration technologies and protect coal workers in their communities as we transition. the concerns of communities that have coal-based economies are real and legitimate, and i believe any true climate solution must prioritize solutions for every american. the president recognized that and proposed $55 million next year to help affected communities diversify their economy, offer job training and ensure a good transition. this will require compromise and it will require those of us on the left to concede that fossil

fuels aren't going to disappear instantaneously and it will require those on the right to recognize that investing in clean energy technologies doesn't necessarily mean picking winners and losers. we have wind energy in nearly all states. in fact, more in republican than democratic states. and we have tea party members everywhere who love the freedom and the liberty that distributed generation rooftop solar offers. and we have clean energy progressives including myself who understand that we have to deal with the energy system that we have, not the one that we wish we had. the areas i've mentioned are not the only opportunities for bipartisan compromise, but we do need to start a dialogue either on the floor in committees or informal discussions about what we can actually do. and as we consider a policy solution let's ask the following questions: can it be enacted into law? will it advance american energy

security? will it strengthen the economy and provide economic growth? and will it reduce carbon pollution? there are a few areas where we're going to fight; there is no avoiding it and that's okay. but there is for the first time since i arrived a glimmer of hope that we may be able to find common ground on some of these issues and begin a serious discussion about tackling american energy policy and climate change. madam president, i yield the floor and 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 connecticut. mr. murphy: i'd ask we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you madam president. madam president, this is the first time that i've done this while you've been presiding. but over the last two years since the mass tragedy in my state at sandy hook, connecticut, i've come down to the floor once every week or so to give voice to the victims of gun violence all across this country. i've told the story of the beautiful six- and seven-year olds as well as their teachers and professionals who were killed that day. but the fact is that every day across this country there are two to three sandy hooks that and there are 86 people killed by guns every day in this country, 2,600 a month and over

30,000 a year. and the statistics, unfortunately, have not compelled this body to action. we've done nothing. zero about this national tragedy since sandy hook. and that's a stain upon the conscience of this body that is impossible to erase. so my hope is that by coming down to the floor and talking about who these people actually are maybe it will prompt us to have a conversation about how we can make sure that these numbers aren't eliminated. they're never going to go away, but that they're lower that they're less than these numbers the highest in the developed world. so let me talk first about an extraordinary man young man 44 years old, who was killed on january 20, just about two weeks ago, a few weeks ago in boston, massachusetts. his name was dr. michael davidson. he was shot by a gunman who walked into brigham and women's

hospital. this was the relative of someone who had been under the care of dr. davidson, clearly had some major illness that prompted him to think that he could solve his grief by shooting the doctor who had cared for his loved one. dr. davidson was known at brigham and women's hospital for his gentle way with patients and their families, his willingness to operate on the most delicate hearts. he used to lie awake at night worrying about his patients and he was always receiving letters about the great care that he provided. he wanted to be a cardiovascular surgeon from the time that he was a little boy, which is a pretty exceptional thing. and as renowned as he was as a physician and as a physician what he really will be remembered for is being a father, a father to three children who was waiting for his fourth to arrive, due this

april. at his funeral nearly 1,000 people were there to hear his wife say by now you've heard my husband michael davidson was a superb physician. perhaps most importantly he cared immensely for his patients and their families. that's why the fact that a patient's family member would take michael away from us makes it all the more devastating. a brilliant surgeon a wonderful father taken away from us at age 44 in boston, massachusetts. everyone by now has heard the story from december 20 where two new york city police officers were killed by a mentally ill man who drove to new york with the intention of killing police officers, wenjian liu had been in this country almost 20 years to the day an american dream story personified. he came, his family came to this country from china to seek a better life.

he came here on christmas eve 1994. he wanted to be a police officer because he wanted to give back to his community. liu once said i know that being a cop is dangerous but i must do it. if i don't do it and you don't do it, then who's going to do it? that kind of commitment was shown by the very fact that he was in the car that day. he wasn't scheduled to work, but he volunteered to work a fill-in shift when a fellow officer was late. that's just how he was. rafael ramos otherwise known as ralph ramos was in that car as well. he wanted to be a police officer so bad that when he was preparing to join the police academy he took a petition door to door throughout his neighborhood asking for his neighbors to testify to his character. he's remembered as a good police officer, but also somebody who just shoveled all the sidewalks in his neighborhood, took his two boys to a nearby park over and over to play basketball, always with a smile on his face.

he was hours away of becoming a lay chaplain, it was one of his dreams was to go into the ministry. he's remembered by friends and family as someone committed to his family, committed to his job, but also committed to his faith. these two police officers, madam president, were killed by a man named ismail brensley. this was a deeply mentally ill man, someone who had tried to commit suicide who had become completely isolated from his family and peers. and when i read his story is struck me as not completely dissimilar from the story in newtown connecticut the story of adam lanza. he was deeply troubled and mentally ill young man whop eventually became isolated from his friends and family. we can't completely understand what caused him to do that day nor what perfect brinsley was thinking in his head when he drove to new york to carry out

those heinous murders. but what we know is that we have largely abandoned the mentally ill in this country. we lock them up in prisons rather than treating their underlying illnesses. over the course of the last half a decade, 4,000 inpatient psychiatric beds have been closed all across this country forcing more of the mentally ill out on to the streets, into prisons and into crisis. you know that the federal law authorizing the funding we send to mental health work in this country, samsa that's the agency? that law hasn't been reauthorized in a decade. we haven't even debated mental health policy on the floor of this senate for a decade. no wonder why we have a system that's in crisis. it means that in the absence of federal leadership that private organizations are stepping up to the plate. sandy hook promise, the group of parents of many of those children who were killed has taken up a cause called "no one

eats alone." it's a wonderful, wonderful cause in which students in high school and middle school and elementary school cafeterias are asked to seek out that one or two children that you know often eat alone who are socially isolated at school and to reach out and do little small things like sitting with them during lunch to remove some sense of social isolation that comes often with children who bring mental illness or learning disabilities to school. now, that effort is admirable and it will make a difference but it speaks to the fact that those groups have to step in and do things like the "no one eats alone campaign," because congress isn't stepping up to the plate and doing anything about these numbers 31,000 a year 2,600 a month 86 a day. now, you know what my feelings are on this. i don't think it's just about mental health programming and funding. i also think it's ridiculous that 90% of americans think you should have to go through a background check in order to buy a gun and yet we still won't

move forward with expanded background checks. that the majority of americans thing that dangerous assault weapons should be for the police and for our military not be able to get into the hands of young, troubled men like adam lanza to be used in mass murder. but in the absence over the next two years of our ability to come to an agreement on changing our gun laws so that they reflect where the vast majority of americans -- the american public are, let's at least take on the mental health crisis in this country. let's at least decide that we're going to plus up resources for community mental health providers, that we're going to rebuild inpatient capacity, that we're going to recognize that as angry as we are at people like ismail brinsley, of yowngs men like adam -- young men like adam lanza, that there's a story there of neglect. that if we address that, we can lower these numbers even without changes over the next two years in our, i would argue very backwards national background checks laws. so madam president i thank you

for listening and for some of my colleagues for being on the floor today. i know we have a number of people who want to speak. but i'm going to continue to come down to the floor so that my colleagues can hear the stories of people like officer ramos, of people like officer lou, of stories of heroes like dr. michael davidson so that maybe the voices of these victims can prompt us to action. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president i'd like to make a unanimous consent request that lieutenant colonel anthony mccarty he's a defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and -- and madam president, along with senator hatch, we have a concern that we want to share with this body and one of the reasons i do is because i had planned to go ahead and introduce the bill having to do with the aumf.

in fact, i actually had introduced it a year ago. but i understand now that we're coming into an agreement and we stand together, senator hatch and i to speak about the need for the new aumf authorization for the use of military force against the terrorist organization known as the isis or isil or whatever you want to call it in order to answer any legal question as to the authority the president has to defend the american people and demonstrate our commitment to the global coalition in defeating this radical islamic organization. now, i have always contended that the -- that the president had this authority anyway. in fact, i can remember a year ago he said that he did. and i now understand the president will be sending to congress his own version of the aumf this week and i'll read it with interest. over the past six months isis or isil has expanded its control in iraq and syria.

they continue to recruit followers worldwide. we saw just the other day what happened when we had the president of -- or the king of jordan here and we had the opportunity to be with him when he got the very sad news of what had happened to his -- his f-16 pilot being burned alive. i happened to be with him in syria just a month before that, i'm talking about with the king of jordan. we know firsthand what is going on. so it's my hope that the president's proposed aumf will include all the authorities needed to execute a strategy to stop isis and that the president provides congress with that strategy as part of any approval for an aumf. the president's proposed aumf should not contain restrictions on u.s. forces or time or geographic limitations. an aumf should authorize the use of all necessary and appropriate force anywhere isis -- where

isis or any successor organization is operating until we accomplish that the strategy. and at his state of the union speech last month, president obama specifically said -- and i'm quoting now -- he said, "i call on this congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against isil. we need that authority." now, that was a quote from his state of the union message. quite frankly he had already stated before that he had that authority. but i'm not going to argue about that. let's just make sure and eliminate all doubts. subsequent official white house statements have called for the right-sized modernized aumf. it would send a powerful signal to the citizens of this country citizens of our allies and to our enemies. but it was the -- on january 23 that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey, said -- and i'm going to quote general dempsey's

desire quote because i think he is the you be in-one guy. he's the chairman of the joint cleefs of staff the one -- chiefs of staff the one who should be the best qualified to make these decisions. he said -- quote -- "i think in the crafting of the aumf all options should be on the table and then we can debate whether we want to use them or not. but the authorization should be there. in particular, it shouldn't constrain activities geographically because isil knows no boundaries and doesn't recognize any boundaries. in fact, it's their intention to erase all boundaries to their benefit." now still quoting "constraints on time or sunset clause. i just don't think it's necessary. i don't think -- i think the nation should speak of its intent to confront this radical ideological barbaric group and leave the option until we can deal with it." now, that's all a quote from general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and i think we need to listen to him. i don't think the immediate need for an aumf could be put more

clearly or succinctly than general dempsey's words and it's my hope that he was i want integrally involved in the drafting of what we're going to see. it's my understanding we're going to see this tomorrow. again madam president i along with many colleagues, including my good friend from utah look forward to reading president obama's aumf. we've got to get rid of this monster. and with that, i would yield to my good friend from utah. mr. hatch: i thank my colleague. madam president? every is the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president today i rise with my friend, the senior senator from oklahoma, to discuss some of the most pressing national security issues that the senate is poised to confront. these matters include the confirmation of ashton carter as secretary of defense, whose nomination i strongly support and senator ayotte's guantanamo bay detainee transfer bill of which i am a cosponsor. indeed, i applaud the

expeditious consideration of senator ayotte's bill in the armed services committee under the leadership of senator mccain. those moves -- or these moves come at a critically important time as we continue to witness the spectacles of barbarism perpetrated by the so-called islamic state or isis. aid workers and journalists gruesomely beheaded, christians tortured and murdered for refusing to convert and most recently a captured coalition pilot burned alive. these acts are just a glimpse of the undiluted savagery unleashed by this terrorist organization on a large swath of territory in iraq and syria that it controls. even beyond its horrific human rights violations the islamic state threatens to destabilize the entire middle east and is attempting to undo that -- all that was accomplished by our service members and eight years of blood and sacrifice in iraq. most doubling of all the islamic state serves as a safe

haven for terrorist training and planning. similar to afghanistan prior to the september 11 attacks with the islamic state's stated attention to -- quote -- "raise the flag of allah in the white house," and kill -- quote -- "hundreds of millions" in a worldwide -- quote -- "religious cleansely," there can be no doubt that this organization poses a clear and present danger to the national security of the united states and to our allies. not only in the middle east but throughout the world. accordingly, we must fight and defeat this dangerous terrorist organization. madam president, it is therefore, incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that we provide all the tools necessary for defeating the enemy. personally i agree with the obama administration's previous determination that the president has ample powers to conduct operations against the islamic state under article 2 of the constitution as well as the existing authorizations for the use of military force passed by

congress in 2001 against al qaeda and the taliban and in 2002 for iraq. nevertheless i agree with the president that congress should authorize the use of force against the islamic state. not only to put to rest any legal questions about the president's power to use force but also to demonstrate to the world america's resolve in this fight against terror. madam president, if we are to pass a new authorization for the use of military force, it is critically important to ensure that this new law is properly crafted. it will define against whom and under what conditions our nation may direct its national might. therefore, senator inhofe and i feel compelled to propose general principles that we believe should guide this effort effort especially since it appears the president will send his own draft to congress shortly. senator inhofe and i are offering these thoughts with no intention to undermine careful

consideration of the president's proposal by the senate's national security committees. furthermore, we do not at all wish to complicate the efforts to reach consensus by laying down demands. rather, our intent is to facilitate the legislative process by outlining some of the elements we believe to be the most crucial for ensuring the success of our service members as they confront this great evil. first, the authorization should clearly articulate that the executive branch is authorized to use force employed in accordance with the law of armed conflict against the islamic state. second, the authorization should be flexible enough to be utilized not only against the islamic state as it appears today but also in whatever form the organization takes going forward. this flexibility should also include the authority to use force against organizations that are associated with or materially supporting the islamic state.

finally and most importantly the authorization should not impose any artificial and unnecessary limitations such as those based on time geography and type of force that could interfere with our strategic objective of defeating the islamic state. unfortunately, many have suggested, including such artificial limitations on the use of force in a future authorization. specifically many have discussed prohibiting the use of ground forces as well as providing an expiration date for the authorization. these are restrictions that the islamic state could use to its advantage. if we are telling the islamic state upfront that we will not use ground forces will they not tailor their strategy around that fact? if we advertise when the authorization expires at an arbitrary date and final will they not hunker down and wait for that date? why would we not only unilaterally impose limitations as to which types of tools and tactics our service members can use but then also broadcast

those limitations to the enemy? indeed, we believe that congress and the president should heed the advice of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey, who stated in an interview on january 23, 2015 that -- quote -- "i think in the crafting of the aumf all options should be on the table. and then we can debate whether we want to use them. but the authorization should be there. in particular, it shouldn't constrain activities geographically because isil knows no boundaries and doesn't recognize any boundaries. in fact, it's their intention to erase all boundaries to their benefit. constraints on time or a sunset clause, i just don't think it's necessary. i think the nation should speak of its intent to confront this radical ideological barbaric group and leave the option until we can deal with it." unquote. senator inhofe and i could not