h massive crippling hunger, poverty, and destitution. these groups work best when autocratic or sectarian governments marginalize specific groups pushing them into the arms of extremists who pledge to fight the corrupt and dehumansing status quo. mr. president, more often than not foreign ground troops exacerbate these forces. foreign occupations often empower divisive local leadership like the former iraqi prime minister maliki, who pushed people towards not away from extremist groups. then groups like al qaeda and isil use this misery to brainwash young men into believing that america is to blame, that we're then mi that they're yearning to fight.

that doesn't mean that there isn't a role for military force in the middle east. mr. president, i voted for an authorization in the foreign relations committee that allows for the united states, our military, to go in and kill terrorists. but we sumly need to understand that -- we simply need to understand that ultimately what military force is in the middle east is a shaping mechanism to give us space in order to achieve the political and economic reform on the ground with our local partners, such that those root causes of terrorists disappear. military force -- american military force is useful in this fight, but it has limits. there is a decreasing marginal return and then a point where it actually flips on its head and begins to actually create more of the people that we're seeking to destroy. now, i've heard two arguments over the past few days as to why this aumf shouldn't have a limitation on ground troops. first, some of my republican friends say in this kind of

prohibition would be unwise because it is going to telegraph to our enemies a critical tactical limitation. my response? good. why do you think isil puts up these execution videos? because they know that the best long-term play for their desired caliphate is predicated on the united states making a mistake and rejoining a ground war in the middle east. recent history has taught isil that the best tool, by far to recruit terrorists -- and estimates that there are as many as 20,000 foreign fighters that have joined isil their best tool is the united states army in the middle east. thus, i have no problem being transparent with our enemy by signaling to them that we're going to learn from our mistakes and fight this war with tools that result in victory not defeat. now, the second argument i hear is that congress would be overstepping our constitutional bounds by limiting the president to prosecute a war. but first let's just note that

over and over again starting with congress' very first authorizations of military force passed in early american times we've put restrictions consistently on war declarations and aumf's. most recently republicans and democrats in the foreign reels committee voted to put some very serious limitations on our authorization for the use of military norse force in syria. and frankly regardless of the precedent, i'd argue that the congress has a constitutional responsibility to help set strategy for war to help guide the nation's foreign policy. let's be honest here. this aumf is going to go on for three years according to the limitations that the president proposed well into the president's next term. and as someone to believes that combat troops in the middle east would be a mistake i simply can't rely on president obama's promise that he won't use ground troops against isil, because he's only got two more years left. and many leading republicans have made it perfectly clear that they would push a president from their party if that's who

comes next, to put troops back into the fight against isil. as an elected representative of the people that i serve i should get a say as to whether or not we learn from our mistakes of the past ten years. mr. president, i remember my first visit to iraq. i was there in the bloody spring of 2007. i remember being absolutely blown away by the capability and bravery and the capacity of the young u.s. soldiers that i met thereto in places like baghdad and tikrit. so i can understand why it's easy for some people to believe that there is no enemy that our soldiers can't beat, that there's no challenge that they can't meet, that there's no threat that they can't eliminate. i believe in american exceptionalism in my heart but i don't think it allows us to ignore history to avoid facts to deny reality. and the reality is that extremists in some parts of the

world are like flat worms. if you come at them with the wrong weapon, you may kill one but you'll create two more. so i'm pleased that the united states senate is finally able to debate a new war against isil. this debate is past due. isil needs to be defeated, and we deserve to honor the united states constitution and step up to the plate and debate an authorization. make no mistake, we should pass an aumf. isil is evil personified. but for us to beat them, we need an aumf that makes it totally cheer thatclear this we won't simply repeat the mistakes of the past that got us into this mess in the first place. mr. president, i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum.

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

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be livedlifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: and can you tell me, mr. president, what the status of floor debate is and how much time i might have? the presiding officer: the democrats have eight minutes reminderring. minutes -- remaining. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. mr. president, i've come to the

floor again today with just 16 days left until the department of homeland security shuts down to again call for congress to pass a clean full-year bill to fund the department of homeland security. with our nation facing very real and very dangerous threats -- senator murphy, who was just on the floor talking about the isil threat, points out just what the risks are -- it is time for us to put politics aside and to do what's right for the security of our nation. if we don't pass a full-year bill to fund the department of homeland security, we won't be ail to make critical in-- able to make critical investments in maritime security, border security and nuclear detection activities. if we don't pass a full-year bill grants to protect our cities and our ports from terror attacks would be halted and new

grants to police and firefighters won'ting awarded. -- won't be awarded. if we don't pass a full-year bill we're short-chapping counterterrorism efforts and we will put our nation's cyber networks at risk. a full-year bill is on the calendar. our bill funds these key priorities but if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to support a bill that senator mikulski and i have filed, certainly we can support a republican bill that's a clean bill that includes the funding for the department of homeland security. our bill, our clean bill, is based on the bicameral bipartisan agreement that was reached in december by senator mikulski and congressman hal rogers. the legislation was agreed to by democrats and republicans and it was the result of bipartisan

compromise negotiations. not everyone got what they wanted in the bill, but it's a good budget that strengthens our nation and streeks against the many -- and protects against the many threats we face. appropriations bills are only possible because of the art of compromise. senators from both parties identify priorities important to them or their states, they work with members of the appropriations committee on bill language funding priorities and everyone works together to influence the final product. all senators have the opportunity to participate in crafting appropriations bills and, in fact, there doesn't really seem to be any disagreement about the funding and how it's allocateed in the appropriations bill that's before us. -- in the funding bill for homeland security. senator cochran who chairs the

appropriations committee came to the floor and touted all of the benefits that are in the funding bill for homeland security. senator hoeven, who chairs the subcommittee on homeland security that i'm the ranking member of, came to the floor and, like senator cochran touted what's in the bill. i've been to the floor and senator mikulski has been to the floor many times to talk about what's in the funding bill for the department of homeland security and why we need to pass it. now, this morning i'd actually like to highlight a few more of the priorities in a clean full-year bill to fund the department of homeland security. priorities that will be at risk if we can't pass a clean bill. there is bipartisan support that homeland security appropriations bill include strong funding for fire and safer grants. these are programs -- i know the

presiding officer understands that because he's been a governor of his home state so he knows how important those fire and safer grants are to local fire departments to first responders because they help purchase new equipment they help with training exercises and they can help fire departments cut down response times and save lives. there is also bipartisan support that the homeland security funding bill include grants to help our nation's largest cities protect against terror attacks. there's funding for state and local law enforcement grants. there's bipartisan support for funding to upgrade the fema center for domestic preparedness in aniston alabama. there is a compromise that most of the people on the democratic side of the aisle didn't agree with to deny president obama's request to increase air

passenger fees and reinstitute the air carrier security fee. the coast guard needs to continue the acquisition of its eighth national security cutter, which is so important for our maritime security. republicans and democrats secured $627 million in the bill for the cutter. now, we've all seen how devastating the attacks were against sony when it was hacked. cyber attacks are an area of security that former national security advisor brent scowcroft called as dangerous as nuclear weapons. that's why republicans and democrats pushed for full funding for d.h.s. cybersecurity activityies. and the increase to the southwestern border of unaccompanied children and families last year is a major concern for states states along our southern border, states like

arizona and new mexico. and it's been a key priority for a umin of my republican colleagues -- a number of my republican colleagues, for all of us who are concerned about border security, to reach the statutory mandate of beds for undocumented immigrants required by the department of homeland security. the clean funding bill includes support for those 34,000 detention beds and it also includes funding to meet republican requests to build 3,000 new family detention beds in texas. the national bioand bio and agrodefense facility in kansas which is an effort to help us deal with threats against our food supply and other bioterrorism threats -- in a clean funding bill it will receive the final amount needed to begin construction. senator roberts came, and i talked about

this today and one of the things he pointed out is he's been working for this project for 16 years. there's $300 million in this clean full-year bill, and if we don't pass this bill, if the department of homeland security shuts down, if we're in a continuing resolution, then this funding is at risk and they may have to rebid the project driving up costs. that makes no sense. there is bipartisan agreement to include $12 million for the national computer forensics institute in hoover, alabama to support the expansion of basic and advanced training for state and local law enforcement personnel for judges and for prosecutors to combat cyber crime. these important investments in counterterrorism cybersecurity and border security aren't controversial. that's not what we're arguing about here.

we're arguing about whether we're going to debate what the president did with respect to immigration, and we shouldn't be having this debate on the department of homeland security's funding bill. we can have that debate. i'm all for it. i was happy to have that debate when this body passed comprehensive immigration reform two years ago but we should not be having this debate and the house should understand that, just like the senate understands that. we should not be having that debate on this funding bill for the department of homeland security. we need to come together to pass a clean bill, a bill that was the result of bipartisan negotiation and bipartisan compromise. we have a bill on the senate calendar to do just that. mr. president, i'm hearing from communities all across new hampshire. we're hearing from communities across the country about the need to pass a full-year funding bill.

last week the u.s. conference of mayors the national association of counties, the international association of emergency managers and the international association of firefighters joined our call for a clean full-year funding bill because they understand, as i know we all do, how disastrous failing to fawnd this agency -- to fund this agency would be. three previous d.h.s. secretaries, two republicans and one democrat, have done the same. and earlier this week the national fraternal order of police joined that call for action. i ask unanimous consent mr. president, to place into the record the letter from the fraternal order of police. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: their letter expresses frustration with the fact that a policy dispute over the president's immigration actions could compromise -- quote -- "could compromise the safety and security of our

country." the letter continues -- and again i'm quoting -- "what kind of message does this send to the men and women in d.h.s. who put their lives on the line in defense of our homeland?" the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent for another 60 seconds to finish. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: three members of the department of homeland security who fell in the line of duty over the past two years what kind of message does this send to our enemies?" end quote. congress's most basic function is to provide for the nation's security so it's time to stop playing politics, to get to work to do our jobs, to pass a clean full-year bill to fund the department of homeland security. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

chair recognizes the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you mr. president. on the same week the president released his national security strategy a pilot in the rural jordanian air force was burned alive by radical islamists. while the administration was putting the finishing touches on this document, the propaganda weighing of isis was beginning too. the jihadist group was pumping out a video of this latest act of horrific brutality. isis represents one of the biggest threats to peace of an already unstable region. these terrorists are committed to establishing a new caliphate ruled by sharia law where all would be forced to convert or die. they're committed to destroying all who stand in their way if anyone embodies radical islam it is isis. given the severity of the threat posed by isis not to mention the continuing efforts of al qaeda to strike again, you would think a plan to take on radical islam

would be a focal part of the president's national security plan. it's not. in fact, there is no mention of radical islam in the document at all. what is mentioned instead is global warming. yes, global warming is discussed in the president's national security strategy, but not radical islamic extremism. apparent that is not a threat to the united states. the president's advisors have stood by a senseless narrative. in an interview with fox the president blamed the media for overhyping of terrorism. he went on to say that terrorists themselves -- and i quote -- "it's all about the ratings." in climate change -- i quote -- "a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis." yesterday the white house spokesman was pressed on this very issue and refused to accept the premise that terror groups like isis pose a greater clear

and present danger than global warming. so you can see the disconnect that exists within the administration. but it doesn't end just with this document. the president's budget proposal for the department of homeland security would allocate tens of millions of dollars to poact -- protect against climate change. it does so while failing to dedicate funds for communities to identify and disrupt homegrown terror despite the fact that isis is recruiting foreign fighters at a clip never seen before. while the majority of them are from the middle eastern nations the "wall street journal" reports that upwards of 20,000 foreign fighters have joined isis in the past two years. the group's savvy usage of social media and its highly orchestrated propaganda campaign has appealed to westerners as well bringing thousands of jihadists with passports that allow them to travel with ease to isis-controlled territory. where they will ultimately take

the deadly skills they learn in iraq and syria remains to be seen but these foreign fighters could return home or even come to the united states giving isis the ability to strike on american soil. the attacks in paris serve as a have i individual reminder -- a vivid reminder that the reach of islamic extremists reaches far beyond the grounds of iraq and syria. meanwhile the senate democrats are holding up the house passed department of homeland security bill. their objection it withholds funding for the president's unconstitutional executive actions on immigration. they're holding up the entire bill threatening to shut down d.h.s. to protect the president's priorities. not because the funding is too low, not because programs need

reforms. their complaint is that the president isn't getting what he wants. i encourage them to relent on their filibuster so we can debate the bill, make changes if the chamber sees fit and send it to the president. if the president truly wants immigration reform, then do it the right way and work with congress to get it done. don't go about it on your own unconstitutionally and then threaten to shut down a department charged with protecting americans. it's out of touch but it's not the first time this administration's priorities have been at odds with those of the american people. the president once characterized isis as the j.v. team. this is no j.v. teevment as the chairman of the house homeland security noted isis is the largest convergence -- quote "isis is the largest convergence of islamist terrorists in

history that created a pseudo state dead set on attacking america." preventing isis from achieving its goals presents a global strategy abroad and at home. what the president put forward is neither. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to follow on the comments of my good friend and my neighbor from arc sawrks -- arkansas senator boozman talking about what the president is now asking the congress to do. there are many questions, i think, that need to be asked about this authorization for activity against isis and what else that might mean before the

congress can move forward. the principal question, however will continue to be: do we have a strategy? and if we have a strategy, which has not yet been explained stlt commitment to that strategy to move forward? is this just another red line that means nothing or is this a document that is designed to meet some objectives that really aren't the objectives of fighting people who clearly perceive freedom and america and the values we stand for as anathema to what they would hope to see? there's so many questions. is the three-year time frame enough? and why would you have a three-year time frame? that puts this authorization of force one year into the next presidency. what kind of legacy is that to

leave the next presidency that the minute the next person becomes president suddenly you have a clock that's ticking. not only have we told our adversaries when we're going to quit we tell the president when the next president has to quit no matter what the situation is or what this president is willing to ask for as he leaves office in less than two years. so a three-year time frame a time frame almost never part of a question like this, no three-year plan is being presented to degrade and destroy isis. that's what we understand the goal is. but nobody suggests a three-year plan. in fact, if you look back over the last six months, you'd find that the president's ability to project his foreign policy seems to defy all projections. he talks about yemen just a few months ago as an example of how well our policy is working. this week we abandoned the

embassy and abandoned our efforts in that country until something happens at a different time. another question to ask is why specific focus on isis or associated persons or forces, whatever that means? does that mean another terrorist group that is struggling against isis is not covered by this? does that mean al qaeda or al nusra or some other group that is equally focused on the united states and our friends is not covered by this? the president has authority to go after terrorist organizations. 2001-2002, he says he wants at least one of those authorities left on the books and that, by the way it's sufficient to do anything we want to do now. so why add this to it? this debate may take awhile, but during the debate i think we need to listen closely to our

military leaders to question them again about how you could accomplish what we need to accomplish here, what we can do to help our friends as they work to accomplish what needs to be accomplished here, what we do to encourage people from the neighborhood to put their boots on the ground and what do we need to do to be helping this. last week i traveled with a few other members of the senate select committee on intelligence to jordan and turkey to discuss particularly the isis threat, particularly what was happening in iraq and syria and it was especially interesting to be in jordan just after the brutal death of the jordanian pilot the brutal murder of the jordanian pilot. i don't know that we know for sure exactly when that happens but i think there's many reasons to believe that this group is negotiating to save the life of the pilot long after the pilot's

life has been taken. one of the most barbarous of possible ways. it got the attention of the neighborhood and certainly jordan and the u.a.e. and others beginning to line up with a new determination to go after isis, hitting targets on the ground, we're told, we've known they were targets for a long time, but we didn't seem to be able to have the willingness to hit them. certainly we had the capacity to hit them. certainly we had the information to hit them. but why weren't we doing that? where is the commitment to do this? the president asked the congress of the united states to make this kind of commitment of use of force. there is absolutely no reason for us to make that commitment unless he intends to use the force. unless we steand how he intends to use the force. not only can we not defined our

policy here, those people around the world who would like to know what our policy is don't hear it defined either. and then we have things happen like the interview that the senator from arkansas was talking about the vox interview over last weekend where the president was asked -- quote -- "if the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos as opposed to a long-term problem of climate change or epidemic disease and the president's response is absolutely. absolutely a long-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease somehow calculates into the discussion of whether the imminent danger of these terrorist groups is real or not? and he went on to say in that interview, well, if it bleeds,

it leads; right? this is the president talking. continuing to say "you show crime stories and you show fires because that's what folks watch. it's all about ratings." i don't know what that means. i wouldn't want to suppose that the president is saying that coverage of terrorism is about ratings. i frankly don't know what it means. i do know if i don't know what it means a lot of people all over the world don't know what it means. this is not climate change. it's not what we need to be doing at the c.d.c. the president is asking for no authorized use of force to do something about the c.d.c. when that's necessary when things happen in liberia the congress stepped up and said, here's money that will help meet that immediate need. the president raised other

eyebrows by suggesting that the shooting at a kosher market in paris was random. i think he said, "it is entirely legitimate for the american people to be deeply concerned when we've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in paris." end of quote. well, i could talk quite a bit about the president's unwillingness to call this random --random by this bunch of violent vicious disol lots. the prime minister of great britain are say that. other leaders all over the world can say that. we can't say that. but the other comment that i thought was particularly randomly shoot people in a deli in paris -- w's a was a kosher deli

in paris. let's accept this for what it is. leat not go back, as the president did at the national prayer breakfast a few days ago and decide to equate the crusade crusades almost 800 years ago 600 years ago various crew crew crusades, and somehow suggest that these people are temporarily misguides. these people are not temporarily misguides. these people are about an evil purpose. they kill fellow members of their religion because they believe that those people don't perfectly reflect their own religion. this is something we need to be concerned about. we have to have a strategy. we need clarity. we need commitment. we need -- if we're going to destroy this threat, we really

have to be committed to destroy this terrorist threat. i plan to press the administration as many others will for that question of what is your plan? you know, the president's nominee for secretary of defense couldn't explain the plan. that's a vote we're going to have later today. i don't inthen to intend to vote for that nominee today. we've already had three secretaries of defense in this presidency half been incredibly frustrated and obviously and visibly frustrated and willing to talk about their frustrations, at least the two secretaries that have already left of not knowing how to deal with a white house that wants to run the military in the most specific ways rather than say here's our goal; what's the best way to meet that goal? we've had that already. we don't need another secretary of defense that doesn't understand what the plan is and can't communicate that plan to either the congress or the country or our friends around the world.

the congress doesn't understand what the president is traig to do. the administration can't explain what the president is trying to do. our enemies are emboldened by the fact that we can't explain what we're trying to do. and our friends wonder what we're trying to do. so many cases mr. president reminiscent of that great speech by the president of ukraine to the joint session of congress last yeert where basically -- year where basically he says, thank you for the food, thank you for the blankets, but you can't fight the russians with blankets. you can't fight the russians with blankets. you can't fight the terrorists without a strategy. you can't fight the terrorists without a commitment to the goal. the document the president sent up this week was carefully worded to meet all kinds of political constituencies. i.t. notit's not carefully worded in a way that meets the threat of radical islamic terrorism.

the jordanians understands this. people in the neighborhood understand this. people in europe seem to have a better understanding of it than we do but they all want to see some level of commitment by the united states of america and i'd like to hear what that commitment is. and i yield back. and, mr. president i notice the lack of a quorum and would ... the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i'd like to address one other topic while i'm here. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. blunt: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i her the remarks of how we need to move forward with a bill without any reaction to the president's executive actions last year. well one way to see if that

would really meet the test of the senate is to move forward to have the debate. our friends on the other side are unwilling to debate this, and why would that be? you know, if -- many of them disagreed with the president's actions last november when he took those actions. enough of them certainly disagreed to have 60 votes on the senate floor that would pass a bill that would reverse those actions. maybe not everybody agrees with everything but mr. president we had more votes -- more amendment votes on the senate floor last week on two different days -- each of two different days -- than we had all of last year. the majority leader has shown a commitment to let senators be heard, if they want to improve what the house sent over, let's debate it. if they want to improve what the house sent over, let's hear what those improvements are. later today i'm joining my colleagues from the senate steering committee and the

republican study committee to discuss why senate democrats continue their efforts to filibuster this funding bill, to not have a debate on this funding bill. you know, often in the last congress we were accused of not being willing to end debate. seldom were we accused of not being willing to have the debate. our argument then is how can we end debate when we've not had any amendments? we're unable to have amendments on the ways we'd like to have this bill changed. seldom were we accused of not wanting to go to the debate. there were a couple of times when that was probably not the case when it was clear nothing was going to happen and the debate was all about politics. this is a debate about funding part of the government that is so essential that if fund something not there almost all of the employees show up anyway. they're considered essential. and, you know, they need a paycheck just like families all

over america do. we're going to have to see that that happens but these are essential employees. this is not a debate we can just decide well, we don't need to have that. our friends on the other side can't continue to think that the debate only happens and amendments only happen in the senate if they're things they agree with, or maybe they just don't want to explain why the president said 22 times he couldn't take the action he took in november. that's a lot of times even by political standards 22 times saying you can't do something and then figuring out a way you can do it is a pretty extraordinary thing to happen. so we need to have this debate. frankly, unless you en engage in these debated debates, you don't know what's going to happen with a debate. i think i.t. it's time to move forward. i hope senate democrats are going to work with us. i'm happy to vote on their

amendments. i think the bill that the house sent over is work that we should be pursuing, that we should be moving forward with that. seldom is there everything legislative that can't possibly be improved. but it can't be improved if you won't talk about it. and this is something that is not an option. this is something we eventually have to do. let's have that debate on why it now doesn't matter that the president said 22 times he couldn't do something and he did it. if there are things that our friends on the other side don't like in the house bill that was sent over, well, let's hear what they are and let's vote on those things and see what happens then. but we need to continue our efforts to move to this funding bill. i hope we will still engage in this debate before the end of the month give this the attention it zev's don't assume that anything -- it deserves, don't assume that anything that comes to the floor is so perfect that it can't be improved. the tradition of the senate and the house for appropriations

bills has always been, any member could challenge anything until about seven years ago when suddenly no member could challenge anything. let's get back to the way this work is supposed to be done, and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president i ask that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent to exceed -- i know morning business expires within three to four minutes or so, to exceed that. i doubt that i'll be speaking more than ten minutes but for

extra time past morning business, i would ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president thank you. i rise today to address what i call an issue of public responsibility. more specifically, i rise to address the responsibility of both the legislative and the executive branch to deal with our nation's out-of-control deficit spending. unfortunately, the president has shown little interest in the dire fiscal situation facing our nation. which makes it more important for congress to do so. without presidential leadership, it's now congress's duty to step up and take the lead. we have an obligation, first of all, to be straightforward and honest with the american people about the financial challenges america faces. there was a furor over our continuing plunge into debt and deficit starting in 2009 and

2010 as we saw the spending explode with stimulus plans that didn't work, other policies that continue to drive us into debt. unfortunately that level of intensity that displeasure over all that was happening has subsided. but the problem hasn't gone away. it needs to be addressed. it needs to be addressed now. as i said, we have an obligation as members of this body and of the congress to be hoornt and straightforward with the american people about where we stand and what we would do about it. i received a letter from one of my constituents, steven of martinsville indiana wrote to me to describe his concerns about our national debt and spending. let me quote from his letter. "as of today the outstanding national debt is over $18

trillion. that is an overly exorbitant amount of money" he said. it certainly is, steven. you are right. it is an exorbitant amount of money, one that we can't hardly even get our minds around in terms of what $18 trillion means. therefore, he said, "i would like to know our options in america." i think we as elected officials have an obligation to list those options and describe what we would do about it had we had the opportunity and had we had the support from the president which is not forthcoming but perhaps it will. surely even the executive branch and the president have to understand the situation that we are in and the consequences of not doing something about it. i'm sure my colleagues received many letters and information from constituents concerned

about the health of our nation, from our mounting federal debt to our management, i suppose we could say mismanagement of the federal budget. our constituents want to know what we as their elected officials are going to do about it. what is plain as day is that steven unfortunately, is not so clear here in washington because the president says we don't have a spending problem. we have a revenue problem. i can't go home to people in indiana and tell them that we need to tax more because government is growing more and needs their money and do so without derision coming back my way because they are being taxed to death. this president has an obsession with solving every conceivable problem with asking for more revenue and more taxes. and yet no matter the revenue is increasing and yeast not placed -- we have not placed

spending restraints to control this ever-growing dilemma of deficit spending. i think there's only one real solution to our problem. the solution that is absolutely necessary because we literally have tried everything else and come up short and that solution is for this body to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. and that's why i'm cosponsoring an amendment to the u.s. constitution that forces the federal government to balance its budget, limits its broaght of -- its growth of government spending and requires a supermajority to pass a tax increase. without these measures we will not successfully deal with this problem. this is not a new idea. i served here in 1995 and again in 1997. i voted for a balanced budget amendment to balance spending and require the federal government to balance its checkbook. both times the senate came one vote short of the necessary two-thirds to pass a

constitutional amendment send it to the states for ratification. one vote. one member out of 100 could have voted with us, and we would have put ourselves in a fiscal situation that would have balanced our budget, and we would not begin to have the problems of ever-increasing debt ever-increasing new taxes to cover that debt, conscription on terms of spending for national priorities like defense and health research and so forth had that happened. unfortunately it didn't. and at that time we had a nation's debt that stood at $5.36 trillion. it's 3.5% -- i mean 3.5 times that amount today f. we had had the political will to act then, we would not be faced with the financial challenges that exist today. so by passing a balanced budget amendment we can send to the states not just a message that

we are serious about addressing our fiscal woes but that we are giving them a voice. we're giving people a voice. we're giving them the power to hold federal spending accountable. it would be a unique opportunity to right a wrong and begin restoring our fiscal house by making the federal government accountable for its spending. in march of 1997 i stood on this very floor and warned about the dangers of operating outside our means. i said it then and i'd like to say it again today quoting from what i said in 1997: "there is no reliable check on this process of intergenerational theft. it is politically priew dents even popular and this political calculation will not change, will never permanently change without some kind of systematic institutional counterweight without some measure to give posterity a voice in our affairs. nothing in my view will permanently change until the accumulation of popular debt is a violation to our oath and to

the constitution. perverse incentives of the current system will not be altered until the system itself is altered until our political interests are balanced by the weighty words of a constitutional amendment. it would be a much-needed balance. we need to come to this body at the beginning of each session put our left hand on the bible and our right hand forward and swear to uphold the constitution which would involve responsible spending to keep us from plunging into a disastrous consequences. earlier i mentioned that steven from martinsville, indiana sent me this letter. what i did not mention is that steven is a boy scott working toward earning his citizenship in the nation merit badge which teaches scouts how to become active citizens who are aware of and grateful for their liberties and their rights. we all know that boy scouts take this oath. to be trustworthy loyal

helpful, friendly, courteous kind obedient, cheerful, brave clean, i are reverent and thriftty. if we take thrifty and apply it to our governing in america we'd be in a better place. we cannot fail steven and we cannot fail his generation. his share of the debt will amount to more than $62,000 per person. his share in ten years. let us not keep shifting the hard choices to our children and our grandchildren. let us not deny them the american dream that all of us in my generation have enjoyed the opportunity that comes with responsible spending and a responsible government. the opportunity that comes to few people in the world. we are so privileged as americans to have that, and we are denying that to the future. by passing this balanced budget amendment, we can honor the most moral tradition of sacrificing for posterity instead of asking posterity to sacrifice for us.

mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense ashton b. carter of massachusetts to be secretary. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 2:00 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

who yields time? collins collins mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. collins collins thank you mr. president. -- ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senator from minnesota, senator klobuchar and i be permitted to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, alzheimer's is a terrible disease that exacts a tremendous personal and economic toll on the individual, the family and society. in addition to the human suffering it causes, alzheimer's costs the united states an estimated $226 billion a year, including $153 billion from the

medicare and medicaid programs. these costs will only skyrocket as the baby boomer generation ages. already our nation's costliest disease, alzheimer's is projected to cost more than $1.1 trillion if nothing is done to change its current trajectory. it is now estimated mr. president, that nearly one in two of the baby boomers reaching age 85 will develop alzheimer's. as a consequence chances are that members of the baby boomer generation will either be spending their golden years suffering with alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it.

in many ways alzheimer's has become the defining disease of this generation. and if we are to prevent alzheimer's from becoming the defining disease of the next generation, it is imperative that we dramatically increase our investment in alzheimer's research. at a time when the united states is spending some $226 billion a year caring for alzheimer's patients, we are spending less than .003% of that amount, under $600 million a year, on research. this makes no sense mr. president. we currently spend $4.5 billion a year for cancer research.

$3 billion a year for research on hiv-aids, and $2 billion a year for cardiovascular research; all investments that have paid dividends. surely we can do more for alzheimer's, given the tremendous human and economic price of this devastating disease. mr. president, investments in research for other diseases have yielded tremendous results. we see that with cancer, with hiv-aids. patients have access to new treatments and death rates for some of these diseases are decreasing. at the same time, mortality due to alzheimer's is escalating. alzheimer's is one of our nation's leading causes of

death, with recent data revealing that each year more than 500,000 deaths are attributable to alzheimer's and other dementias. six times the amount previously estimated. moreover alzheimer's is the only one of our nation's top ten deadliest diseases without an effective means of prevention treatment or cure. fortunately, there is promising research that holds hope for alzheimer's patients and their families. the research community is poised to make important advances through clinical trials and by investigating new therapeutic targets. but adequate funding is critical to achieve this promise.

the national plan to address alzheimer's disease was authorized by the bipartisan national alzheimer's project act, which i co-authored with then-senator evan bayh. the national plan has as its primary goal to prevent and effectively treat alzheimer's disease by the year 2025. the chairman of the advisory council that was created by the act, dr. ronald peterson of the mayo clinic, has testified before congress that the united states should be devoting $2 billion a year at a minimum to alzheimer's research in order to reach that goal. mr. president, a dramatic increase in funding for alzheimer's research will not

just save lives. it will also save money. according to a report issued by the alzheimer's association last year a federal investment of $2 billion a year between now and the year 2025, as recommended by the experts on the alzheimer's advisory council and the scientific community more broadly, would be recouped within the first three years after a treatment delaying the onset of alzheimer's by just five years becomes available. i am therefore pleased to be introducing today with my colleagues senator klobuchar senator mikulski, senator warner senator durbin and senator stowbs -- stabenow a

resolution declaring that the goal of preventing and effectively treating alzheimer's is an urgent national priority. in recognition of the fact that bold action and considerable increases in funding are necessary to meet that goal, our resolution states that the senate will strive to double the amount of funding that the united states spends on alzheimer's research in fiscal year 2016, and that we will develop a plan to meet the target of $2 billion over the next five years. mr. president, our bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the alzheimer's association u.s.a. against alzheimer's the leaders

engaged on alzheimer's disease or the lead coalition and the alzheimer's foundation of america. i would ask unanimous consent that the letters from these organizations be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. colorado -- ms. collins: mr. president, we have to face the facts that if we do not invest in alzheimer's research, at the levels that the experts tell us is necessary to develop effective treatments for this disease, perhaps a means of prevention or eventually a cure, this disease is going to continue to cause untold suffering, not only for its victims but for its families. ms. collins: and it will bankrupt america's health care

system. i urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors, and i want in particular to recognize my partner in this effort, the senator from minnesota senator klobuchar. the home of the may owe -- mayo clinic is in her state and she has been stalwart in supporting the efforts to increase funding for alzheimer's research. with that, mr. president i'm very pleased to yield to my partner, senator klobuchar. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president i come to the senate floor today to join my friend and colleague from maine senator collins who has for so long been a leader on this issue and i want to thank her for that and thank her for her very strong remarks. this is a horrible disease.

senator collins did a very good job of going through the costs to our country. 5.2 million americans already living with alzheimer's. by 2050, an estimated 13.5 million americans living with the disease. $226 billion spent in 2015 caring for individuals with alzheimer's. by 2015, costs will reach $1.1 trillion. so those are the numbers and they are pretty stunning numbers. but i think we all know that we're not just here to talk about the numbers. we're here to talk about the people. and every single senator in this chamber knows someone who is suffering from alzheimer's or someone who has died from alzheimer's. so this resolution, yes it's about the numbers and being smarter about how we spend our money to prevent this horrible

disease from occurring in the first place but it's also for that daughter who goes to see her mom every day in the assisted living care facility, and with each and every day her mom's memory slips away to the point where she doesn't remember who she is anymore. it's for that wife that has valiantly cared for her husband as it gets harder and harder and harder as he goes wandering around the neighborhood and gets lost and she doesn't know if she can leave him at homonym. that's what this is about. and every single person in this chamber and every single person back home knows of someone who suffers from this disease. the only way to stem the tide of this devastating disease is through, as the great senator from maine mentioned research. yes, a lot of that research is going on in minnesota both at

the university of minnesota and at the mayo clinic. if we were able to delay the onset of alzheimer's by just five years similar to the effect that anticholesterol drugs have had on preventing heart disease we would be able to significantly cut the government spending on alzheimer's care. but more importantly we would be able to give these families extra years extra times less time battling this disease. we all know the answers to alzheimer's won't just drop out of the sky. if that was true, it would have been cured a long time ago. it will take dedicated scientists advanced research initiatives and skilled doctors with knowledge of the disease to conduct trials and care for as many patients as possible until we find a cure. that's why we are coming together for this important resolution which resolves simply that the senate will strive to double the funding the united states spends on alzheimer's

research in 2016 and will develop a plan to meet the target of $2 billion a year in alzheimer's research funding over the next five years. as senator collins mentioned this evident is led on the national level by dr. ronald peterson a minnesota native and a leading researcher. he agrees that this is the time to move forward to get this research done. now, what kind of research are we talking about? i remember first hearing about some of the work that mayo had done and realizing that they were really focusing on trying to identify this disease early to be able to figure out if people were getting it early. i thought well, that's great but how does that really help? they still have the disease. well what i learned is the earlier that they can identify the disease then the earlier they can start those trials so they can tell what's working or not. if you wait too long to identify the disease, it is clearly impossible to tell what kind of potential cures work and what don't. so this is a very important part

of this initiative, is to be able to immediately identify what those risk factors are when they think someone actually has alzheimer's. two years ago the united states launched the brain initiative, which is a national research effort to map the human brain in hopes of finding new ways to prevent and cure brain diseases. like the human genome project i think we can expect this initiative to truly be a game changer that stimulates the next generation of scientific development. there is always more knowledge that we need to get. there is always more treatments to discover. there is more diseases to cure. that's why it is so important that we continue funding and actually increase funding to the national institutes of health. earlier this year, i introduced with senator durbin and others a bill to boost funding for n.i.h. by 5% a year and also other key federal research agencies. the america cures act would reverse the trend of declining federal investment in medical

research and fuel the next generation of biomedical discoveries. i care a lot about this. during that government shutdown, i will never forget senator collins once again led the effort to get our way out of that with 14 of us in a bipartisan effort. i gave my entire salary to n.i.h. because i wanted to make the point that every day that we go without developing that cure for alzheimer's without supporting our scientists that are doing that work is another day where someone else dies of this disease is another loved one that we lose. another effort that i think is very important when you look at this is precision medicine. we should be supporting efforts to further the field of precision medicine which holds the promise of revolutionizing the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases by better understanding genetic variations within diseases such as alzheimer's, we can develop targeted more effective treatments. of course, the last thing i want to talk about is caregivers.

if you know someone with alzheimer's, then you also know their family member, their friend that is taking care of them. many of the caregivers have children themselves. that's why they are called the sandwich generation. they are literally sandwiched between taking care of their own children and taking care of their aging mother or father. and just as we address the needs of moms and dads in the 196 1990's and started working on things like child care benefits, we must now address the needs of our working sons and daughters and those who are just simply really devoting their life to taking care of an aging relative of someone with alzheimer's. this goes on every day. people have to decide to quit their jobs or they have to decide to take a different job or they have to decide to go part time simply to take care of their loved ones. in 2013, more than 15 million family members and friends cared for someone with alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia often at the expense

of their own jobs and their own well-being. that's why i am continuing to work on legislation called the americans giving care to elders act that would give family caregivers a tax credit and other assistance to help alleviate the financial burdens that come with caring for a loved one. so these are some ideas but we know at its core that the best thing to do here is to stop this terrible disease from the beginning, and that means living up to the expectations that the people of this country have for us and that is to do what's best for them. that is to put forward the dollars that we need to do the research. i know some great doctors in minnesota and across the country that will put that money to good use. let's go forward. let's cure this disease and we call on the senate to pass the resolution that senator collins and i are proposing. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president i always try to be accurate in what i say here, maybe having been trained before federal judges for almost 15 years practicing law, if you said something out of the way you got hammered for it. my friend and really a good friend and colleague the democratic whip, senator durbin earlier today came down to the floor and said mr. president, i've been trying to understand what is holding up the funding for the department of homeland security, close quote. so i would ask my colleague senator durbin, have you ever heard of a filibuster? what about the filibuster you're leading to block the bill that

funds homeland security? i mean, how much more obvious can the answer be to what's holding up funding for the department of homeland security? the house passed legislation good legislation to my knowledge, very little dispute about the agencies and the departments of homeland security what they would get in terms of funding. they simply said that the extralawful actions of president obama would not be funded. the "l.a. times" now says that could cost up to $484 million. i think it will be much more. this isn't counting the cost to state and local governments and welfare costs and tax costs this is just their idea to give lawful -- what it will cost to give lawful status to five million people. it's going to cost more than that. that's a lot of money. and the congress, the house of representatives said mr. president, we don't agree with this policy and your policy

is unlawful, you said 20 times yourself you don't have the power to do this. constitutional scholars say that it's an erosion of our power, and both based on the fact we don't like the policy and we think it's unlawful policy we're going to fund homeland security, we're just not going to allow you to take money from enforcement of homeland security laws to rewarding people who violated the laws. now, isn't that a responsible thing for congress to do? and it's the absolute fact, congress has the power to fund what it desires to fund and not fund what it does not desire to fund. that's the power of the purse the co-equal branch of congress. it is congress' fundamental power. so senator durbin is now leading the filibuster. we've had a series of votes. he has been able to get every single democrat to vote with him to block even going to the bill.

even allowing the bill to come up for -- on the floor of the senate for debate. and amendment. now, if he wants to offer language that says we want to ratify what the president did and allow all this to happen, he's free to offer that amendment on the floor of the senate. but he's not even attempting to do that. he's basically saying we're not going to allow the bill to come up for a vote, and we're going to blame the republicans for blocking the bill. now, what kind of world are we living in? i have suggested that's through the looking glass. so we got the people leading the filibuster accusing the house and republicans in the senate for blocking the bill when they indeed are the ones doing it.

and -- also quoted a fine colleague, senator flake to say to attempt to use the spending bill to try to poke a finger in the president's eye is not a good move in my mind. i agree with that, we shouldn't be using a spending bill to poke the president in the eye but i suggest, colleagues, that the president is the one who has poked the american people in the eye, he's poked the right and powers of congress in the eye by taking money that was designed and given to homeland security to enforce the laws of the united states, and he's taken that money and spending it at this very moment to undermine and to violate the laws of the united states. colleagues the law of the united states is an employer for example, -- got a lot of laws but one is an employer

can't hire somebody unlawfully in the country. so the president's proposal, i'm just going to make five million who are unlawfully today, lawful. i'm going to give them a photo i.d. i'm going to give them a right to work, a social security number, the right to partnership in social security and medicare because i'm angry that continue wouldn't pass it. -- congress wouldn't pass it. well this is what i'm -- senator durbin says this, and our colleagues have been saying this who are leading the filibuster repeatedly. it's impossible to explain the situation -- i'm quoting senator durbin -- "where the agency where the premier responsibility to keep america safe is not being adequately

funded." he goes on to say that again about placing america at risk. i would ask a couple of questions. how does taking funding from the lawful authorized policies of homeland security that's supposed to identify people unlawfully here, to identify terrorists and do other things to make america safe, how does taking money from them to give to a process and give legal status to five million americans make us safer? does that make us safer? how absurd is that. ken pal engineas, who -- ken lengthas who is -- ken palinkas, head of the

immigration services, said this unfortunately overlooked in washington our caseworkers are denied enforcement tools and mission support we need to keep those who are bent on doing us harm -- keep out those who are bent on doing us harm. this is processing the million or so a year that are given lawful status in america. he's not referring to the future when they're going to be expected to process immediately apparently five million more. they don't have money to process the people today. this is his words not mine, in a letter dated september of last year. he said the 9/11 hijackers got into the united states on visas and now 13 years later we have around five million immigrants in the united states who overstayed their visas many from high-risk regions in the middle east.

making matters more dangerous the obama administration's executive amnesty like s. 744 that he unsuccessfully lobbied for would legalize visa over stays and cause millions additionally to overstay, raising the threat level to america even higher, close quote. that's what the people who enforce the law every day are saying. and in january this year, just a few weeks ago january 22, mr. local inkas said this -- mr. malinkas said had the president's executive amnesty -- this is what they're doing they're attempting to fund the president's unlawful amnesty. this is what mr. palinkas said.

the president's executive amnesty order for five million illegal immigrants places the mission of uscis in grave peril. instead of meeting our lawful function to protect the homeland and keep out those who pose a threat to u.s. security, public health or finances, our officers will be assigned to process amnesty for individuals residing illegally inside the nation's borders. this compromises national security and public safety while undermining officer morale. close quote. that is exactly right. you don't have to be a real expert to understand he's exactly right about this. it goes on, "the administration's skewed priorities means that the crystal city amnesty processing center will likely have superior

work site conditions for personnel relative to our normal processing centers additionally these security protocols at place in this facility will be insufficient to engage in any basic screening precautions, ensuring the rewarding of massive amounts of fraud. for an administration to continue down this course after the paris attacks is beyond belief " -- close quote. this is what we're dealing with. another -- october of last year mr. palinkas said this when the president was proposing this executive amnesty before it happened. he skewed a statement then on behalf of his workers and colleagues in the immigration service. -- he concludes his statement this way -- "that is why this statement is intended for the

public. if you care about your immigration security and your neighborhood security, you must act now to ensure that congress stops its unilateral amnesty. let your voice be heard and spread the word to your neighbors, we who serve in our nation's immigration agencies are pleading for your help. don't let it happen. express your concern to your senators and congressmen before it's too late." well that's what it's all about. the president 20 times said he did not have the power to do such a thing as he, under political pressure, i suppose or as just an overreach on his part decide to do it anyway, he said he didn't have the power to do this. and so now he's acted on it even though the officers pleaded for

him not to do it, even though an overwhelming majority of the american people said don't do it. even though at least nine democratic colleagues who are supporting this filibuster had said the president didn't have the power or shouldn't do it this way. that these kind of decisions are part of congress' power. mr. president, don't do it, is what they said. yet all nine of them are now standing in lock step to block the funding of homeland security that funds every part of homeland security, it just doesn't fund this building that they've leased across the river in crystal city that's supposed to process up to five million people. colleagues, i want you to know it's absolutely true, they will not even have face-to-face interviews with these applicants. this is going to be coming in by mail and computer and they're going to be given -- eventually sent to someplace to get a photo

i.d. they'll be given work permits to take any job in america, and the right to partnership in social security and medicare, weakening both of those programs over the long term without any doubt. so that's -- that's what is occurring, without congressional approval. it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars just in the processing. but what i want you to know is, senator durbin, this is going to weaken national security. because if someone is here to do harm to america they are a drug dealer or they're a terrorist, and they want to do criminal acts in america and there's a record, they have a record, they're not going to ask for the amnesty. they're going to stay here and continue there to work their wicked will. so that's what they're going to do. and nobody's going to go look for them.

they're not looking for them now and they're not going to look for them then. they'll just be business as usual. but if you came here with a bad purpose terrorism drug dealing, other criminal activity, and you don't have a record why you'll just call in, send an email in and get your identity and be allowed to permanently operate in the united states. and colleagues, the american people i think understand this, nobody is going to investigate anything other than maybe run a computer background check a computer check to see if there is a criminal record out there. there's no way anybody's going to go back to try to verify whether or not somebody's actually been in the country a number of years verify family relations. they're not going to go back to some school to see if they actually graduated. it's not going to -- there is no people to do that.

this is just a -- a blanket approval for people who apply basically. you send in a few documents and you're in. there is not any capability of doing that. so the president made a big mistake, he just made a big mistake, and congress needs to push back. congress has the power to consider what kind of policies we want to set with regard to immigration. those have been set. it's unlawful for people, unlawful in america to work in america and to participate in social security and all those programs. it just is unlawful to do that. the president has violated that law, issued directives throughout the department and agency to federal employees and those employees are protesting dramatically but nobody seems to care. congress is the one body that is supposed to stand up to that.

and the house of representatives has done so. they have passed a bill that would stop this activity and say we don't authorize the expenditure of any money to carry out this plan that congress has not approved, that undermines the laws that we have passed. that is, mr. polinkas and other officers have told us will encourage more people to come to america unlawfully and to further decimate any integrity that the system has. we issued a 29-page document, i think 200 different actions since president obama has been in office that undermine the moral integrity of the immigration system, making it more and more difficult to maintain even a modicum of legality in the system, and his actions continue to erode that. the most dramatic, of course, is

being this executive amnesty. and so we are just supposed to accept it. so this isn't an issue -- personal issue to attack president obama or any of our colleagues. it's a big american policy issue. it's a huge issue for this country, and we need to understand it, and it is a constitutional question as well as a policy question, and the constitutional question that i think the house of representatives understands is that congress appropriates money. congress have no duty to placate the president of the united states when he wants to carry on an activity that congress chooses not to fund. and congress has a duty to history and to generations yet

unborn to defend and protect its power of the purse. and congress has to do that, and we need to make sure that our colleagues i plead with you those of you that know the president overreached on this, this is the time, this is the bill when we should fix it. passing of this bill as without the language in the house that basically funds all of homeland security just blocks of funding for this activity, to take that language out and to pass what our colleagues want to pass, a bill that makes no reference to that takes no action to stop that activity, that is to ratify. it's in effect a financial at

least ratification of an unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch, and that will have ramifications in the future that we can't even imagine today. somebody made the point i think it's a valid analogy. what if the president wanted to reduce the tax rate from 39% to 25% and congress wouldn't pass it. he tells all of his i.r.s. agents they work for him. i.r.s. agents, don't collect any money over 25%. people don't file your -- don't send in money more than 25% and i told the agents not to collect more than 25%. is that so far-fetched if this were to pass? what the president is saying is i know the law says you can't work here. i know the law says you're supposed to be removed if you're

here illegally. i know all of these things, but we're just not going to do it. and not only am i not going to enforce the law with regard to immigration, but what i am going to do is i am going to declare you are lawful. i'm going to give you social security numbers and work permits. mr. president, a recent report from a liberal group economic policy institution that i announced february 10 that the unemployed exceed job openings in almost every industry in america. we know unemployment is exceedingly high and we have high job unemployment in the country. and remember, the unemployed

rate that you see today does not include people that dropped out of the work force. it's only those people who are underemployed and looking for more work or people who are actually seeking employment aggressively and have signed up on unemployment rolls in efforts to get a job. here the big industry that we used to hear a lot from, construction industry, there are six times as many construction workers as there are job openings. even professional and business services are higher. retail trade far more applicants and jobs. it goes on sector after sector. so remember that we are also at a time on this high unemployment, we are going to be legalizing five million people to take jobs. we get over 200,000 jobs created in a month.

it takes 180 to 200 just to stay level with the growth in the population of america. and we have been slightly above that recently and there has been a lot of positive spin about that. but we still have the lowest percentage of americans in the working years actually working that we have had in this country since 1978, and pages are down $4,000 since 2007, middle-class working families. median wages are down $4,000 since 2007. so how this good for lawful immigrants green card holders american citizens? how is it good to bring in even more workers at a time we have the smallest percentage of americans in the work force since 1978? and the reason that's an important day is because we begin to see a lot more women

working in those years and so this is a reversal of that trend. and what do the american people think about it? here's a paragon holding data. by a more than two to one margin americans strongly oppose rather than strongly support the president's executive actions. blue-collar workers strongly opposed the president's action by more than a 3-1 majority. by a 50-point margin, voters want congress to pass legislation making it harder for companies to hire workers now illegally in the country. 71-21. the american people want to make it harder. their children, their husbands, their wives are looking for work and not finding it.

they would like to have a decent wage a rising wage and a chance to get a job but this is a 50-point margin. remember, the president's action far from making it harder for people to get a job is going to provide photo i.d., work authorizations, social security numbers to five million people unlawfully here. almost all of those are adults, frankly. kelly ann con way's polling data just to show how people feel about this and how strongly they feel about it, by 75-8 margin americans say companies should raise wages instead of allowing more immigrant workers to fill jobs. people would like to see a pay raise around here for a change.

salaries dropped five cents in december. we're not doing nearly as well as some would like to say. that's a department of commerce statistic, government statistics that said that. and how about this? what about people that have the hardest time finding work right now? for african-americans according to the conway poll, they say by an 86-3 margin, companies should raise wages instead of allowing more immigrant workers to take jobs and for hispanics here, that's true 71-11. so by 71-11% margin, hispanics in america say that companies should raise wages instead of

bringing in more workers to take jobs pulling wages down. that's what the market says. so let's go back to the morality of all of this fundamentally. we as members of congress represent the people of the united states. that includes green card holders, immigrants, recent immigrants. it includes native-born citizens. that's who our obligation is to. so we need to ask ourselves how are we helping them at a time of difficult wage conditions, difficult job conditions. we are allowing a surge of workers to come to compete for the few jobs that are there. is that fulfilling our duty to the voters, to the electors who sent us here? i think not. i think it's time for somebody to focus on the needs of people who go to work every day who

have had their hours reduced who have had their wages declined who have had their spouses and children have a hard time finding work. that's what's happening. so i repeat. my good friend, senator durbin, you ask -- i have been trying to understand what is holding up the funding for the department of homeland security. so let me answer that question. the house has passed a bill. they have sent it to the senate. more than a majority of the senators have voted to pass the bill and fund the department of homeland security, and you as the democratic whip are leading

the filibuster to block it from even coming up on the floor so amendments can be offered. that's the answer to your question. so i don't think you should continue senator durbin, blaming republicans for not attempting to fund homeland security. the whole world knows who is blocking the bill that funds homeland security. you and your team of filibusterers. that's what it is. there is no doubt about that. we need to get this straight. i just don't believe the american people are going to be misled by that argument. i believe they are going to know what it is that's happening in this senate, why we have this difficulty. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president on behalf of the leader, i have eight unanimous consent requests for the committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i thank the chair, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent that the call of the quorum be

dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, the senate will vote later on the confirmation of dr. ashton carter to fill a critically important cabinet position, that of secretary of defense. i think we all know that dr. carter is a dedicate, a distinguished public servant. he's actually been confirmed twice unanimously to two senior positions in the pentagon. he's a four-time recipient of the department of defense distinguished service medal. he's been awarded the defense intelligence medal. i have no doubt that the vote on dr. carter will be overwhelmingly favorable. that the defense department faces important timely, and difficult decisions in the coming months and years they have to learn how best to balance -- renew our fiscal constraints with not only existing but emerging

international challenges. he served as the day-to-day financial officer of the pentagon so he's one of the few people who really understands the complexities of the pentagon's budget. i believe that dr. carter will build upon the fine work of secretary hagel to chart a path toward fiscal accountability while maintain the kind of military capabilities we need to face current global threats. dr. carter is receiving his confirmation vote just over a week after he testified before the armed services committee just two days after his nomination was reported to the full senate, and that swift action is commendable. but i want to contrast how his

nomination was handled as compared to loretta lynch's for attorney general. it's a disappointment this morning that contrary to what they did for him republicans on the judiciary committee chose to hold over for another two weeks another critical nomination that of loretta lynch to be the attorney general of the united states, the nation's chief law enforcement officer. loretta lynch is a refound prosecutor twice unanimously confirmed by the senate. she's worked to put criminals behind bars for crimes such as terrorism and fraud and some were members of this inex -- inapplicantably 0 some members of this body, these terrorists should be held in guantanamo

because we the most powerful nation on earth were afraid, should be afraid to try them in our federal courts, the best court system in the world. she showed a lot more courage. she said we'll try these terrorists in our federal courts we'll show the rest of the world that america is not afraid. and it worked. she got convictions in them. now, the president nominated ms. lynch nearly a hundred days ago. it's been more than two weeks since she testified before the judiciary committee. in addition nearly eight hours of live testimony she's responded to more than 600 written questions. her nomination has been pending longer than for any modern attorney general nominee. i contrast this to another nominee. in 2007, democrats who had

been in the minority, took back over control of the senate, president bush had had an attorney general a man who by just about any objective standard had been a disaster. he was removed and the president, president bush, nominated michael casey to serve as attorney general. it took only 53 days from the time of the nomination to his confirmation. that included doing all the background checks and everything else and having the hearings. and then after mr. mukasey's hearing, of course under our rules we could have held his nomination over in committee but i asked the committee not to

and we did not. i asked to -- i voted against mr. mukasey because his responses to questions relating to torture but as chairman i voted to have the committee act quickly on it. in fact, i held a special markup session in order for the committee to be able to report his nomination as soon as possible because whoever is president should have an attorney general. and he was confirmed -- he was confirmed by the senate two days later. now, republicans should extend the same courtesy to her with respect to ms. lynch's nomination to serve as the nation's top law enforcement officer. now, i look forward to working with dr. carter. i'm not suggesting we should hold him up because they're holding her up. of course not. he should be confirmed he should be confirmed as she should be confirmed. i look forward to working with

dr. carter particularly concerning our continued diplomatic efforts in iran's nuclear program in halting and reversing the proliferation of land mines around the world in responsibly managing the pentagon and in supporting our service members at home and abroad. and i look forward to working with loretta lynch when the senate ultimately confirms her nomination as it will. the republican leader can serve the national interest by reporting her committee as soon as she is reported by the committee on february 26. she has waited longer for a confirmation vote than any attorney general in modern history and she should be confirmed just as dr. carter is going to be. i ask consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president i rise today joined by my friend and colleague from rhode island, senator reed in supporting the nomination of dr. ash carter to be secretary of defense. i am confident that senator reed and i feel we have had a very good nomination hearing and that dr. carter is qualified to be the secretary of defense. i've known dr. carter for many years during his lengthy service in washington. he is one of america's most experienced defense professionals, respected by republicans and democrats alike. he has served as assistant secretary of defense for global strategic defense under the secretary of defense and most recently as accept secretary of defense. i have known him to be an

honest hardworking and committed public servant. i've had the opportunity to work together with dr. carter on several issues of shared concern, especially those trying to reform the defense acquisition system, improving financial management of the deployment and repealing and rolling back sequestration. i was pleased to hear dr. carter explain his views on a number of critical national security issues at his confirmation hearing earlier this month on afghanistan dr. carter told the committee we consider revisions to the size and pace of the president's drawdown plan if securitying conditions warranted. to achieve the success that is possible there he urged the united states to -- quote -- "continue its campaign and finish the job." dr. carter indicated he's very much inclined in the direction of providing defenseive lethal arms to help ukraine resist russian aggression.

he pledged to do more to streamline and improve the defense acquisition system that takes too long and costs too much. and dr. carter agreed it's time to roll back sequestration because as in his words it introduces turbulence and uncertainty that are wasteful and it conveys a misleadingly picture in the eyes of friends and foes alike. america is confronted with a complex range of national security challenges, a revisionist russia, a rising china and radical islamist groups each seek aing in their own way to challenge the international order as we've known it since the end of world war ii. a system thatchier cherishes the rule of law maintains free markets and free trade and relegates wars of aggression to their rightful place in the bloody past. mr. president, we need a coherent national security strategy incorporating all

elements of america's national power to sustain and defend the international order that has produced an extended security, prosperity and liberty across the globe. we need to stop holding our military hostage to domestic political disputes and send an unmistakable message to friend and foe alike that america intends to lead in the 21st century by repealing sequestration immediately. we need to reform our defense acquisition system to restore confidence that every defense dollar is spent well, and taupe sure that the men and women in uniform are getting the training and equipment they need on time and at a cost acceptable to the taxpayer. that's why america needs a strong secretary of defense now more than ever. i think dr. carter will be a good secretary of defense. who will always keep faith with our memorial men and women in uniform and work tirelessly on

their behalf and that of our national security. i'm hopeful about the prospects of working together with dr. carter along with my colleagues in the senate armed services on both sides of the aisle. to achieve our shared priorities especially the reform of our defense acquisition system, the modernization of our military compensation system, and the repeal of sequestration. but when it comes to much of our national security policy, i must candidly express concern about the task that awaits dr. carter and the limited influence he may have. two of his predecessors secretary gates and secretary panetta, have severely criticized white house micromanagement of the defense department and overcentralization of foreign and defense policies. and according to numerous news reports, secretary hagel

experienced similar frustrations with the insular and indecisive white house national security team over issues ranging from isil to ukraine detention policy to sequestration. dr. carter is a worthy choice for secretary of defense. he has the experience, knowledge, and skill to succeed. the armed services committee voted unanimously to approve his nomination last week, and i will gladly vote to confirm him today. i do so with sincere hope and, sadly little confidence that the president who no, nominated dr. carter will empower him to lead and contribute to the fullest extent of his abilities. because at a time of global upheaval and multiplying threats to our security the american people need and deserve nothing less. i want to thank my colleague from rhode island for his cooperation and coordination

with the hearing and with his input and influence which led to a unanimous vote from the committee. mr. president, i yield the floor to my friend and colleague from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, first let me commend the chairman for his very fair, very thoughtful conduct of these hearings with respect to dr. carter and the reason we are here today on the verge of a very strong vote for dr. carter for the next secretary of defense is the contribution that chairman mccain has made to this process in an extremely thoughtful extremely bipartisan fashion and let me again thank him for that. mr. president, if i may one procedural detail. i would ask unanimous consent that mark babba a detailee on the finance committee be allowed on the senate floor for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. again, mr. president i join senator mccain in not only

commending him for his leadership but also to rise and express my strong support for the nomination of ashton carter to be the 25th secretary of defense. dr. carter is uniquely qualified to lead the department of defense at a time, when as henry kissinger recently said in a hearing before the armed services committee "the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crisis since the end of the second world war." dr. carter was born and raised in philadelphia. he received a bachelor's degree in physics and medieval history from yale and a doctorate in theoretical physics from oxford, where i was a rhodes scholar. during his career, dr. carter has already held three critical positions in the department of defense -- assistant secretary of defense for global and strategic affairs in the clinton administration; undersecretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics from 2009-2011; and most recently deputy secretary of defense from

2011-2013. he is well aware and has already been deeply immersed in many of the significant challenges facing this nation and the defense department. as deputy secretary of defense dr. carter was a critical player in the discussions and the decision making on a myriad of international issues, issues that will continue to need the close attention in his tenure as secretary of defense. to name just a few while the secretary of defense is not a party to the negotiations relating to iran's nuclear program the secretary will undoubtedly be responsible for any number of potential contingencies. in the event of a breakdown in the negotiations, the consequences could alter the face of the region for generations and generations to come and the secretary of defense will be intimately involved in shaping the reaction. in another area of deep concern isil their violent campaign in iraq and syria to establish an

extremist caliphate threatens to erase borders destabilize the region and create a breeding ground for foreign fighters willing to return to the west to carry out attacks against the united states and our allies. the department must provide critical leadership and a coalition effort that includes arab and muslim states to deraid and ultimately defeat isil while being know careful to ensure that the u.s. does not end up, as brent scowcroft and dr. burzynski indicated to us in hearings before the committee owning some of these conflicts in syria and elsewhere. in afghanistan the hard-won gains of the past decade are significant but remain fragile as afghan security forces continue taking over responsibility for securing afghanistan the united states and coalition forces have transitioned to a more limited mission of training and assisting the afghan forces in conducting counterterrorism operations. yet it remains to be seen

whether conditions on the ground in afghanistan will improve sufficiently by the end of 2016 to warrant the pace of further reductions under the current plan. dr. carter's participation in evaluating that plan will be absolutely critical. russia's aggression against ukraine has raised tensions in europe to a level not seen in decades. recently separatists in eastern ukraine with substantial russian equipment, training and leadership have abandoned any pretext of following the previous cease-fire, although there are discussions that are held overnight that perhaps might indicate another cease-fire. but in any case the united states must be determined to determine the best way to support the ukrainian people and their forces in defending their country. political instability in yemen has caused the u.s. to evacuate its embassy and created a vacuum allowing the free rein

of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula which is intent on striking the united states and its interests. the defense department again plays a key role in supporting our partners in yemen navigating the complex political situation and continuing to have a presence there which they do which can effectively we hope preempt any attempt to use that as a launching pad for operations in the region or across the globe. the same brand of violent extremism in the middle east can also be found in parts of africa africa. al shabeeb in somalia al qaeda in other areas and boko haram in other groups. we need to inable enable support to foreign security forces. our exaiblghts are in capabilities are in high demand. north korea has increased tensions with blij rented

behavior. the recent cyber attack on sony is just the latest in a string of destabilizing actions. the regime is playing a dangerous game that could have disastrous consequences, especially for its own civilian population which has already suffered untold hardships and deprivation under his leadership. the north korean regime is painting itself into a corner where it will be left with few friends and few options and again, the united states and particularly the department defense must be ever vigilant. while the united states and china have many areas of coordination and cooperation our future relationship remains uncertain. we welcome the rise of a peaceful and prosperous china especially a new century of global commerce and economics a prosperous china is not only in the region's best interests but also in the world's best interest. but china's increasingly controversial claims of sovereignty in the south china sea and dangerous altercations with its neighbors raise concerns. while legal and peaceful avenues for dispute resolution are available, china has instead

chosen to pursue in many cases too many cases add serial adversarial relationships. china will remain one of the department's most persistent and complicated challenges. with the focus on so many crisis overseas, it is easy to overlook the challenges on our own continent. we have a violent threat of transnational organized crime in our own hemisphere. when the u.s. faced the threat stemming from violence in the drug trade in colombia in the 1990's we dedicated significant resources and entered into a decades-long commitment to provide training and assistance. colombia is a success story but the problem has simply moved in many cases to other nations in the region. general kelly the commander of u.s. southern command leads the

department's effort in the hemisphere but he operates with scarce resources a situation that may have serious consequences. in addition to these traditional challenges that nation states have faced for many, many years the united states now faces new 21st century threats. for years we have devoted significant attention to the complex challenge of cyber warfare. the attack on the sony corporation of america was a watershed event in many, many respects. and it should stimulate and must stimulate fresh critical thinking. this attack demonstrates that relatively small and weak rogue nations can reach across the oceans to cause extensive destruction of u.s.-based economic targets and very nearly succeed in suppressing freedom of expression through cyber attacks. the real manifest advantages of the offense over the defense in cyber warfare that enable military and inferior nations to strike successfully against their homeland are a new and

worrisome factor for our national security and requires not only the attention of the department of defense but the attention of the united states congress. now, all these issues i've talked about are external but there are local issues that the secretary of defense has to deal with and senator mccain pointed out probably the most significant one and that is the -- the budgetary programmatic changes that are forced upon us by sequestration. the most immediate threat facing the defense department is indeed sequestration because without resources the programs, the policies, the initiatives which must be yunders taken undertaken to confront these national threats cannot be done. general maddox, the former commander of central commander recently testified before our committee, and his words "no foe on the field can wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving today." only one-third of the army

brigades are ready to fight. less than 50% of our combat squadrons are fully combat ready. sequestration threatens not only our national security but risks damaging our public safety, our health, our transportation, our education, our environment. and in this world that we face there's not as neat a distinction between what the department of defense does and what the department of homeland security does and what other civil agencies like fema must do do. it is something that we have to consider not in the context of just the department of defense but in so many other agencies of the federal government. in fact, every agency of the federal government. when the budget control act was passed dr. carter organized the strategic choices and management review to find options for implementing the required defense cuts. the results of this review have helped the defense department navigate through difficult fiscal constraints. but congress must find a balanced and bipartisan solution and a repeal of sequestration

across the entire government. now, even without sequestration the defense department has to tackle the rising personnel costs which could crowd out other items in the budget. currently, military personnel benefits including health care and retirement consume approximately one-third of the defense department's budget. if we are to adequately train and equip the force we have ensure they are capable of performing the arduous tasks we ask of them, and modernize weapons systems we must slow the growth of these costs within the department in line with the slowdown of the overall top line. the congressionally mandated military compensation and retirement modernization commission recently released their recommendations which are far-reaching and would fundamentally change military personnel benefits. they did so with the idea of improving the benefits available to many of our forces. they did it with the idea of insisting that our recruitment

and our retention efforts continue to be successful because we are a volunteer force force. their focus was really the troops. but one of the effects of the recommendations was to make their -- these costs sustainable over time. as secretary of defense dr. carter will have to work with congress to carefully consider these recommendations to ensure the department has the resources to properly train and equip its fighting men and women. the other major cost driver in the defense department is acquisition. to put it succinctly, defense acquisition takes too long and costs too much. but thes defense the defense department has undertaken significant reforms in many years and many of these were personally led by dr. carter. as undersecretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics, dr. carter oversaw implementation of the weapons systems acquisition reform act of 2009 -- and again i must

commend senator mccain and senator levin for their leadership in this effort. the largest restructuring of d.o.d. acquisition policies in more than two decades resulted from this initiative. he also oversaw and contributed to improvements in a number of major acquisition programs, including the major restructuring on the joint strike fighter program the largest d.o.d. acquisition program; efforts to reduce the costs of the virginia class submarine program; and to improve contract performance which has allowed the navy to begin a two-a-year procurement program for these submarines, which are under budget and ahead of schedule. a remarkable achievement. improvements to the lator will combat ship program which has experienced major cost increases and delays until again with dr. carter's participation d.o.d. shifted to competitive fixed-price contracts in 2011. restructuring procurement for the air force's kc-46a strategic tanker program which led to a competitor procurement --

competitive procurement process incorporating a firm fixed price development and a contract for buying up to 120 tanker aircraft. canceling of the vh-71 program an out-of-control program to replace the current presidential helicopter fleet. now, clearly not all of the problems with acquisition have been fixed and the defense department can and should do more to streamline and improve the system. but i believe from what i've just indicated that dr. carter as secretary of defense will do just that. he's already demonstrated he can do it and he will do it. but finally and most importantly, as senator mccain indicated, if confirmed as secretary of defense dr. carter will be leading 1.3 million active duty military, 820,000 reserve and guard and 770,000 civilians. after over a decade of war and fiscal uncertainty, they are wrestling with many of the same

issues as the civilian society issues like sexual assault and suicide. yet they are committed to protecting the nation and remain -- to remain the finest force in the world. every decision that dr. carter makes, i know he will make it thinking finally and ultimately about what is in the best interests of these men and women in uniform and civilian department of defense who give so much to this country every day, and that i think is one of the factors that compels all of us to support this nomination. he has proven time and time again his commitment to the men and women who serve this nation. i believe he is the right leader at the right time for the department of defense and i urge my colleagues to support his confirmation. i urge at this time to commend secretary chuck hagel for his service. it began decades ago as a young sergeant in vietnam where he was wounded twice where he fought in close combat against the enemies of the united states.

he took this ethic from his own experience understanding that ultimately the decisions may hurt here in washington are carried out by young men and women across this globe. in his tenure, he brought printed leadership, he broad dedication to the men and women of the armed forces, and he also looked ahead in many, many different ways, one notable approach was his complete review of the nuclear establishment the tree -- triad not only in terms of its effectiveness but its security and ability to respond not just to the threats but the cold war and the new world we face. so for many, many reasons he has done a remarkable job and this juncture is an opportunity to salute his efforts. mr. president, i have concluded my remarks with respect to the

nomination of dr. carter, but i would like to speak for a moment on a different topic. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. mr. president, we are in the midst of trying to provide doops for the department of homeland security and it is something that we must do and we should do and we should do it in my sense without extraneous material regarding this appropriation bill. over the past two weeks the state of rhode island has been beset by a series of snowstorms. in fact, the state could face another foot of snow this weekend. in coordinating our responses in disasters like this, my state depends upon the rhode island emergency management agency as well as local emergency managers. those agencies in turn depend on federal funding for the department of homeland security. particularly their emergency management performance grant at homeland security grant programs the ability the capacity to respond to

snowstorms to hurricanes, to natural disasters across the country. however, uncertainty about federal funding makes it harder in my state to plan and prepare harder for every state to plan and prepare. it's one of the main reasons we ought to pass the bipartisan bill that was negotiated by democrats and republicans on the appropriation committee without provisions added by the house regarding immigration issues. a clean homeland security bill will probably pass in this chamber by an overwhelming majority in a matter of minutes because i think we all understand the security of the united states, not just with respect to natural disasters but with respect to many of the things that are handed off if you will, from the department of defense to the department of homeland security. when we are worried as we all are, about the lone wolf who may be in combat zones but coming back to the united states, that is quickly a department of homeland security

responsibility and i don't think we want to confuse the issue of defending the homeland security protecting communities from natural disasters with other issues. this is commonsense legislation. we have seen it before, and we have to move and we have to move with i think alacrity to get this done. it's about protecting the american people from natural disasters and also unfortunately in this world we live in the potential for terrorist activities that emanate elsewhere but are directed against the united states. so issues that are unrelated to funding the department i think should put -- be put aside. we can deal with them. we can deal with them through the authorization process but let's get this department fully appropriated so it can continue. and with that, mr. president i thank you and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president members of the senate, as chairman of the judiciary committee, i've mentioned publicly that i am open to certain federal sentencing or prison reforms but i've tried to make it very clear that i'm

very opposed to others, so today i would like to address the realities of drug sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. i do so because there are many myths that surround the topic. the myth is that there are thousands of low-level drug offenders like people smoking marijuana in federal prison for very long terms. this is supposed to mean a waste of federal tax dollars overcrowding and unfairness to people who should not be in prison. these myths are often used to just phi lenient and frankly dangerous sentencing proposals here in the united states senate. one of those proposals is a so-called smarter sentencing act. it's time to set the record

straight. that's why i'm here. it's important to know how many people are in federal prison for drug possession, who they are and why they are there in prison. then it will be clear why it is unwise to make wholesale one-way lenient changes in drug sentencing. in fiscal year 2013, the most recent year that we have statistics according to the united states sentencing commission there were 2,332 drug possession cases in the federal prison. almost 94% involved marijuana. more than 86% were against noncitizens. 88% of the cases arose along the

southwest border, so it is clear why so many noncitizens were charged. and federal drug possessors were rarely prosecuted for small quantities. the median amount of drug possession in these southwest border cases, which are 88% of the federal drug possession cases, was about 48 pounds. now, understand, we're not talking about a few ounces of possession of marijuana. the average 48 pounds. can you imagine being in possession of 48 pounds of illegal drugs? these are not then low-level casual offenders by any stretch of the imagination. moreover well over 90% of the

drug possession cases are along the southwest border, so more than 80% of all federal drug possession cases were brought in the state of arizona. in that district, the united states attorney will agree to charge a drug trafficker with only drug possession if the offender is a first-time offender who acted only as a courier. again, a medium quantity of the amount of possession is 48 pounds, and many who actually committed trafficking there are charged only with mere drug possession. since 88% of all federal drug possession cases derived from the southwest border, only 270

simple drug possession cases arose anywhere else in the united states. so get this, please. the odds of an american being subject to a federal prosecution for drug possession in any given year are less than one in a million. it is also imperative to remember that mandatory minimum sentences are not an issue in these cases. the average federal sentence for drug possession is five months. that's only five months. i say that for emphasis. not the years of imprisonment. some of the proponents of lenient sentencing would have you believe. and the brevity of federal drug possession sentences is emphasized by how in the vast

majority of these cases the median amount of drugs at issue is 48 pounds. in the 270 cases not along the border the median amount of drugs the offender possessed was only four grams. the average sentence was one and and -- was 1.3 months, and most of these convicted were sentenced to probation. so there is no basis whatsoever to advocate change in federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws based on drug possession cases, since they are not subject to such mandatory minimums. anyone who raises drug possession as an argument against federal mandatory minimum sentences then is using a stalking horse to lower

sentences for much more serious offenders. now, there is no separate federal offense for what you call the possession with intent to distribute. those who possess with that intent are treated as the same as those who distribute, so we need to look at drug distribution sentences in the federal system as well. drug trafficking cases are sometimes subject to mandatory minimum sentences. for instance, just under half of all drug currier offenders -- courier offenders were subject to mandatory minimum sentences. but under 10% were subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the time of their sentencing. there are two main reasons why so few of these offenders are

actually sentenced to a mandatory minimum. the first is they may fall within the safety valve that congress has enacted to prevent mandatory minimum sentences from applying to low-level first-time drug offenders or second they may have provided substantial assistance to prosecutors in fingering high-level offenders in our drug conspiracy. now, that is an intended goal of current federal sentencing policy to put pressure on defenders to cooperate in exchange for lower sentence so that evidence against more responsible criminals can be obtained as a result. even for drug couriers, the average sentence is 39 months.

now, that seems to be an appropriate level. we are not sending huge numbers of nonviolent drug offenders to federal prison under lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. so i want to make it very clear -- this is the biggest sentencing myth of them all. when federal drug sentencing is discussed, we need then to keep in mind the facts. there are hardly any nonviolent drug offending americans in federal prison for mere drug possession. the quantities of drugs underlying the vast majority of federal possession cases are high and sentences are fair. for drug courier distribution cases, only 10% of offenders are

subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the time of sentencing. so i hope you will be on notice and be on guard. don't let anyone tell you that federal mandatory minimum sentences are putting large number of nonviolent offenders in jail for long periods of time at great taxpayer expense. don't let anyone tell you that such offenders are the reason for the increase in federal drug prisoners over the years. don't let anyone tell you that harsh mandatory sentences are low-level nonviolent offenders are decimating various communities. apart from the clear evidence

from sentencing commission regarding federal drug offenders, i want to draw attention to the responses to questions from witnesses before our judiciary committee just this month. testifying before the committee milwaukee county sheriff david a. clark jr. stated -- quote -- "federal mandatory minimum sentences have struck terror into the hearts of career criminals and have provided longer periods of respite from the impoverished and crime-riddled communities that can least afford their return." end of quote. the sheriff said that he feared the effect in his inner city community of changing federal drug mandatory minimum sentences now, i have told my colleagues

that i am going to be open to lowering some federal mandatory minimum sentences but only where specific situations may warrant that, and if we can add or raise new ones for such offenses as arms export control violations financial crimes and child pornography possessions. those three categories do not have to be extremely long sentences. under present law. but too many judges are systematically sentencing these offenders to probation and especially when the supreme court has taken away any other means of making sure judges do not let these offenders walk, mandatory minimum sentences are the only way that congress can

require that these offenders serve any time at all. so i'm trying to inform my senate colleagues through the use of facts. and doing that by looking at the facts, we will not make unwise and dangerous changes to our federal sentencing laws. so i ask my colleagues just to stick to the facts and avoid repeating myths and i have pointed those myths out. it is a myth to say that sentences for drug possession and nonviolent offenders justify smarter sentencing act. that bill does not apply to possession at all. many drug offenses necessarily involve violence. drug conspiracies operate with

the threat or the use of force and whatever the offense charged, if the offender has a history of violent crime, he is a violent offender and the sentence will and should reflect that fact. it is a myth to say that the smarter sentencing act would save money. all it would do is shift costs from incarceration of the victims who bear the costs of the crimes that earlier release ed offenders would commit. that is one of the reasons the bill is dangerous. congressional budget office also says that it would add billions of dollars in mandatory spending regardless of what up-front discretionary savings there may be. so i would ask my colleagues to

get this -- it is a fact that the smarter sentencing act would cut sentences for a range of heroin offenses, including importation, including dealing while the entire nation is in the midst of a heroin epidemic and a rising number of deaths from heroin overdoses. i would ask my colleagues to get this -- it is a fact from the heads of the f.b.i. and the drug enforcement agency and federal police organizations that mandatory minimum sentences spur cooperation from defendants and enable successful prosecution of high-level drug criminals who cause most of the tremendous harm and that includes

cooperation from defendants charged with narcoterrorism. i would ask my colleagues to get this. it is a fact that the so-called smarter sentencing act would cut in half the mandatory minimum sentences that congress put in place for distributing drugs to benefit terrorists or terrorist organizations, and it would cut in half the mandatory minimum sentences for members of taliban, al qaeda, isis or hezbollah who deal drugs that fund terrorism. that would mean less cooperation to bring charges of narcoterrorism get terrorists off the streets and obtain intelligence to help prevent future attacks.

president obama's own united states attorney for southern district of new york has remarked -- quote -- "there is a growing nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism a threat that increasingly poses a clear and present danger to our national security." so i ask my colleagues to get this. it is a fact that the so-called smarter sentencing act is dangerous not only because of its affect on increased crime and victimization but on national security as well. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to have the quorum call alleviated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. i rise today to urge this body for our colleagues toly co- together quickly to passes a -- to come together quickly to pass a homeland security bill. we are just now 16 days away from a homeland security shutdown. the clock is ticking. and a shutdown would be wholly unnecessary and quite frankly completely dangerous. we know that we don't lack for security threats.

it was less than two years ago that terrorists attacked the boston marathon. it was just weeks ago when we witnessed a horrific series of terror attacks on our friends in paris. and we know that the brutal destabilizing force known as islamic state or isil is determined to hurt our nation and our citizens. the world is a dangerous place. so at a time like this, we should be working together on a bipartisan basis to fund and strengthen homeland security. but instead, we are facing insecurity instability uncertainty because some want to hold the funding for the department of homeland security hostage, hostage to a partisan

political debate. is it really more important to hold a fight over deporting children who came to the united states and know no other country than the united states, came to here through no fault -- is it more important to hold this fight over deporting those children than it is to protect america against terrorist threats? and though protecting against these threats is reason enough to oppose this misguided strategy the resulting fallout would not just be limited to national security. this bill includes fema grants to disaster stricken areas. this bill includes funding for grants to local fire departments departments, grants that would not occur and thousands of essential public servants from homeland security to fema and to our terrific men and women in

the coast guard would be asked to keep on working even though we're not paying them. this is not the way to run a nation. this is certainly not the way to address national security and the threats that face us. mr. president, i always think it's telling when a strategy is being criticized from members on both sides of the aisle. this is a foolhardy game being played with our national security. aour colleague from arizona said on this floor just yesterday, a colleague from across the aisle -- quote -- "to attempt to use a spending bill in order to folk apoke a finger in the senate's eye is not a good move." another colleague from across the aisle from illinois said -- and i quote -- "the american people are pretty alarmed as they should be, about security.

the way to go forward is just fund d.h.s.," department of homeland security. and he continued "we ought to strip the bill of extraneous issues and make it about homeland security." that is the path forward, to have a bill, a funding bill for homeland security stripped of political riders designed to take on one issue or another when those issues can be addressed in separate bills. if someone really wants to prioritize the deportation of children who came here through no fault of their own and know no country other than the united states, our dreamers, then they should write that bill put it through committee and the majority should bring the debate to the floor of this chamber. and i can tell you, i would be voting against that bill but we'd have the debate on this

issue separate from the conversation about funding homeland security. now, i found it interesting to read the "wall street journal" the other day and it refers to immigration restrictionists who want a larger brawl and have browbeat g.o.p. leaders into adding needless policy amendments. that's coming from the "wall street journal"." and they proceed to say in regard to the fight over prioritizing the deportation of folks who are here without legal credentials and having criminal backgrounds, that the president is prioritizing those deportations of those with with criminal backgrounds and they, the wall street joarnl "wall street journal" says -- and i quote -- "that is legitimate prosecutorial

discretion and in opposing it, republicans are undermining their crimefighting credentials." so if some of my colleagues want to argue the president shouldn't prioritize deporting individuals with criminal backgrounds which i think should be prioritized have that debate. but don't hold the homeland security bill hostage to that particular -- particular fight. now, in this morning's paper we had an article about this funding of the department of homeland security and this is in "the washington post." and it refers to the grand old party at impasse as the measure stalls in the senate. and if quotes the speaker it quotes the speaker of the house, speaker boehner speaker boehner says, "it's time for the senate to do their work." and he proceeds to give a little lecture to senators. he says, "you know, in the gift

shop out here they've got these little booklets on how a bill becomes a law." well i encourage speaker boehner to actually read that book because what that book says is in order to pass through the senate it has to get on the floor and it has to have the support to be approved by this chamber. so speaker boehner i encourage you to actually read the pamphlet you've recommended because sending over funding for homeland security laden with unrelated policy riders is going to make sure that bill dies here in the senate. now, don't take my word for it, take the senate's version or expression on this. it's come to three votes in the senate. we voted three times to kill this house bill giving clear instruction to the house. send us the actual department of homeland security bill free of

these political riders and we will put it on the floor and we will have that debate and we will undoubtedly pass that bill. but if you want to play political games rather than looking out for the security of the united states of america don't expect the u.s. senate to rubber stamp your political games, speaker boehner. so that's where we are now. and so i do encourage the speaker to go right down to the gift shop i'll be happy to buy him a copy of this and i'll be happy to read the phrases to the speaker on exactly how a bill becomes law. it is deeply disturbing to the american people to see these types of political games being played with our nation's security. we live in a dangerous world and we need to take seriously our responsibility to fund this department. thank you mr. president.

and, mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you madam president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: we've made great strides in recent years ensuring americans of all ages have access to quality health care. part of this success comes from the children's health insurance program created in 1997 as a joints state-federal health insurance program for low to moderate-income children and pregnant women. because of chip, ten million children including 130,000 children in my state most of them sons and daughters of working parents working parents who are in low-income jobs not making enough money to afford insurance and for employers typically that don't offer insurance 130,000 ohioans of my state have access to health care today, health

care they may not have received otherwise. we know chip works not just in the number of children insured under the program but because of the flexibility that chip provides states and the quality of care children receive. it works for children, it works for parents it works for communities. that's the good news. the bad news, even though the law is on the books till 2019, the funding for chip will expire in september. that's why i'm proud to introduce legislation today with my colleague senator stabenow and wyden and casey and leader reid to protect the chip program to extend its funding to match the authorization till 2019. the protecting and retaining our children's health insurance program, pro-chip, the act is straightforward, it's common sense, it will provide much-needed budget predictability for our states, the republican governor of my state supports chip, he

understands they need it in ohio and across the country sooner rather than later so they can properly budget and plan and avoid gaps in health care for vulnerable children. again, these 130,000 children in might state alone overwhelmingly are sons and daughters of working families, wrote parents who don't make enough money to pay for health insurance out of pocket and who are working at companies and businesses who don't provide health insurance. i'm than 30 of our senate colleagues have already joined as cosponsors, providing health insurance to low-income children isn't just the right thing to do it's the smart thing to do. children state healthier families function better, neighborhoods are better, children do better in school as a result, fewer sick days and they feel better when they're at school because they have a family doctor, because they have health insurance. we know it works. listen to these numbers. thanks to chip, the number of uninsured children has fallen by half since 1997.

again, this bill passed bipartisanly in 1997, has been extended and reauthorized a couple of times since. 14% uninsured children in 1997, today, 7%. nearly every state in the union, governors planning their state budgets parents planning their family budgets are relying on us to extend chip now. don't go up to the deadline like some now talk about in terms of shutting the government down. don't go up to the deadline and do this. do it now. it provides -- it would provide a sigh of relief for parents not only for financial reasons but because chip means better access to comprehensive care for their kids. think about the anxiety parents face not being certain -- they have insurance today under chip not being certain they'll have it this time next year. we should act together to protect this vital program that provides comprehensive health care coverage for ten million children. states will start to roll back

their chip program and funding for the program will expire at the end of september if we don't act soon. this has always been bipartisan, it should continue to be. i look forward to working with all my colleagues to prioritize children's health and pass this pro-chip legislation as soon as possible. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. rubio: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president the pending item is the nomination of mr. carter. is that correct? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. rubio: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: are we on the carter

nomination? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. rubio: thank you. an important nomination at a moment when this nation faces national security threats. the president came to us yesterday asking us to authorize the use of force and i think we should do that. i'm not necessarily sure that we should do it in the way he's asked us to do it. i think it should be a pretty straightforward authorization here's what it should say. it should say we authorize the president of the united states to destroy isil, to defeat them militarily and it's up to the commander in chief to decide the right way in which to do that. now, i think i have very serious concerns and reservations about our current strategy when it comes to isis. i'm not sure it's sufficient. i think it's a strategy that will contain them but it will not defeat them. in fact, isis is now popping up, for example they have a very significant hub in libya. they now have a very suggest presence in benghazi, a few days ago they carried out an attack in tripoli. and now we're hearing media

reports that isis has a presence in afghanistan perhaps even terrorist training camps. they continue to grow their affiliates continue to grow their presence and we need an authorization of use of force that allows us to defeat them anywhere in the world where they are to be found and i hope that the president's suggestion is well received in terms of we thank him for submitting one but now it's the job of the senate to do its job to write one of its own and it may reflect many of the things the president wants but i think it should reflect we authorize him to defeat isis no matter wait takes and no matter how long it takes and if we have problems with the strategy, there are different ways to address it and i do have problems with the strategy and that should be addressed. mr. carter's nomination comes at another important moment when in that same region of the world one of america's strongest allies and its very existence is under attack. of course i'm talking about israel the jewish state

and -- an extraordinary story story in the history of the world. a country founded after the end of world war ii as a homeland for the jewish people so that never again,if never again would they have nowhere to go. if they faced the sorts of oppression the sort of genocide they faced during the holocaust. and since then the jewish state has had an extraordinary story. from an economic perspective it is a vibrant first-world country, first-rate economy and what's most interesting about it this is not a country with oil, with vast supplies of natural gas this is not a country that is an agricultural superpower. and yet it is a world-class economy providing prosperity and upward mobility to millions of its people. and it's done so on the basis of innovation. there's a very good book written by -- recently called "start-up nation" that talks about the extraordinary story of israel. it's a very vibrant democracy.

to observers of israeli politics they often joke a little too vibrant, they have heated debates about but it's a democracy. we have a democratic nation with a vibrant free-enterprise economy in the middle of the middle east. israel is everything we want that region of the world to become. we wish every nation in that region was a real democracy a vibrant one. we wish e -- we wish every nation this that part of the world had a vibrant economy that provided upward mobility to everyone. and we wish everyone nation in the middle east was as strong an ally as israel has been. this is an extraordinarily story of a strong but important nation and this country must continue to be their strongest ally in the world. but they face extraordinary threats to their safety, to their security, to their existence. it begins with what i believe is a concerted effort around the world, including in american academic-- includingin american academickia

to de-legitimatize israel's right to exist. an it is outrage. it continues with the growth of anti-semitism all over the world increasingly in europe. every day we see stories of a mass exodus as more and more jews are leaving europe because of the growth in anti-semitism. we saw whaps what happened in paris, not just the attack that happened in that newspaper and magazine but how jews were deliberately targeted for death by terrorists. it was not a random atock mr. president. -- attack, mr. president. it was a deliberate act of violence and a furtherance of anti-semitism. every international body of the world, israel was often the target of scorn and criticism without any consideration whatsoever to what its enemies intend to do to them. and now perhaps the greatest risk of all is to its very existence from the threat of an iranian nuclear program.

now i like everybody else, i wish that i woke up tomorrow morning to the news that the ayatollah had come to his senses and realized that iran cannot continue down its path, they've given up their nuclear weapon ambition they've given up sponsoring terrorism they've given up their anti-israeli anti-semitic. iran is not governed by a normal leader the way you and i would consider a leader of a nation. iran is governed by a radical shia clean airic a radical shia cleri can. iran is where he's based. iran is not what he believes is his domain. he believes every muslim on the planet under the sun is under his control and under his leadership. but here's the scariest thing he

believes: he believes that it is his job to trigger an apock lippic showdown between the muslim and non-muslim world because that will bring about the emergence of the 13th eye man who will then come and govern the entire world. his version of radical islam. now you may say that stuff sounds a little farfetched. that's what he believes. that is what he passionately and legitimately believes. so when you have someone who wants to trigger an apock lippic showdown between the muslim and non-muslim world when you have someone who says they want to destroy the state of israel, wipe it off the face of the earth, and that person is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon capability you better be very concerned, and you better conclude that this is an unacceptable risk for us to take. but it's particularly scary for israel because they are closer to iran than we are. they are in their cross hairs.

both verbally and militarily. now, the administration would have us believe that we're in the midst of this negotiation that hopefully will delay the iran nuclear program or extend the amount of time they need to break out. they're not going to break out; they're going to sneak out. they will concoct some sort of excuse at some point in the future as to why they need a nuclear weapons program. let me begin by saying iran is an oil-rich nation. they have no need for civilian nuclear power but if they want one, they can have it, like most of the other countries in the world do. by importing enriched uranium or reprocessed plutonium and using that for their reactors for peaceful purposes. but instead they insist on the ability to enrich and reprocess and there's only one reason why you would insist on that: because you want the infrastructure necessary to one day build a weapon when you decide you need it. but don't take my word for it. that is not the only thipg that they are doing.

there are two other aequity expects of their -- aspects of their program that aren't evening being being discussed. they continue to develop long range rockets. why do you need long-range rockets? you don't put a conventional warhead, you don't spend all the time and energy and money that it takes to build that capacity to bomb someone with a conventional weapon. there's only one reason why you build long-range rockets such as those and these to put a nuclear warhead on them. that's not being discussed in these negotiations and they it unto make unabated progress towards their long-range rocket capabilities. the other is a weapon design. the three things you need for a nuclear weapon program -- a weapon design, the long-range rockets and the ability to enrich and reprocess. they're already building the rockets. much the weapon design you can literally buy from dozens of people around the world who will sell it to you. and the reprocessing, even under the deal the president is asking for, if it went down exactly the way the president is asking for

it, they would still keep all the infrastructure, all the things that it takes to enrich, to weapons grade. they would have all the equipment, all the scientists, all the infrastructure. here's one more point: iran has always had a secret component to their nuclear program. always. and i would venture to guess that right now they have a secret component to their program as well that we do not know about. so that's why i have little hope in this deal. that's why prime minister netanyahu is so concerned about the deal. you see he doesn't have the luxury of living an illusion. he doesn't have the luxury of pretending that somehow we can work this out as if somehow we're negotiating with luxembourg here or belgium. he knows the neighborhood he lives in, and he knows his enemy. he knows their true nature and intentions. and it is his obligation, not just to protect his people but to fight for that nation's very existence. so he has chosen to come before

the congress at the invitation of the speaker and i am glad that he has accepted that invitation and i think we owe him the courtesy to hear what he has to say. i want you to go back and look at the united nations roll call votes. time and again when the interests of this country are being challenged around the world, i want you to see how many times israel is one of the few and often one of the only countries that votes with the united states of america in that international forum. i want to you see howl the all the times that the israelis have stood with america on issue after issue around the world. i also want you to what it a sis about us -- what it says about us as nation if we're not prepared that before anything else we are the friends of our allies around the world. what does it say to other nations in other part pes ofs of the world who are counting on the americans. what does it say to japan on the one hand south korea and our allies in nato when the united

states -- if the united states is prepared to create daylight between us and the state of israel? and let me tell you that's exactly the message people are going to get. that there is a division between us and israel. if in fact members of congress carry through on their threat to boycott the prime minister's speech before congress on the 3rd of march. if you boycott this speech, if a significant number of members of the senate and house boycott that speech, that message will be heard to israel's enemies but also by our allies and the message will be twofold. one, that america is no longer firmly on the side of rails as -- of israel, it is a once was. and, two that america is an unreliable ally. look what they just did to israel. i think everyone has a right to go any speech they want or not to attend a speesm but i hope my colleagues who are thinking about not going will reconsider. you may not like the way this

went down or, you may not like the way the speaker did the way he did it. but i want you to think about the implications beyond that. i want you to think about the implications that this leaves on israel. i want you to think about the message that this sends to israel's enemies because p what we have seen decade after decade is that anytime israel's enemies get the perception that somehow america is no longer as exphitted to israel's security as it once was it emboldens them tack israel. and israel has no shortage of enneighs want to not just attack them but destroy them. we've seen what hamas has done. we've seen what hezbollah has done. we've seen what iran wants to do and is doing. and if you boycott the speech if significant numbers of members boycott that speech, you are sending an incredibly powerful message to israel. i don't question anyone's commitment on this issue. i believe that there are

supporters of i israel who won't attend because they think it is disrespectful to the president. we're talking about the existence of this nation. we're talking about whether people in that nation will survive in 20 years or 15 years. that's how important and monumental this moment is. i'm not claiming that by you not attending the speech, that's going to lead to israel's destruction. i am glamming that if you boycott the speech, you are sending a message to israel's enemies. i hope you'll reconsider that position. i find it quite frankly outrageous. reports are that the white house has asked members of congress to boycott the speech. i find it outrageous. that the vice president of the united states, the vice president of the united states has decided to boycott that speech. i find it outrageous, for example, that on the one hand we are more than glad to send administration officials at the highest levels to sit down and

meet repeatedly with the highest-ranking officials that iran will send. but our strongest ally's prime minister is coming to washington and they won't even meet with him? one of our strongest allies allies' prime ministers wants to speak before congress and they won't attend that speech? what do you think the headlines are going to be in iran by the terrorists in gaza by the terrorists in is a samaria by the terrorists all over the world like in lebanon who want to destroy israel, what they're going to read into it? that somehow the congress' commitment to the future security of israel is not as strong as it once was. and i fear what the implications of that will be. and we should not take this lightly. i can think of no nation on earth that needs our help more right now than israel.

and i can think of no people on earth that deserve our support more than theirs. as i said earlier, they are reliable strong, committed ally of this nation. we have strong links to them on a personal, cultural, political and economic level. they have stood by us time and again in international forums when america's interests have been challenged. they are everything what we want the middle east to look like in the future. peace-loving desirous of a better future. what more do you want? what more could they do? what else could they be for us to be any stronger an ally of theirs than we should be or are right now? and yet there are people talking about imoiting the speech to protest, because they're upset about the way it went down, because they don't like the way it was scheduled because it is disrespectful to the president. you have your right to voice your concerns but don't do this to an ally, don't do this to a

nation that is as threatened today as it has ever been. don't do this to a people that are in the cross hairs of multiple terrorist groups with the capability of attacking them. don't do this to a nation who is civilians are terrorized by thousands of rockets launched against them at a moment's notice. don't do this to a country that's facing down the threat of a nuclear weapon aflighting them off the face of the earth. don't do this to a people that are being stigma stigmatized all over the world as we speak, who are being oppressed. don't do this to a country that in forum after forum has become the subject of de-legitimatization as people argue that somehow is legal israel's right to exist is is is not real. don't do this to them. i hope my colleagues will reconsider their decision to not attend. this is an important speech. and i hope that the prime minister -- it is his choice, obviously. he must always act in the best interests of his nation and people. but i hope he will speak to us on the 3rd of march. and i hope that he will speak to us clearly.

i hope that through his speech he will open the eyes of this congress an the american people that this is not child's play. that what iran intends to have is not just a nuclear weapon to destroy israel but ultimately to terrorize the world. i hope that he will speak to us bluntly about the true nature of this threat. you i know there is a lot going on in the worlt. but there is no greater threat to the long-term security of the planet than the iranian nuclear ambition. no people and no nation on earth know that better than the people of israel, and no leader on earth understands that better than prime minister netanyahu. i think after years of commitment to this alliance, after the bravery that he has shown in his time in office, of the bravery that the jewish people of israel have shown in defending their nation's right to exist when attacked multiple times throughout its history and even through this modern day they deserve our support.

our unambiguous support. of course there are differences between allies. there always have been and there always will be. but if we won't stand for israel israel, who will will we stand for? if the united states of america will not defend its a lierks who will we defend? what message do we send to our alliances across the planet? and what message do we send to our enemies and israel's enemies? and so i hope that cooler heads will prevail. i hope that members of the house and senate who have announced that they're boycotting will reconsider. and i hope we will all be there if we can to hear what the prime minister has to say the first week in march. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: are we in morning business madam president? the presiding officer: the senate is in executive session. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president regular c-span viewers this is your d.v.r. alert. get your tivo ready. after today you will no longer hear the voice of kathie alvarez calling the roll call in the united states senate. after nearly 30 years as an

integral part of the floor staff, kat hi e is leaving the senate. her career began as a teacher in louisiana. in 1984 she chaperoned her students during a class trip to washington d.c. during the trip she met an old college friend who told her about a job opening in the senate document room. while her students were touring the capitol kathie interviewed and was hired on the spot. the students lost a great teacher that day but turned out to be a gain to the united states senate. in 1985 she was hired at -- as assistant bill clerk and quickly promoted. in 1991 for the first time senators came to the chamber and heard a woman's voice calling the roll call vote. it was kathie alvarez the first female bill clerk of the united states. what an achievement. before the end of the millennium kathie alvarez was part of

another first one of ten officers all women presiding over the senate at the start of the day. if that were not enough kathie once again made history when promoted to legislative clerk in 2009. she was the first woman to serve in this role too. what a career. in 1922, for the history books rebecca lattimore felton was the first woman to sit in the united states senate. she served for only one day but in that 24 hours she made a bold prediction before her time about the future role women would play in the senate. here's what she said. when the women of the country come in and sit with you, you will get ability, you will get integrity of purpose, you will get exalted patriotism and unstinted usefulness. i will second that. as the first woman to serve as the first bill clerk and legislative clerk of the united states senate, i'll say kathie alvarez has lived up to senator

felton's prediction. she began her career as a sevenths grade history teacher and came to the senate where she made history. thank you for your service to this body. i know you're going to be joining your husband john and your high school student daughter georgia, in a much more fulsome role now but we're going to miss you in the senate. i wish you and your family the very best. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

is quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i would like to say a word about a remarkable woman in the senate that we'll soon be losing. kathie alvarez the senate's legislative clerk sark bit of a celebrity. every c-span afish onin a dough knows her voice. all she has to say is "mr. alexander," "ms. ayotte," and it is instantly recognizable. kathie has been calling the roll for quite a while. she became the first woman to ever call roll in the senate. in 1999 with senator collins in the chair kathie became a member of the first all-female team to preside over this body. and in 2009 she became the senate's first female legislative clerk. so kathie alvarez has been making a lot of history since she first arrived here in 1984. and you'll notice, madam president, that every female floor staffer is paying tribute to her today. they're each wearing something with kathie's favorite design:

animal print. along with the love of cajun food s.a.r.torial distinction is one thing that louisianans become known for a passion for perfection is another. kathie has maintain add laser-like focus for three decades. that's good news for the senate, because we rely on her and the american people rely on her to ensure that every bill, every amendment, and every message from the house is processed perfectly. that's a lot of pressure. so you can't blame kathie for wanting to retire. i know she's looking forward to spending more time with her husband john and i know that kathie wants to see more of her daughter georgia. it won't be like kathie is leaving us entirely. we'll still be able to hear her voice on the film every tourist watches when they come to visit the capitol. so the senate thanks kathie alvarez, its history-making celebrity, for her many years of

service and we wish the very best to her deputy, john merlino, who steps into kathie's role as the senate's new legislative clerk. [applause] the presiding officer: question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? hearing none, on the confirmation of ashton b. carter of massachusetts to be the secretary of defense the ayes are 93, the nays are 5. the motion is carried. the motion is confirmed. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i move to reconsider. the presiding officer: under the previous order the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.

the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: for two weeks now the democrats have continued to filibuster funding of the department of homeland security. they -- they are filibustering homeland security fudge for one loan reason, to defendant actions president obama himself referred to as -- quote -- "unwise and unfair" -- end quote and -- quote -- "ignoring the law" -- end quote. for two full weeks democrats have prevented the senate from even considering legislation to fund the department of homeland security. democrats won't allow the senate to even debate this funding. democrats won't allow the senate to even consider amendments to this funding. democrats appear willing to do anything and everything they can to prevent the senate from taking any action to fund homeland security.

and all to defend unwise and unfair -- the president's words, not mine -- overreach. this includes democrats who claim to be against overreach and claim to be for funding the department of homeland security and yet these democrats continue to filibuster things they claim to want. listen to the things democrats have been saying. we've heard a claim from them, the democratic flick be filibuster wasn't actually a filibuster. we've heard a call to start funding legislation of itself its own. the democratic leader has been clear in the past the senate can do no such thing. here's some good news. there's already a funding bill before us, it's already passed the house it would fund the department of homeland security fully, and we can consider it today, right now. all democrats have to do is stop blocking the senate from even debating it. if our democratic colleagues

don't like provisions in the bill the house has passed the senate has a process for modifying bills. it's called amending them. but the senate can only consider amendments to a bill if it's not being filibustered. this strained logic of our democratic friends is really hard to swallow. we understand democrats might be having a tough time kicking this yearslong gridlock habit of theirs but it's about time they did. i've already offered a fair and open debate to them on several times now it's a debate that would allow for amendments from both parties that means amendments from our democratic friends as well, if you want to make changes to the bill, colleagues, that is the way to do it. but to do so you first need to end the weekslong democratic filibuster of homeland security funding. why don't we get serious instead and let the senate fund the department of homeland security. now, mr. president i ask

unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to h.r. 240 be agreed to, that it be in order for the managers or their designees to offer amendments in an alternating fashion with the majority manager or his designee being recognized to offer the first amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask -- i'm sorry. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president i don't understand why the republicans in the house and senate have decided to hold up one appropriation bill of our federal government. the appropriation for the department of homeland security. the one agency that's supposed to protect us against terrorism. last december the house republicans said we're just not going to give regular funding to

this department. $48 million this department spends on coast guard, border security, a myriad of different things to keep america safe but they said, the republicans said this is one agency we are not going to fully fund. we'll put them on temporary funding, called a continuing resolution, and we'll get back to you on february 27. then what they did is to lash the budget of this department to the thorny, difficult issue of immigration and insist that we can't fund the department of homeland security unless we take up what i consider to be some rather outrageous riders put on by the house of representatives on the issue of immigration. the good news is we've come up with a solution on this side and i'm going to make it in a manner of a unanimous consent request and it really is straightforward. first, because senator jeanne shaheen of new hampshire has stepped forward and offered with senator mikulski s. 272, we have a clean appropriation bill for the department of homeland

security. if the senator would like to yield for a question, i'd look glad to. mrs. shaheen: if i could ask my colleague a question. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: isn't it true, senator durbin, that the bill that you're talking about, the clean bill that senator mikulski and i have introduced, is the the nation that was agreed to -- the legislation that was agreed to by senator mikulski when she was chair of the appropriations committee and congressman rogers, the house it was a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that each side gave one and what's at issue here is not that underlying bill. what's at issue are the five riders the amendments that the house put on that have nothing to do with funding the department of homeland security? mr. durbin: i would answer in the affirmative. that's why the unanimous consent request i'm going to make is the easiest, quickest solution to

our problem. a clean bipartisan appropriation bill for he the department of homeland security. but we're not running away from the immigration issue because senator mcconnell is now the majority leader and controls the business of the senate, speaker boehner controls the business of the house, they can take up the immigration issue immediately after we have funded this department. so what i'm going to suggest in my unanimous consent request is that they use their power in the majority to take us then to this important debate on immigration after we have given a clean appropriation to the one federal agency empowered with keeping america safe from terrorism. let us not play politics with terrorism. let us not play politics with the budget of the department of homeland security. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that following the enactment of the text of s. 272 the department of homeland security appropriation act for fiscal year 2015, at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the democratic leader but no

later than monday, march 16, the senate proceed to the consideration of the border security economic opportunity and immigration modernization act as passed by the senate by a vote of 68-32 on june 27 2013, the text of which it is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: what is the pending business? the presiding officer: the motion to proceed to h.r. 240. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 240 making appropriation for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30 2015, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further relation of the names be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that my marine fellow major warren bruce be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i want to speak on another matter, and that is what an event that should be a momentous and historic event that's scheduled to take place on the other side of the capitol early next month. for the third time since he has been prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu will be speaking to a joint session of congress. in his invitation the speaker of the house indicated that the reason for the invitation is because of the grave threats that radical islam and the iranian regime pose to our security and our way of life. i cannot think of a more timely

or a more critical subject for the american people to hear about from one of the world's great leaders. now, for some reason, some people are trying to turn this into a public controversy but to me and i imagine to many others it is mystifying and somewhat disappointing. the reasons for supporting and defending the nation of israel are obvious. both of our countries are pluralistic democracies with a staunch commitment to liberty equality and human rights. both of our countries are threatened by radical islam and both of our countries have responded to that threat while remaining free and open societies. those are the reasons why most americans stand with israel and why u.s. aid to israel enjoys such overwhelming support among members of both parties here in congress. indeed, we have no closer middle

eastern ally than israel, and i would argue no bigger middle eastern adversary than the country of iran. i would also argue we have no bigger foreign policy challenges than stopping the iranian drive for nuclear weapons and keeping those weapons out of the hands of terrorists. a nuclear iran would make this world a far more dangerous place. for starters, it would dramatically increase iranian leverage iranian power and iranian aggression in the middle east. just remember, this is the same regime that's continued to violently target the united states since 1979. it's the same regime that's been on the state department's terrorism blacklist since 1984. it's the same regime that not too long ago was plotting to blow up a restaurant right here in washington, d.c. i was reminded, mr. president

that in 1983, in the bombing of our embassy in beirut, a largely forgotten historical moment, that that was the beginning of america's deadly encounter with political islamist -- with the political islamist movement. it was all the birth of the shiite political entity as we know today by the name of hezbollah. supported by iran. so perhaps the most poignantly the government of iran refuses to recognize israel's right to exist and it has continually called for its destruction and has repeatedly attacked israel, either directly or through proxies. make no mistake iran's ongoing pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a tremendous threat to the united states and to our ally israel so given the very clear and present danger to the nation of israel and the dangers they

face on a perpetual basis from their neighbors in the region iron the u.s.-israel alliance has never been more important than it is today. israel's a shining model of democratic values for nations around the world. it's a great example for others to follow in the middle east. the strong cultural, religious and political ties shared by the united states and israel have helped form a bond between our countries that should never be broken. and now more than ever, the people of israel need reassurance that we remain committed to seeing that their nation is a strong and trusted ally and maintains its qualitative military edge in the face of ongoing threats from nations like iran and syria and terrorist groups likehams and hezbollah -- like hamas and hezbollah. that's why mr. president today we have filed a resolution here in the united states senate welcoming israeli prime minister

benjamin netanyahu when he addresses a joint session of congress next month. this resolution reaffirms the senate's commitment to stand with israel during times of uncertainty. it reaffirms this body's strong support for israel's right to defend itself from threats to its very survival. and it reaffirms the senate's unequivocal support for the government of the two nations. as of this morning a majority of the united states senate has signed an as a cosponsor to this resolution, and just this afternoon, we are signing a dear colleague letter, which as the presiding officer knows inviting all 100 united states senators to join in support of this resolution. i hope the rest of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in welcoming the prime minister to washington so we can continue to work together as he details in graphic detail like no one else can do the threat of

a nuclear iran. during this time of such great instability and danger in the middle east, the united states cannot afford to waiver in our commitment to one of our closest and most important allies. mr. president, before i yield the floor i'd ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president i rise today to discuss our country's relationship with cuba. i have long advocated modernizing our relationship with cuba. the current embargo has been in place for 50 years and it has greatly constrained opportunities for american businesses by restricting commerce by restricting our exports, things that are made in america to go to a place that is

only 90 miles off our shores and has 11 million people. that's why today i introduced the bipartisan freedom to export to cuba act with senators enzi, stabenow flake leahy and durbin. this bill lifts the trade embargo on cuba and knocks down the legal barriers to americans doing business in cuba. this bill will help open up new economic opportunities for american businesses, which will mean more jobs. it also will boost opportunities for farmers something you know well in the state of north dakota we know well in the state of minnesota. this will also allow cubans to have access to these products, which we believe is good for their country good for their people so that they can become a different country. freeing our businesses to pursue

opportunities for development could greatly help the people of cuba. consider, for example that cuba only has a 2g cellular network a 2g cellular network and only about one fourth of the population has internet access. ultimately, i believe that this legislation will help usher in a new era for americans and cubans shaped by opportunities for the future rather than simply a story of the past. the process that the president has jump-started to normalize our ties with cuba is a positive step forward. my home state of minnesota exported about $20 million in agricultural products to cuba in 2013. i think people are surprised by that but as many of us know there are humanitarian exceptions to the current embargo, so already our country is exporting my state alone $20 million in products with the president's action alone the minnesota department of

agriculture estimates that exports could increase by another $20 million. the united states is already the fourth largest source of imports to cuba, based solely on authorized shipments of agriculture and medical supplies. over the past decade, we have been one of cuba's top suppliers of food products, so it is not as if we don't already do business there but unlike every other country including our own neighbor to the north and that is canada, we hamstring our businesses seeking to export their products there. export and travel restrictions have continued to prevent americans from seeking opportunities in cuba, and the embargo prevents cubans from obtaining food and other goods that we take for granted in our country. as human -- as cuban human rights activist yovanni sanchez has written, it is impossible for cubans to buy staples like

eggs or cooking oil without turning to the underground market. rationing forces people to stand in line for hours for poultry and fish. on the cuban government's 50th anniversary in 2009, it provided families with an extra half pound of ground beef, but that beef was not from the united states. it was sponsored by the venezuela government, a meager gift nicknamed hugo chavez' hamburger by everyday cubans. i say it is time for america to stop stealing credit for the hamburger to venezuela. it is time that we make our hamburger accessible in cuba. the freedom to export to cuba act will help us do that. it is simply a targeted repeal of the provisions in current law that keep the embargo in place including restrictions that prevent american businesses from financing their own exports to the island and requirements for american farms to seek special licenses for any transaction with cuba. it's also important to emphasize what this bill does not do.

there are many outstanding issues that many of my colleagues have discussed between our two countries that must be dealt with, especially our concerns about the cuban government repressive policies. that is why this bill does not repeal provisions of current law that address human rights in cuba or that allow individuals and businesses to pursue claims against the cuban government for property. none of us is under any illusion about the nature of the cuban government. the cuban government must take serious steps to reform politically and economically. it must free political prisoners and stop arbitrarily arresting people for political speech. it must also take steps to liberalize its state-crentric economic system if it truly allows its people to prosper and benefit from growing commerce with the united states. we do not minimize the importance of those issues, but we also know that the embargo has not helped to solve them.

members on both sides of the aisle recognize that continuing along the same path with respect to cuba has not achieved our objectives and in fact constrained americans' freedom to pursue business opportunities abroad. it has hindered our freedom to travel, which is why i also cosponsored the freedom to travel to cuba act recently introduced by senator flake. both that bill and the freedom to export to cuba act that i have introduced today with a bipartisan group of senators shows that we can work together in this new congress to support a commonsense relationship between the united states and cuba. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. it's a chance to build on our current progress and take additional actions to forge a practical and positive relationship with the people of cuba and the people of america. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i would ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. explained: thank you. mr. president, yesterday the budget committee of which i am ranking member held a very important hearing on the social security disability insurance program. mr. sanders: and that is a life and death program for nearly 11 million americans including more than one million veterans and almost two million children who rely on this program to get the nutrition that they need, to heat their homes and to pay for their medicine. this is a program that impacts quite honestly, some of the very most vulnerable people in this country. and let me be very clear in describing this program that

this is a program that american workers have paid into, have paid into. it is an insurance program. this is not charity. when americans pay 6.2% of their income in the payroll tax almost 1% of that amount goes into the disability insurance program. the average disability insurance benefit is less than $1,200 a month. and for 30% of beneficiaries this is all of the income that they have. $1,200 a month 30% of the beneficiaries of ssdi, for them this is all of their income. nobody is getting rich off of disability benefits.

sadly, on the very first day of the new congress, house republicans passed a rule that would lay the groundwork -- lay the groundwork -- for a 19% cut in social security disability insurance benefits. specifically this rule would prohibit the reallocation of payroll taxes from the social security retirement fund to the disability insurance fund, a routine accounting practice that has been done 11 times in the past in a very noncontroversial nonpartisan way. but what the republicans said in the house they won't allow this to happen unless it is accompanied by a cut in social security benefits or an increase in taxes. in other words what the house republicans are saying is that

either there will be cuts to the disability program or if that fund is to be replenished the money will have to come are from cuts to the social security retirement program. and in my view, that is very very wrong. if the social security disability program was cut by 19%, it would mean that the average benefit of approximately $13,980 a year for a disabled person which is already where the poverty level is, that would be cut by 19% to $11,324. that's what a 19% cut to the average social security disability insurance benefit would mean.

do any of my colleagues really believe that a person with a severe disability -- maybe that person is facing a terminal illness, maybe that person is paralyzed, maybe that person is an amputee -- does anybody really believe that a disabled person in america in the year 2015 should be forceed to live on $11,324 a year? unfortunately, that is what the house republicans are laying the groundwork for. that is what a 19% cut in disability benefits would mean, and we must not allow that to happen. mr. president, in my view, the debate we are having today is nothing more than a manufactured

crisis which is part of the long-term agenda of a number of republicans who in fact are trying to cut social security. and in my view, cutting social security is a very, very bad idea. mr. president, let us be very clear, because there's a lot of misinformation about social security that is getting out there. the fact is that social security today has a $2.8 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 18 years. let me repeat that. social security today has a $2.8 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 18 years.

that is not the opinion of senator bernie sanders. that comes from the report of the social security trustees. mr. president, there are a lot of folks out there who are talking in one way or another about cutting social security. and some of them are saying, well let's raise the retirement age. let's have struggling workers have to work another year or two more before they can get social security benefits. other people are saying, well, these cola benefits are just too generous. now, in recent years the social security beneficiaries know we've had several years where people have gotten a zero cost of living increase, and the other cost of living increases

in recent years has been minuscule, have been minuscule, and yet some are saying let's move to a so-called chain c.p.i. and lower the cost of living adjustments. other people are talking in one form or another about a means test which would mean significant reduction in benefits for many seniors. and others who are bolder, including some of my republican colleagues, are talking about the privatization of social security. and as many will remember, under president bush that proposal in fact was brought forward and pushed very hard by republicans. mr. president, because of an aging population, because more women are in the work force today, and because of an

increase in the retirement age it is true that there has been an increase in the number of americans who are receiving disability benefits. but, mr. president this is not a surprise. this is a demographic reality that the social security administration predicted would happen back in 1994. the fact that the social security disability insurance program is facing a funding shortfall next year is a surprise to absolutely no one. it was predicted 20 years ago. furthermore shortfalls in the social security disability insurance program or the social security retirement program is nothing new. it has happened 11 times in the

past and has always been resolved in a simple, noncontroversial way. and that is by the reallocation of payroll taxes between the social security retirement fund and the social security disability fund. as this chart shows mr. president, reallocation was done in 1968 under president johnson, in 1970 under president nixon in 1978, 1979 and 1980 under president carter 1982, 1983, 1984 under president reagan and 1994 1997, and 2000 under president clinton. in other words this is a commonplace procedure which has happened under democratic and republican presidents in an absolutely noncontroversial way.

interestingly, of the 11 times that funds were reallocated it turns out that on five occasions it was the disability fund that was reallocated to help the retirement fund. in other words money was shifted from disability to the retirement fund. this time it is going the other way. mr. president, at the interesting committee hearing yesterday, a number of colleagues republicans and democrats, made the point that the reallocation of funds in order to prevent a 19% cut in disability benefits was a short-term solution, that it was not going to solve the overall issue of how do we fund social security for our kids and our grandchildren. and that point is clearly right. no one can argue with that.

what we have got to do right now, in fact, is to prevent a massive cut to the disability program, but at the same time while social security can pay out all benefits for the next 18 years, it is important that sooner than later we begin to address the problem of how we make social security solvent not just for 18 years but for decades beyond that. mr. president, i would tell you that in terms of the disability program and the need to go forward with reallocation every major senior organization in this country representing tens of millions of people, want us to do just that. these organizations include the aarp, the national committee to

preserve social security and medicare and the alliance for retired americans, who together represent over 60 million older americans. and what they are saying concludely and clearly is that it is imperative that we go forward with this reallocation to prevent cuts in the social security disability fund and they are united in opposition to the rule passed by the house republicans to make reallocation more difficult. yesterday the aarp wrote a letter to the chairman of the budget committee senator enzi, and to myself, the ranking member. let me quote from this letter. quote -- "to prevent any imminent reductions in ssdi benefits we urge you to rebalance the allocation of

social security payroll taxes between the oasi trust and the d.i. trust as congress has done with success in the past. because of ssdi, millions of disabled americans are able to live their lives with dignity and support their families. the highest priority in the near term is to ensure that ssdi beneficiaries, most of whom are older americans, are not put at risk of a 20% benefit cut in the very clear future. end of quote. that is from the aarp and virtually every major senior organizations and together they represent some 60 million older americans, are agrees exactly with the sentiment expressed by the aarp. i am delighted mr. president that president obama proposed

this reallocation plan in his budget request. and i applaud the president for doing that. mr. president, as i've mentioned, the social security trust fund can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 18 years. at yesterday's hearing my republican friends and again some democrats made the very valid point that we have got to go further than just reallocation that we need a long-term solution to make certain that our children and our grandchildren will have all of the benefits to which they were promised. and i agree i agree with that sentiment. and that is why last year i introduced far-reaching social

security legislation which, in fact would make so much solvent for decades to come. this legislation the concept behind this legislation is pretty simple. it would simply apply the social security payroll tax on income above $250,000. in other words, it would end or scrap the cap that currently exists. right now mr. president in the midst of massive wealth and income inequality in our country, a wall street c.e.o. who makes $20 million a year pays the same amount into social security as someone who makes $118,500. you make $20 million you make $118,000 the amount of money you put into the social security trust fund is the same because the cap is now at social

security -- it is now at $118,000. in 2013, i asked the chief actuary of the social security administration to estimate how long the solvency of social security would be extended if we sumly applied the social security -- simply applied the social security payroll tax on income above $250,000. his answer was that social security would be made solvent until 2060 -- until 2060, 45 years from today. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to insert that letter from the social security actuary into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: thank you. further, mr. president the center for economic policy research has estimated that my

proposal -- my legislation -- would only impact the top 1.5% of wage earners. more than 98.5% of americans would not see their taxes go up by one dime under this plan. so i say to my colleagues, if you want to extend the solvency of social security, not just for the next 18 years, which is currently the case, but for the next 40 to 45 years i hope you will join me in making sure that the very wealthiest people in our country -- the top 1.5% -- pay their fair share into the social security trust fund. to my mind, that is a lot better idea than raising the retirement age, forcing hard-pressed workers to work another year or

two before they get their benefits. it is a lot better idea than cutting the cost of living adjustment. it is a lot better idea than many of the ideas that i've been hearing for the last few years. mr. president, we all know that the huge increase that we have seen in this country in wealth and income inequality has resulted in millions of americans seeing a decline in their income, and we have people from one end of this country to the other working longer hours for lower wages. in fact, while the wealthiest people have become much richer, real median family income today is almost $5,000 less than it was in 1999. incredibly the typical male worker that man right in the middle of our economy made $783

less last year than he did 42 years ago. the typical female worker, the woman right in the middle of the economy, earned $1,300 less last year than she did in 2007. today the top .1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% and as this chart shows the top .1% owns as much wealth as the bottom 90% and in terms of income, what we're looking at is a situation where almost all of the new income generated since the wall street crash goes to the top 1%. now, why is this significant? well obviously i.t. significant because -- well, obviously it's significant because millions of americans have not

seen growth in their income. in fact, they've seen a decline in their income. but what makes it also so significant is that this decline in income for millions of americans this growth in income and wealth disparity has also had a profound impact on the solvency of social security. i want all of my colleagues to understand that if income inequality remains at the same level today as it was in 1983, social security would have $1.1 trillion more in the trust fund than it does today. why? because, mr. president obviously, when workers saw their wages go down less money went into the social security trust fund. when people on the top went over the cap, they were no longer

contributing their income from being above the cap. less money together goes into the social security trust fund. mr. president, if the payroll tax had simply continued to cover 90% of all earnings, which it did in 1983, rather than the 83% that it covers today the social security trust fund would be able to pay every benefit owed to every eligible american, not just for the next 18 years but for the next 38 years. so mr. president when we talk about income and wealth inequality in this country, that is not only a tragedy unto itself when we see the middle class shrinking and real wages for american workers going down, in some cases significantly, it is also a major problem for the

social security trust fund. once again if income levels had remained the same today as they were in 1983, if incomes had gone up rather than gone down, we would see over $1 trillion more in the social security trust fund. so mr. president i agree with my republican colleagues who say that doing the reallocation for the disability trust fund is a temporary solution. it is. but it's an important solution, and it's something that has been done 11 times in the past. i.t. something that is support -- it's something that is supported by the aarp and every major senior organization. it is something we must do right now to prevent a 19% cut in benefits for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. but i won't argue with anyone who says, well, that doesn't go

far enough. we need a long-term solution. so i challenge my republican friends, do you have the courage to come up with a solution other than cutting benefits for seniors? do you have the courage to come up with an idea that says, no, it's bad it's wrong to raise the retirement age; it's wrong to cut cost-of-living adjustments? are you prepared to deal with the reality that because of the growing disparity in income in america, we have lost substantial funding for social security and the way to address that issue -- the way to extend social security is to ask the people on top the people who have been doing phenomenally well in recent years to pay more that the social security trust fund? so mr. president i do agree with my republican colleagues that we have got to look at

social security from a long-term perspective for our kids and our grandchildren. we have brought forth and idea: raise the cap; ask people making more than $250,000 a year to pay the same percentage of their income into the social security trust fund as somebody making $50,000 a year. i think that's a sensible idea, and i look forward to hearing some of my republican friends work with us on this concept. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i join my colleague senator burr, in unveiling the latest version of our legislative proposal to repeal and replace the so-called affordable care act. we are joined this time around by our friend from the house chairman upton of the house energy and commerce committee. we call our proposal the patient choice affordability

responsibility and empowerment act, or the patient care act for short. as you may recall, we first unveiled this framework last year and in general it received high marks for being a serious responsible alternative to obamacare. we've unveiled the latest version of the proposal in hopes of continuing the conversation we began in the last congress. let's face it, mr. president. obamacare isn't working. it's not working. sure it's proponents here in the senate and elsewhere have gotten pretty good at cherry-picking data in order to try to convince the american people that the president's health law is a success but the american people know the truth and the law is a disaster for individuals, families, and employers alike. despite the claims that obamacare would lower health care costs costs have continued to skyrocket due to the -- due to all the mandates in the law businesses are slowing hiring and moving employees into

part-time work. and of course the law includes more than $1 trillion in new taxes that impact consumers and businesses around the country. we need a better path forward and a long-term vision for sustainable health care reform. i want to take a few minutes today to talk about the approach we want to take with the patient care act and why it is a better approach than the one being taken under obamacare. our plan rests on four simple principles: first, repeal obamacare with all its costly mandates, taxes and regulations. second reduce costs by taking the government out of the equation. and instead empower consumers to make choices about their own health care. third, provide commonsense consumer protections including protections for individuals with preexisting conditions. and, fourth, reform our broken medicaid system by giving states more flexibility to provide the best kofnl for their citizens --

coverage for their citizens. let me talk about each of these principles in a little more detail. for any health care proposal to have a chance at success it must get rid of obamacare. the failures of obamacare have been well-documented here on the senate flor and floor and elsewhere. the american people deal with those failures on a daily basis. that's why the first principle of our proposal is to repeal obamacare once and for all. then we move on to address the biggest barrier to health care in this country: skyrocketing costs. our plan would give hardworking taxpayers affordable options to meet their health care needs by harnessing the power of the marketplace not through the federal government mandates. with more options in the private insurance marketplace people will be better able to find insurance that meets their needs. the lack of choice and draconian coverage mandates is one of obamacare's largest shortcomings. our proposal would allow consumers to find affordable plans that address their

particular needs without making them pay for coverage they'll never use or want. our proposal would also give states more options to provide people with more coverage, and under our plan, families earning up to 300% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for a tax credit to purchase insurance of their choosing. in addition, our plan will help small businesses enjoy the same advantages in the marketplace as large businesses by allowing them to band together to leverage their purchasing power to buy insurance for their employees. the patient care act also proposals an expansion of health savings accounts so that people can plan and save for their future medical needs. under our plan, for the first time consumers will be able to use their pretax dollars to pay premiums and deductibles. and our proposal would inject more transparency into health care costs so that people can

know what their providers are charging and how successful they are. in addition, we include other cost-saving measures like medical malpractice liability reform to help reduce the expensive practice of unnecessary defensive medicine. and our plan would reduce the distortions in the tax code that actually increase the cost of health care in our country by capping the unlimited employee exclusion. this is a key way of restraining costs that has spread across the spectrum. the exclusion is capped at a generous $30,000 for a family plan and that threshold will continue to grow at c.p.i. plus one. most important lurks we make sure that we -- most importantly, we make sure that we preserve the senior health care system for those 160 million americans who rely on it by leaving the employer deduction un-toughed and by repealing the job-killing

employer mandate. by increasing consumer choice and utilizing the power of the market our proposal will actually reduce health care costs, something that obamacare has miserably failed to do. our plan also includes a number of commonsense consumer protections. for example, we would make sure a person would not see their coverage gets canceled if they get sick. our plan would also ensure 245 people with preexisting conditions could not be denied access to health insurance. period. let me repeat that again for my friends on the other side who were confused about this in some of their speeches. no american with a preexisting condition can be denied coverage under our plan. end of story. we would also let children stay on their parents' plans through age 26 and prevent insurers from putting caps on total benefits paid out over a person's lifetime so that no patient will have to worry about maxing out their coverage. finally our plan would address the current failings of the

medicaid program. keep in mind, mr. president many of newly insured people credited to obamacare have obtained their coverage through the expansion of medicaid. of course this is absurd as medicaid is financially -- it is a financially unsound program that continues to swallow up state budgets on a yearly basis. obamacare didn't improve the stability of medicaid. it only threatened it further. the patient care act includes the key reform that is similar to the medicaid modernization plan that chairman upton and myself proposed in the last congress. currently federal taxpayers have an open-ended liability to match state medicaid spending which is a significant driver in medicaid's budgetary challenges. our proposal would creates per capita spending caps, something president clinton and many democrats who remain in this chamber have supported in the

past. we would couple the structural reform to medicaid with new flexibility for states to manage their medicaid populations. on top of that, we would give those on medicaid the option of purchasing private health insurance which is more frequently accepted by quality doctors. mr. president, i hope you're grasping a pattern when it comes to this proposal. at virtually every step our aim with this proposal is to take the federal government out of the equation and put individuals and families in charge of making their own health care decisions. we trust the american people to make the best choices for themselves. the patient care act represents a sustainable and achievable alternative to obamacare one that will succeed without the tax hikes the mandates and the outrageous government spending that came part and parcel with the affordable care act. most importantly, it will

actually reduce the cost of health care in this country. once again our hope with unveiling the latest version of this framework is that we can continue the conversation about improving health care for individuals and families. i've given just a top-line 35,000-foot overview of the proposal here today. i want to invite my colleagues to take a look at our ideas and give us your feedback. i hope that health care experts around the country will continue to do the same. unlike obamacare, this is a product that will rely on consensus and feedback. we have more work to do. it's important and i look forward to more conversation about these issues. so i yield the floor for that purpose. mr. president, i also rise today to speak about the recent progress we've made in restoring the united states senate as an

institution. after being sworn in as president pro tempore just over a month ago i rose to address the state of the united states senate and how we as members must work together to restore its greatness. this is an opportune moment to take stock and to reflect briefly on our progress toward achieving this goal. i am pleased to report that we've embarked on a new chapter of that you -- new chapter of thoughtful legislating in this chamber. we've had hours upon hours of open, constructive debate with arguments from both sides of the aisle. we've considered dozens of amendments reflecting a full range of political viewpoints. the majority leader promised this body that he would restore regular order and that is precisely what he has done. not only have we engaged infulsome debate and considered

dozens of amendments, but we have already also passed four, four major bipartisan bills in a single month to reform and extend the terrorism risk insurance program to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, to address the critically important issue of veteran suicides, and my bill last night to provide effective restitution for victims of child pornography. that is what voters elected us to do, to craft good legislation, to debate it, to improve it through the open amendment process and then send it to the president's desk. in my remarks when i was sworn in as president pro tempore i noted that in recent years the foundations of the senate's unique character: meaningful debate and an open amendment process, have come under sustained assault by those who have prioritized scoring political points over preserving the senate's essential role in our system of government. mr. president, what a difference

such a short time can make. what a breath of fresh air these last six weeks have been for this body, and for both sides. we are moving forward. we are keeping owb promises. we are helping to store the senate as the word's greatest deliberative body. mr. president, i want to highlight some specifics of these positive changes we have witnessed over the past work period. first, robust debate. the late senator robert c. byrd liked to say that -- quote -- "as long as the senate retains the power to amend and the power to unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure." mr. president, in this new congress, we are restoring the right to meaningful debate. as i noted last month when a full and robust debate has occurred invoking cloture a motion to end debate is often appropriate. but we must not abuse this power

by always seeking reflexively to cut off debate before it even begins. in the dark days of the previous congress we often saw such motions to cut off debate filed as soon as debate had begun eviscerating any meaningful opportunity for debate. mr. president, the senate desperately needs or should i say needed to return to a system where all senators have a say in what the senate does and are able to express their views without getting cut off at the pass. we are now returning to that system and we have resisted the temptation to cut off debate immediately. under the majority leader's leadership this body spent the better part of three weeks considering the keystone x.l. pipeline bill. during that time senators, both republican and democrat, enjoyed ample opportunity to voice their opinions on the bill as well as on our energy policy more broadly. this represents the exact sort of deliberate character that the

senate was designed to embody. i would have preferred it to be a little shorter and to be a little more considerate of everybody here and to be less of a big battle. but nevertheless, we had a debate and it was a good debate, and i think everybody enjoyed it. indeed the democrat minority actually used more hours of floor debate on keystone than did the republican majority. to me, this is a remarkable statistic indicative of our new majority's commitment to treat the minority fairly and to approach individual senators regardless of party as valuable contributors to our work. rather than as mindless partisans. mr. president, the senate was also designed to be the institution in our system of republican self-government that produced wise legislation popular passions, parochial interests and what randolph

called the turbulence of democracy were to be refined in the senate where smaller membership larger constituencies and longer terms would improve the legislative product. these structural features of the senate led to the development of a tradition in which individual members are allowed to offer amendments freely. one of the primary mechanisms by which this body can refine legislation. for centuries this notion of open amendment process has been at the core of the senate's identity. but in recent years many of us have bemoaned the demise of this tradition. in effect, one of this institution's most defining characteristics was emas lated for partisan purposes. by the way over the last month shows the open amendment process is making a come-back. the majority leader shepherded through votes on more than 30

amendments in january, more than double the amendment votes permitted by the democrats in all of the year 2014. in fact, in one week alone we voted on more amendments than the previous majority allowed us to vote on all of last year. there can be no clear evidence of this body's resurgence. the facts speak for themselves. while one former democratic senator did not receive a vote on any of his amendments during the entire extent of service in his body over the prior six years, the lone freshman democratic senator in this body, the junior senator from michigan has already received a vote on one of his amendments in just the first few weeks of his service here. truly, mr. president under this new majority, senators of both parties are individually continuing to do -- contributing to our work for the common good.

mr. president, a key part of returning to regular order is restoring the committee process. a healthy committee process is essential to a well-functioning senate. in committees members are often best able to work together to debate draft and amend legislation that ultimately passes the senate. we began resuscitating the committee process in our consideration of the keystone x.l. pipeline bill. mr. president, i commend the tireless efforts of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the energy and natural resources committee whom together masterfully led this body through recently unfamiliar territory of legislating through regular order. the senator from alaska merits particular praise for the skills she demonstrated in shepherding this bill through the process. while the senator from washington should be lauded for the commitment to a fair and

orderly process despite her opposition to the underlying policy. their admirable work set an important expeam for the rest of us as we return to regular order in the 114th cock by working together to improve -- 114th congress by working together to improve legislation rather than shut each other out of the process. i heard voice s from some corners quibbling over some elements of the keystone debate process, but to focus on these criticisms misses the forest for the trees by fixating on one or two nit-picks and ignoring how dib are a alternative and -- deliberative and inclusive the process was. we enjoyed the debate. this contributed to the passage of a bipartisan bill. the proof is in the votes. of the almost 50 votes on keystone-related matters few followed strict party lines and

the final bill package was 62 yea votes including 9 democrats. 20% of democrats present nearly a fifth of the caucus, voted for the keystone pipeline bill. this was real bipartisanship. keystone was a terrific example of how the senate is supposed to work. the result was a critically important piece of legislation that the president of the united states should sign into law. i urge him to do so. it will create better feelings up here. he's not going to lose anything by doing so. the country's going to gain by doing so. we'll be better off by doing so. so i'm hoping with all my heart that the president will swallow his pride and vote -- and allow this bill to go through and sign it. but that's not what we're hearing from 1600 pennsylvania avenue. no the president has said he will veto the bill. in fact, he said he will veto it before we even took it up,

before any amendments had even been offered. i think before anybody even considered it. mr. president, president obama appears determined to ignore the will of the united states congress dismissing bills out of hand that have yet to reach his desk. i've got to see how this recalcitrance advances the cause of response of the will of the american people who made their wishes clearly known at the ballot box last november. i for one will not let the president's irresponsible attitude towards this institution diminish my commitment to it. in fact i call on each senator to continue work to go restore our traim ber's proper functioning. i urge all of us to help produce sound legislation and carry out our institutional duties. the president would be well off to do this. i think he would get much more respect up here in this body. i certainly would respect him

more. and i think he would be become a person who is thinking positively rather than negatively. if there was any good reason for vetoing this i might understand it. but there is no reason for vetoing it. it creates jobs during the construction process. it provides an ability for our neighbor to the north to work with us. no use in going through all the arguments that were made by those who supported it on the floor. the american people can then see for themselves if the president -- you know, if he would work with us, they can then see for themselves the stark difference between a senate that works and a white house that is unwilling to engage in genuine negotiation or compromise. mr. president, i would like to close with a note on civility. that crucial ingredient we must never overlook. even in the heat of political discourse i recall the words of

senator chris dodd, my friend who represented connecticut in this body for 35 years and now represents the motion picture association as its president in his final speech here on the senate floor in late 2010, he reminded us that the senate was intended to be a place where every member's voice could be heard and where deliberation and even dissent would be valued and respected. as senator dodd explained -- quote -- "our founders were not only concerned with what was legislated but just importantly as how we legislated. legislated." i've observed the debate on this floor during the past month. although tense at times it has on the whole been genuine balanced and respectful. we must remain true to this ethos as we continue to reinvigorate the debate and amendment processes. in the weeks and months ahead new disagreements will surely arise.

this is when civility and statesmanship are most needed. we must each overcome whatever instincts may drive us away from civil discourse and toward anger, bitterness, pech lens pet you're lens -- pet lens petulence or self-promotion. when we convened, i spoke of our collective duty to restore the senate. i expressed my confidence that we could make the senate work again by returning to the regular order -- promoting robust debate and enabling an inclusive amendment process. we have made admirable progress over the last month. our actions are backing up our rhetoric. let us sustain that momentum. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you. mr. president, this afternoon the senate voted to approve dr. carter's nomination as the secretary of defense.

i supported his nomination and appreciated the candor that he displayed during both his confirmation hearing and in our private meeting. i believe that the many challenges facing our nation require a fresh perspective and a strong analytical mind. i'm confident that dr. carter possesses both. despite the fact that the international landscape has changed dramatically over the past few years the obama administration has failed to modify its policies to meet the new challenges facing our nation. in fact, top administration officials have emphasized in recent interviews that their approach is not changing, and instead offer americans a laundry list of things that they will continue to do. this is unacceptable. mr. president, i am very

concerned that this administration actually believes that the correct course of action is to continue what we have been doing. here in the senate, the armed services committee has held a number of hearings to examine the effectiveness of the current u.s. national security strategy. witnesses from across the political spectrum have merged on one point in several key areas. u.s. national security strategy and our regional goals are either ambiguous or divorced from events on the ground. what's needed is a reevaluation, not a continuing. in syria, for example president obama called on bashar al-assad to step down three years ago. however, the president has failed to lay out a strategy to

accomplish his stated goal. now, after hundreds of thousands of syrians have died, terrorist groups have seized control of about half of that country. further, thanks to assistance provided by iran and russia, assad has fortified his control over much of western syria. in response to all of this, president obama has continued to call for a negotiated transfer of power without any articulation of how this would be accomplished. the president's goal was probably unlikely when it was first conceived but now it is thoroughly unimaginable. the obama administration has also stated that the united states intends to degrade and

destroy isil. while i support this goal, i am concerned that we have yet again failed to lay out a strategy to accomplish it. yesterday, president obama sent to congress his authorization of military force. the decision to send young men and women to war is the most serious decision that elected officials will make. this deserves a serious open, transparent debate that is worthy of the american people. i look forward to a robust committee process on this issue. i am also eager to hear more from the president about the exact contours of his strategy

particularly when it comes to achieving very clear goals. what exactly do we hope to achieve? simply stating that our objective is to destroy isil, that doesn't really reflect the complexities of actually realizing this goal. the president has waged a campaign of air strikes against this really barbaric terrorist group, but we know that air power alone will not be sufficient to destroy isil. while the white house has proposed arming and training syrian opposition fighters, this effort will take years it will take years to produce a force that is strong enough to dislodge isil from its strongholds in eastern syria.

what's more, it is unclear how the syrian fighters, many of whom view assad as the primary target, will be convinced to first fight isil. questions about the extent to which the united states will provide opposition forces direct air support if they are attacked by isil or assad those questions remain unanswered. for these reasons the president has been rightly criticized for not having a clear and effective strategy. again, i support the goal of destroying isil but this is a multilayer problem. in iraq, the administration seems to embrace a growing iranian role, even though this

puts our goal of maintaining a unified iraq in even greater jeopardy. with respect to iran itself, the administration unequivocally states that it will not allow that nation to develop a nuclear capability but we hear reports repeatedly that are suggesting that the united states negotiators are crafting an agreement that would accept this enrichment program and leave iran as a threshold nuclear power a year away from a bomb at most. in ukraine the united states i am posed sanctions on -- imposed sanctions on russia in march for its intervention. since that time, russia has continued to pour heavy weapons and fighters into that conflict.

clearly, our policy is not working, and we must acknowledge that. as putin continues to build momentum on the battlefield the incentive for him to honor his diplomatic commitments and end this conflict, it diminishes. additional measures, including defensive weapons for the ukrainians, they are necessary and they must be implemented. the international community and most americans are understandably confused by the stark contrast between what they see and what they hear from the white house. they hear vague assertions, but they see no strategy. they hear a goal, but they see

no discussions on how to achieve it. this damages our global credibility. in a world where we rely heavily on partner nations to be our boots on the ground, we cannot afford to have our international allies wondering if we really mean what we say. dr. carter will have a lot on his plate in his new role. i hope his appointment will help encourage the strategic re-evaluation that is so desperately needed. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

mrs. fischer: mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i want to thank you

for recognizing me, mr. president. today i rise to talk about a very important piece of legislation. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum, excuse me. mr. booker: i ask request that we vitiate the can quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. booker: thank you very much. i appreciate there being no objection. i rise this moment to speak about the smarter sentencing act which i believe is a very critical piece of legislation. i'm pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation in this congress but want to give a lot of respect to this bipartisan coalition of senators who have come together, led by senator michael lee from utah and senator dick durbin from illinois. their leadership on this issue has been absolutely critical. smarter sense sentencing act has front-end real estate forms. these are reforms when a person gets to the point of incarceration. what they actually do is combat injustices in the federal sentencing program and they

address a real plague in our country, and that is mass incarceration. think about this. we are the land of the free. we are a nation that believes in liberty and justice but we are singular in humanity for an awful distinction. we have 5% of the globe's population but we incarcerate 25% of the globe's incarcerated people. now, that's unacceptable unless you believe for some reason, that americans have a higher proclivity for crime unless you believe that we have something in our water that makes us more likely to do wrong. and that is not the case. the challenge is that we have seen in the last three decades a profound over-incarceration driven by a drug war that has created unfortunate negative consequences to our society. now, i want to thank folks for

stepping up in this congress to speak to this issue. it is un-american that we should hold the largest amount of incarcerated people per population than any other country. it goes against the very strains of our society dedicated to liberty, dedicated to keeping government focused on what it should be doing not overreaching not becoming overly aggressive, not surrendering or taking the liberty unnecessarily of other americans. i'd like to talk a few minutes about this broken system. what is it about this system? well when we have about three-quarters of our federal prisoners are actually not violent offenders because i'm one of those people that believe, if you do a violent crime, you should pay a very hefty price for that; that we as a society should have a place where we take stern action

against people who promulgate violence who undermine civil society. but as we look at this mass incarceration problem where 25% of the globe's prison population is in our country we realize that three-quarters of those people in the federal prison system are nonviolent offenders and this is not our history. this is not our tradition. over the course of all of our nation's history we did not have this problem. it's really been the last 30 years where we have witnessed the explosion of the united states federal prison population population. in those 30 years alone -- think about this. this is last three years alone the prison population at the federal level has exploded 800 times. 800 times.

that is a massive and unacceptable increase, especially when you realize that this was driven by the incarceration of nonviolent offenders. and when this explosion has happened what's worse is that it has an undermining effect when those people are released in empowering them to stay out of prison because once you have a nonviolent felony offense it's hard to get a job it's hard to get business licenses, you can't get pell grants, and what often happens is those people get caught up going back to being involved in the drug world. and so what happens is that two out of three of those people get rearrested within three years ans we are paying for this broken system, this revolving door of arresting nonviolent offenders, releasing them,

bringing them back into our system. it is plaguing the federal budget and frankly state budgets all around our country. it costs three-quarters -- excuse me, over a quarter of a trillion dollars each year is being spent on this broken criminal justice system, money that could be used to empower people to succeed could be used for repairing our infrastructure or, hey how about this? -- it could be used to be kept in taxpayers' pockets. and what makes the system worse what is painful to american ideals as we look across the way from the capitol building where i stand now and see the supreme court written above the supreme court building at the top is this idea of equal justice under law that everyone will be treated equally under the law. but this broken criminal justice