conventional air pollutant under the clean air act epa has for many years included renewables and energy efficiency as potential compliant mechanism. if i may just extend this example of it for the field i think associates what you're talking about. if you look at the program under the clean air act under section 202 to regulate mobile sources you might if you look at that quickly come you might think that is the classic end of the pipe measure. ..

it has become standard. >> i agree with you. that was the intent of the 90s act. use a different model. that is what this proposed rule is going to do as well. use it in a way that accomplishes the goal that will be very flexible. let me ask you this question. the constitutionality of the epa setting standards has been published before. he upheld approaching the the 19 night independent in whitman versus american trucking in 2001. in 2011 the supreme court ruled the epa has the authority to set standards for carbon pollution under section 111 d. and eight connecting opinion versus connecticut.

we believe the epa can consider as it is undertaking to do with regulating existing non-authorized versus under section 111 of the clean air act. is there any constitutional question about epa's approach or the legal authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111 of the clean air act? >> no, i don't think so. the constitutional issues have been a distraction. they've been used to make people worry that there is work in a real constitutional issue so i better interpret the statute narrowly. the arguments are flimsy. the statutory authority under the clean air act they think is clear. >> beautiful, thank you. >> thank you very much madam chairman. attorney general pruitt, good to see you again. attorney general morrissey, the

state of west virginia and the state of wyoming is a cold stay. all of our states are particularly hit by the slew of proposed epa rule is aimed squarely at the fossil fuel industry and the folks that work in the industry. i would like to highlight a letter from the governor of my home state, and that need. gina mccarthy on april 28th of this year and i ask the letter be entered into the record, madam chairman. in this letter the governor highlights a study by the center for economics at the university of wyoming and titled the impact of the whole economy on wyoming published in february of this year. i asked this study be entered into the record. the governor's states about the study that the study determined the single largest direct is epa's green power rule. in fact, the study says the 111 d. climate change has the

potential to drastically decrease coal production. production of coal output under the most favorable circumstances decreases by 32% of the 2012 production by the year 2025. the study goes on to say even the best case, impact modeling of the 111 d scenario suggests a loss of 27,000 jobs across the state by 2025 relatives to be implemented 2012. overall proposed carbon regulations provide a predicted decline in the coal and natural gas revenues between 36% and 46% by 2030. our state is finding this rule will cost thousands of good paying jobs drastically slashed its revenue to pay for college scholarship from the schools metal merchant fee, road safety programs, environmental protection water quality services for veteran services.

wyoming children commit senior better insufficient wildlife don't deserve this dramatic cut in revenue by the epa. i find this recklessly irresponsible for the costs are so clear and devastating in the benefits are theoretical or unknown. my question today to review his face. are the statistics and findings similar to what you see and are concerned about in your state and how will essential services come to stay services for children commit seniors as well as the environment be impacted in oklahoma as well as west virginia? >> i think you raise a number of important issues. he obviously received a great deal of feedback from cooperators from power plants coal miners in the state of west virginia about the devastating impact of these rules. there are a couple other implications as well. west virginia as its tax base relies heavily on coal severance revenue. if you were to look at a chart

and asked him in the revenues that come into each of the counties from 2011 until now you will see a very rapid decline. just recently we have seen news publications about a number of people laid off in the counties because the coal severance tax revenue has declined. the regulations here have far-reaching and locations well beyond coal operators at the fact is for every job that you have related to coal directly in west virginia there are probably seven jobs that tie in directly. it is a fundamental impact on our economy and that is one of the many reasons why our office has been focused so much a myth because it would be an absolute travesty to find travesty to finalize a rule that has a real likelihood of being struck down in the courts. >> so regulations have a direct impact on the people and quality of life of the people in your state. >> without a doubt. there's always a wide variety of

reasons that gave rise to a particular decision by a power plant operator to change employment status. regulatory burden is always very high on the list. >> senator if i could add to general morrissey's comments come's comments, though we do not have a robust coal economy we do have: the state of oklahoma. i think what is lost in the debate at times is the impact on consumers. those that will be consuming electricity in the future in the state of oklahoma between coal and natural gas in the 70% our electricity is generated. as i indicated in my opening comment, 15% is generated through wind. the choices available to comply with this mandate from the epa of reducing co2 by over 30% process in a position of having to make decisions about the shattering of coal generation, which i indicated mixup over

40%. that is substantial to consumers. this one rule to give you an example and the clean air act there is something called the regional haze statute. that one will allow between ps zero, poke service oklahoma and oceania has been 15% to 20% increase in generation of electricity with one rule. when they combine others it is obviously more than that for consumers in the state of oklahoma. >> these regulations directly hurt the people of oklahoma. >> some of the folks that can least afford it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an interesting hearing because the questioners on the republican side and the attorney generals who are present arose from states that the care to restate that attorney general pruitt just described. i.e. a robust role economy.

clearly, we have a practical problem in the burning of coal for electric generation creates some consequences. they are not fairly distributed. where there is a robust coal economy creates one kind of problem. for oceans are up 10 inches against the shore where fishermen are seeing fisheries disappeared where houses have been for generations falling into the ocean. we have a different set of problems and i think it's important if we address this that on the one hand we recognize there may very well be economic effects within coal economy is trying to unburden ourselves of the environmental consequences of coal burning and we are willing to work with you to mitigate the consequences. but we can't allow consequences.

that is just irresponsible and factually wrong and ultimately potentially quite disgraceful to the institutions that we all surf. let me ask you first. attorney general pruitt, you said one of the problems with epa regulation is the issue should be back to the local level. please tell me what oklahoma is doing at the local level to address carbon pollution and climate change. >> senator, in response to your question, i could also say i did not make a reference to the coal economy. we do not have a robust coal economy. in fact our percentage of generation of electricity was 40% last and perhaps bare land as was referenced earlier. >> it was a robust coal economy. if that wasn't correct, i apologize and stand corrected. >> i think what oklahoma has

done is engaging very much a balancing effort between diverse field sources from renewables that 15% electricity to 40% in coal. >> word is climate change will lead to that calculation? >> our focus to decision making as well as my focus is attorney general is not to engage in policy debate about whether climate action is occurring or not. but that the statute to determine whether the epa is engaging in a process consistent with the authority of giving. >> why would she be willing to look at the consequences of the regulation on for instance the coal economy but not be willing to look at the consequences of the regulation on environmental protection? why is that the debate you need to stay out of when you are willing actively to get into the debate on the other side? >> i think my comment is referring to the discrimination recognition the status engaged in as far as balancing.

generational electricity between coal and fossil fuel. i would say to you it is congress that should be jealous about protecting its role and what it has sold agencies of what they can and cannot do. congress has. congress has set up framework talking about this morning between 111 and 112. >> i am comfortable that they are following it, so i am not jealous at all. they are doing exactly what congress intended. i am very comfortable with that. we heard from senator barrasso here from wyoming, an important coal state that the benefits are theoretical already known. >> they are very clear. very specific. people are very knowledgeable about it. if i could use the remainder of my time to quote one well-known

scientist on this process we know precisely how fast co2 is going up in the atmosphere. permitted daily measurements of 1957. we know without any question that is increased by 40% since the industrial revolution and the increases human activity primarily fossil fuel burning and secondarily bad use in agriculture. there is no debate about that. he continues there are lots of scientific uncertainties, but the fact that the plaintiffs were worming and the fact that it's increasing in the atmosphere and increase is due to human about those things, there is no debate. and that is a statement of dr. more the third who was the dean of the university of oklahoma's college of atmospheric and geographic sciences. i think we need to be a little bit fair about these hearings that we get to a suitable

result. my time has expired and i yelled back. >> thank you. i would like to ask another question, make another statement senator, if you are here verbal go through another round. i just react a little bit to the comments made in terms of the constitutionality and legal authority, we all need to be mindful that this can swing both ways and different administrations. just because this time i i think i think the constitutional overreach is to imagine something that bears terrific scrutiny, it is not to say in another 10 years another administration that senator whitehouse would be thinking the same thing because of the direction it is going. this is extremely important to look at the legal implications. also the comment was made there is tremendous outreach of the

state regulators and i would rent for his what i said in my opening statement and that i said before this committee before in the testimony in front of the committee the primary administrator in charge of this epa wouldn't even come into the state, our state to hear about the years as prices of electricity are going out, the miners who've lost their job and manufacturers going out of business are concerned about the price. maybe there's than average, but not enough average in my opinion to the regular folks been heavily impacted in the states where i live. i'm going to ask really quickly a question to mr. martella. we've heard a lot about the legal authority and four building blocks. the legal authority if any death the epa have too imposed dispatch requirements and natural gas fired power plants because that is one of their

building blocks. >> thank you for asking the question. the question about the building blocks two, three and four -- >> all asked the same question of all of them. >> maybe i could be the same answer to all of them. they sync up at the question of constitutionality, cooperative federalism and the relationship between the federal government and state. i would like to answer in this one-way something that professor heinzerling said in her testimony. a lot of people make analogies to the espn cinemax programs something the committee is familiar with. people say epa has endorsed it professor heinzerling said this is not materially different. but i think this is the answer to your question. in the program, congress has specifically authorized epa to regulate pollutants than i thought the red cpa to delegate the authority to this day. there's two things different

there. at the outset, no doubt congress has delegated the authority to epa and congress has said you can get this to the state or take it back. the fundamental distinction with the clean power plant on the talk about blocks two three and four is a lot to implement renewable for folio dispatching system or efficiency system and the distinction is no debate that congress has never authorized epa to run a renewable portfolio standard in west virginia for a dispatching system in oklahoma for an energy-efficient program in rhode island. congress itself has never given the authority to epa. epa cannot delegate the authority further to the states. that brings together the proper federalism constitutional issues and the flexibility question that have come up so far today. >> so i understand specifically, you are saying you are saved there a specific legislative authority to the epa to go into the direction they've gone? >> that is correct. that has been well settled.

it is very clear what congress has set up the federalism system. if my colleague here from oklahoma decides not to implement, congress has said epa has the authority in the first instance. if oklahoma decides not to report congress never authorized epa to implement the renewable portfolio. >> attorney general morrissey, how many states as you say were joined at the kc just recently -- >> right now 50 states which include attorney general governors and obviously in the d.c. circuit three pieces came together and were consolidated. that the state offered another industry efforts as well. >> would you characterize the 18 states is one similar to west virginia, oklahoma or they heavily reliant on coal? or is it all over the board? >> my senses these are energy producing states.

this is a bipartisabipartisa n coalition of the state of kentucky also on board with our lawsuit as well. we've obviously been reaching out to more and more states because please even non-core states are energy producing state should care fundamentally about whether this rule is finalized because of the legal implications. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is climate change problem anywhere in the world? >> senator, my role is to service the chief legal officer in the state of west virginia. i will not make an argument today about the climate change and whether the temperature is evolving because regardless of the policy merits of anyone's proposal, policies have to be implemented in a lawful manner. that is one of binding obligations as the attorney general of the state of west

virginia. >> going to just ask attorney general pruitt. is climate change a problem anywhere in the world? >> senator, the process matters that the epa engages in. >> id. process question. i asked about whether climate change is a real problem anywhere in the world. >> i think i think the question of climate action plan in the present climate change is something that is a policy consideration of the congress. if you want epa to address and a direct way come you can amend the clean air act to provide the authority and power to do so so the states know how to conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the statutory construction. >> to be clear neither the attorney general will concede that climate change is a real problem anywhere in the world. >> it is immaterial to discuss the legal framework of the clean air act's >> and material or not i get to ask questions.

it is material to the question. let's go on to something else. we've talked a lot about kilowatt hour cause and i would like to make a point, which is bad the price of electricity in rhode island, my home state was 15.2 cents per kilowatt hour. that compares to 9.67 cents per kilowatt hour in oklahoma and it compares to 9.5 to send per kilowatt hour in west virginia. however, because of rhode island's investment in efficiency and a whole variety of programs that have been able to bring your usage down rhode islanders paid only $91.48 per month for electricity. compared to $110.47 in oklahoma

in $106.44 in west virginia. while both of the attorneys general from west virginia and oklahoma can see that the real impact to a consumer is the dollar amount they have to write on the check that pays the bills. >> well, senator, where you are going bright now some of the details in terms of power that tri-city varies across the state is a policy question. in west virginia, we have heard deep concern from power plant operators, coal operators about what the impact will be on electricity price. i've seen that in the context of other proposed regulations that have gone through. but i think it is important to reiterate right now, to choose a policy objective and try to advance to unlawful means is something everyone in this body should reject.

>> cannot go back to the question that i actually asked? isn't the economic effective policy made real and a consumer's life by the amount of the check that they actually write rather than a per kilowatt hour cost? >> i think most people look at the amount they are paid when they get in the bill. >> attorney general pruitt, you agree? >> what is important for companies across the country is to have choices and flexibility to generate electricity. >> my question was quite specific. when you are a utility and economic effect what really matters is the amount of the check you write. >> in a long-term economic effect of fossil fuel generation in this country long-term of the substantial. >> segued into your lobbying on behalf of coal.

the answer the question is the real difference made by what the bill is. >> senator, and maintain the state of oklahoma has experienced because of the epa's heavy hand of eliminating fossil shows from the energy mix. >> well, i suggest you try what rhode island has -- we actually have trouble to invest in a significant way and energy reduction and efficiency. with that, my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we've been talking about this since 02 when i remember on the senate floor when i try to pass a simpler thing the regulation would do by legislation. i saw what happened. the mccain lieberman bill. we decisively defeated that never go since that time. senator markey has not here right now. he had a bill also. this discussion about the scientists this, scientists

back. wherever it isn't settled, all they talk about is they don't want to elaborate on it. i want to make it part of the record in an article a couple weeks ago in "the wall street journal" called the climate change 97%. they keep saying 97% of the science is totally confusing and it would take me to want to read it so i'll put it the record. talk about some of the sciences. he was quite upset when vice president al gore was using his career as an m.i.t. professor to be recognized as being one of the top professors in the climate in the very thing we are talking about. people asking the question, why is it people are so concerned about regulating the co2?

he said it's a power grab. these are his words. regulation of carbon is if you regulate carbon, you regulate life. the whole idea that scientists have is just flat not true. i know that people who have 12 years of their life wrapped up in this issue as the only issue of our time, they don't like to recognize this fact. nonetheless, -- in fact, i will do this from memory because i said it so many times. you go back and see the cycles that take place in the world. 1895 we went into the first cold spell and talked about a 30 year cold spell when they first said another ice age is coming in and coming in them all back trying to get people large. the world is always coming to an end when this happens. in 1918 we went into a warm spell that lasted 30 years and

that is the first time you for global warming. that was a long time ago. 1945 they changed and started going into the cold spell. this is the interesting thing about the 30 year cycle. it goes right up to today. the year that we had the greatest surge in emissions of co2 was right after the second world war you guys know this is 1945. that precipitated not a warming period, but a cooling period. these are realities. i remember speeches i made on the floor response to things my good friend from rhode island said when i taught about what is the reality of what is going on today. and so we are going to hear more of this and i know there is an effort not to have this bureaucratic thing in my opinion that doesn't have what it's supposed to have. the only thing i want to get

back to get the response from both attorneys general is a matter of what we've been talking about with flexibility. senator mark a top about it. this heinzerling talked about it, and epa talks about the flexibility and i would say the epa simply hiding behind a flexibility while in reality forcing states to figure out how to make the least economically devastated. so i would just ask the fight of

point i would make if you look at the required before finalizing the 111 d. that does not rely on outside defense technology when they technology when they develop the best system is much more narrow. >> i think roger addressed about earlier. flexibility with respect to how plans are adopted is something the state is endeavored to possess and have here

flexibility that defense versus outside defense is what we face here. the epa's forcing oklahoma outside of providing my factions in the future as the future as far as how to comply. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you tiered senator carper. >> if i could i am not a lawyer either. are the economics of the nba but i'm not a lawyer. i don't understand all of this discussion related to these technicalities. but i have seen pass legislation when i was in the house with senator inhofe and the senate. we put in the same bill conflicting approaches to the same issue. some cases we were unable to resolve our differences. and i think in a way when i saw

a discussion on the action 111 d it reminded me of that behavior. i am looking at your testimony or you say based on section 111 d along it has an interpretation that is reasonable. these are the criterion for the chevron defends and epa. explain this so i can understand. we have these two amendments. one dropped out in the code. it still lists another life. explain this to us. >> congress in 1990 pass two different amendment to section 111 d. one's intellect of polluted than 12 services. they are not entirely clear. neither one of them standing

abroad and the combination is not clear coming together. what epa has tried to do is take from each amendment something and what is said is you cannot regulate the same pollutants from the same source says under both programs. that is as you are suggesting that agencies make all the time. many times statutes aren't entirely clear. it may contain provisions in tension with each other and agencies resolve them. this usually is a straightforward application of what i call the chevron deference, which is a case in which the supreme court that if a statute is not clear, and policy judgments are left to the agency to make the agency gets deference to a reasonable interpretation of the statute. here i think the text allows epa's interpretation and also in

light of the comment earlier about the problem of global warming, just imagine if the epa said we would take the interpretation that does not allow us to regulate the sources of greenhouse gases the most greenhouse gases in this country and to attack the problem of climate change by doing that. we are going to pick the interpretation that does not permit us to do that. i would be quite strange. >> a question if i could please. i want to go back to the issue of whether science or climate change settles law. very briefly do you think it is pretty think it is not? the question of whether the science of climate change is law. do you believe it is? do you believe it is not? microphone.

>> i'm sorry. i thought you're asking me. >> im. i am asking you to use your microphone. >> is this better? >> i'm not a lawyer or a climate scientist but i choose to agree the overwhelming amount of scientists and now we need to act. i couldn't tell you also there is a cost to action but there's also a cost to inaction. as one who is responsible to consumers, electricity consumers who depend on reliable affordable energy that certain ways to help the system includes renewable energy include energy efficiency and demand reduction to help with reliability issues and help with resiliency of our system. >> called it right there. one must question if i could. he imposed carbon standard supported by the decisions

versus epa and american electric versus connecticut versus epa. tanks very much. >> yes. >> tell us why. >> although greenhouse gases or airport there in that act much of what we hear against the clean powerplant is an attempt to rededicate the case until as carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. it is not dirty somehow comes it therefore is somehow comes it therefore is not regular blender the clean air act. that case clearly holds these pollutants are breakable under the clean air act. american power is interesting because under section 111 d under no so-called federal common law, court made law of global warming pollution. that is significant because of this regulation goes by the board, all the reasons for the common law come back to force. and last, utility air regulatory

group seems to be the case can be understood most generally first is a big tree for most epa greenhouse gas programs do with the issue they are. secondly, ascii ph of that section by section and make sure regulation in a particular provision made sense. for a particular pollutant. that is exactly what epa has done here. >> madam chair, i would say this is a good panel and i commend you. thank you all for coming. [inaudible] 's! very much. i think appeared on the senators. >> will there be questions for the record? >> will be the record open for two weeks and you could submit questions for the record. appreciate your patience when we had to leave. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the senate passed the 2016 house budget report 61-48 which aims to reduce spending over the next 10 years. prior to the bill senators john cornett and patty murray john mccain and charles schumer came to the floor to discuss the budget agreement. this runs 50 minutes. the >> mr. president, glad i had a chance to come to the floor and listen to the distinguished ranking membert and senior senator of the budget committeefeelike and senior senator from california to talk about this yo know, budget. i feel like it is two ships

passing in the night. when i see this remarkable accomplishment under the leadership of chairman enzi on entire bud thege budget committee and the entire budget committee, this is a congressional budget that balances within 10 years.n's it doesn't raise taxes.it a array prioritizes our nation's citizens defense. it protects our most vulnerable risin citizens. it improvesde economic growth, doing which is literally the rising tide that lifts all boats and aps the federal growing economy, something our economy has not been doing very well lately. spending and it stops the federal government out of controlble federal spending. so this is a remarkable accomplishment. as a matter ofnt fact, this is the an first joint tenured balanced-budget revolution since dri 2001ve and i think what drives our friends across the aisle crazy budget

is the fact that they haven't the passed a budget since 2009 and now with the new leadership here in the united states senate, the 114 congress we at the basic work of governing, which is to propose and this afternoon we will pass a balanced budget. so i know there are differences across the aisle. there's reasons why people choose to be a democratic senator and a republican senator. today the differences are pretty stark. our friends across the aisle don't think the government should have to live within its means, but we should continue to borrow money that we don't have by overspending and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids. i personally think that is a moral hazard. that is really unconscionable to keep spending money and then

send the bill to her kids and grandkids and say you pay it. we had a good time. good luck. our friends across the aisle think the federal government is not big enough because they want to continue to feed the beast with more hard-earned tax dollars so i can get bigger, so they can accrue further in your individual freedoms and is there should be left to you and your family. and then it sounds to me like the ranking member of the budget committee, the senator from vermont thinks the government ought to simply take more of the money you earn and give it to somebody else who didn't earn it and then i can only conclude that our friends across the aisle think that an $18 trillion debt is not a problem and it is.

when interest rates are creeping back up as they eventually will more and more of our tax dollars will be spent sending interest payment to the chinese in other holders of our sovereign debt to service that debt and it will crowd out not only national security spending. it will crowd out the safety net spending that we all agree is necessary for people who can't protect themselves. so there are real differences. but this budget i'm proud to say which we will pass this afternoon thanks to the work of our budget committee it is i think a real accomplishment. i guess what would be the real embarrassment as if we didn't pass a budget, but we will pass a budget. people listening at all may say why are you patting yourselves on the back for passing a budget? in our business we have a budget

at home so why is it such a big deal for the new congress to actually pass a budget? i guess it shouldn't be a big deal. it should be something we do routinely because it is really the most basic demonstration of the ability to govern. but i guess what makes it remarkable is the fact it hasn't happened in a long time, so for that i'm glad. we've actually seen under the new leadership and the 114 congress several progress. we see democrats and republicans working together to accomplish some important things. that is something the american people appreciate and all members of the senate have come to enjoy. the mood has changed. the ability of senators to participate in the process and come up with solutions has gotten so much better in the first 100 days of the 114

congress that i think we are slowly starting to develop some momentum. we passed a bill that lets medicare beneficiaries see the doctors that they need. that is a good game. we have also passed an important piece of legislation that provides aid to the terms of human trafficking. through the end of this week we'll continue to work our way through another important piece of legislation. the iran nuclear agreement act unanimously voted out of committee a few weeks ago. this is really important not only to the region in the middle east, but also to us in the world. this bill would guarantee congress has an opportunity to review and potentially blocking a final deal with iran that president obama reaches during the so-called p5 plus one negotiations. after we conclude that important consideration of the legislation, we are then going to move on to consider something

else that will help grow the economy and health actually end up bringing more revenue into the federal treasury and help us for some of our deficit and debt and that is the pass trade promotion authority and to take up the transpacific partnership trade agreement. my state happens to export more than any other state in the nation and our economy shows that because it creates a binational trade with mexico. it creates about 6 million jobs and it's a good team to have more markets to solve the things that are farmers grow or saw the livestock that are ranchers raise of the manufacturing goods that americans make. it is a good thing. so this bill would make sure the united states get the best deal in trade agreements with countries from asia to south america to europe and help make sure that texas products and were generally american products

and industries find new markets which will in turn raise wages for hard-working families something we all support. but with all of these other signs of progress writing and passing the budget is one of the most fundamental responsibilities we have and what that should be pretty obvious, families across the country sit around the table each month and they do the same name. but it is a fact lost on many of our democratic colleagues when they controlled the chamber. i am listening to the senator from california. i was reminded once again you know what they cut in washington d.c. is? that is not a cut in the amount of spending on the current program at current levels. that is a reduction in the rate of increase. that is what they call a cut. so what this budget does is begins to cut the rate of increase in spending in the way that helps us control the

deficit and hopefully take the first important step towards dealing with our long-term debt. well, what the budget today would be the first time that both chambers have actually voted for an agreed-upon spending though since 2009. as i said earlier, the first ballots 10 year budget is 2001. that is despite four consecutive years of trillion dollars deficit the new president obama. trillion dollars deficit. those deficits as the chairman has appropriately pointed out adept to debt. the deficit be the difference between what government brings in and what is spent in a given year. four years of consecutive trillion dollars debt has done great damage to our national debt and we've got a downgrade in american's credit rating by standard & poor's. so you know it would be one

thing if the president and our friends across the aisle had a good record when it comes to their budgets and proposals, but they don't. just look at what the president has proposed. president obama has missed statutory deadlines to propose a budget so often that it became more notable when he actually did fulfill the responsibility then when he did not. the president's budget was voted on in 20 of 11 and was unanimously rejected by republicans. it didn't receive a single vote. the same thing was true in 2012. did you think of the president proposed a responsible budget, to the members of his own party would've at least voted for it? in 2011 and 2012, no democrat voted for the president's budget. last year in the house of representatives, all but two members voted against the

president's budget when given the chance. it went down by a resounding 4132 back to. -- 413-2. we saw history repeat itself in march as well. one by one, nearly every member of this body came to the floor and gave a thumbs down to president obama's budget proposal. as a matter of fact, we got one vote. it went down 98-1. so whether it is offering a completely irresponsible budget that is rejected by both parties for the failure to offer any budget that all our friends across the aisle are living in a glass house. and when you live in a glass house, you really should throw stones. but the most important point mr. president, is the american people deserve better.

we had an important election in november and it changed the majority of the united states senate. it established new management. in the last election cycle we made promises that we intend to keep and we were elected on our promise to be different to govern responsibly. the congress includes passing a budget that puts taxpayers and the nation on a path towards sound fiscal spending. well fortunately for the american people, we are keeping our campaign pledges and this budget does reflect their confidence in the new leadership of the united states congress. this budget leaves their country with a surplus after 10 years. it puts us on a path to begin to pay down our national debt and it does not raise taxes.

by balancing the budget without tax hikes like we do in texas with our budget we can protect taxpayers and foster economic environment that allows jobs and opportunities to boston. protecting our taxpayers is not our only priority. i believe our number one priority in the federal government is national security. i believe congress needs to make sure that is unmistakably clear and we do so in this budget. the budget does also provide the military with the necessary flexibility to react to changing threats and make additional investments is necessary in a way that does not add to overspending. not only does this send a message to our troops that they will have the support they need in order to do the job they volunteer to do but also to our

families, military families who serve us well in our all volunteer military system. this prioritization of national security also sends an message to our nation's adversaries. we know that weakness is a provocation to the bullies on the tire and around the world. when people like vladimir putin see the united states retreating and pulling back and not prioritizing our national security and not maintaining our role in the world as a preeminent power, it is a provocation. it is an encouragement. we see that have been around the world as we see now a greater security threat threat environment than perhaps we've seen in many, many tears. this budget sends a message to the adversaries around the world that america will not shrink it will not retreat from our leadership role.

so mr. president the budget under consideration was passed a few days ago in the house of representatives because it sees the american people by providing for national defense balancing the budget within 10 years and doesn't raise taxes. something congress hasn't done for almost 15 years. this afternoon, the united states senate will keep its part of the bargain. we will follow through on our promise and will make clear to the american people that we are committed to getting our fiscal house in order with this important first step. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from washington. >> mr. president, a budget is far more than a series of numbers on a piece of paper. a budget is really a statement

of values and priorities a statement of the kind of nation we are in the kind of nation we want to be. for many of us these values and priorities are clear. we believe that a budget should help us move towards an economy that is built from the middle out, not from the top down. a company that works for all of our families, not just the wealthy few. mr. president, the republican budget we are here debating today would move us in the opposite direction. instead of working with us to build on the bipartisan budget deal that was struck last congress, republicans have introduced a budget that would lock in sequestration, that would hollow out to fans and nondefense investment in these gimmicks and games to pay for the problem. instead of putting jobs and wages and economic security first i prioritizing and sick

leave the republican budget would cut taxes for the rich and leave working families behind. instead of building on the work we've done to make health care more affordable and accessible the republican budget would take us back to the bad old days when insurance companies called all the shots in one fewer americans have access to care that we need. i want to take a few minutes to talk about each of those issues and urge my republican is to take a different approach. put politics aside. come back to the table and work with us on the responsible budget that puts the middle class first and who will actually work for families and communities we all represent. the first issue i want to talk about is the automatic cuts for sequestration and the failure of this budget to address an issue democrats and republicans have agreed needs to be solved. i am proud that coming out of this terrible government shutdown at the end of 2013 we

were finally able to break through the gridlock and dysfunction to reach a bipartisan budget deal that prevent another government shut down, restart investments in education, research and defense jobs and really lay down a foundation for continued bipartisan work. patio wasn't the budget i would've written on my own. it wasn't the one republicans would've written on their own but it did end the lynching from crisis to crisis. it helps workers and our economy and made it clear there is bipartisan support for rolling back sequestration in a balanced way. our bipartisan deal with a strong step in the right direction and i was hopeful we could work together to build on it because we know there is bipartisan support to raise sequestration in a ballot and airway. not only did we prove that with our bipartisan budget deal but democrats and republicans across

the country have continued to come out against the senseless cuts to defense and nondefense investment. mr. president, republicans went the opposite way with their budget this year. they were able to cut trillions of dollars on programs that support amylase and fight poverty. nearly a trillion dollars cut the medicare and medicaid and more than $5 trillion overall, but they refuse to dedicate the single penny of the rollback, the automatic cuts to education researcher defense investments. to put that in there, we were able to roll back sequestration for two years in the bipartisan budget act with $85 billion in savings. the republican budget won't fix the problem for this coming year with more than 50 times that amount of savings. mr. president instead of using a tiny fraction of the enormous cuts the budget has two pay for investments that both

republicans and democrats agree must be made this budget uses a gimmick by increasing oco funding to appear to patch over the problem on the defense side without raising the cap on defense spending and doing nothing at all for nondefense investments like education and research and and research in jobs or infrastructure. mr. president we know the automatic cuts are a terrible policy and the president has said he would veto spending bills that sequester levels. i also know that republicans have seen the impact of sequestration in their states. in my home state of washington i know there are republicans who look at this budget and wonder why it couldn't use some of the trillions of dollars in cab to reinvest in american innovation or in our defense investment. so i am hopeful that of continuing to kick the can down the road or relying on gimmicks that does solve the problem,

republicans will come back to the table and work with us to build a bipartisan budget deal in a balanced and responsible way to allow the corporation committee to do their work cannot wait for another crisis before they push the tea party and work with us to get this done. mr. president instead of rehashing old debates and watching us towards another completely avoidable crisis, we should be working together to put in place policies that boost the economy and help our working families. ..sacrifice a day's pay or their job altogether just to take care of themselves or their sick child. but today in this country 43 million americans do not have access to paid sick days. making sure some workers have this basic worker protection will give more families much-needed economic stability and, by the way it's pro-business. access to paid sick days boosts productivity and reduces

turnover two huge benefits for employers, and businesses that want to help their workers stay healthy should have a level playing field so they aren't at a disadvantage when they do the right thing. a strong bipartisan majority of senators affirmed their support for allowing workers to earn paid sick days during the budget amendment process and i was hopeful we couldld on tha i was hopeful we could build on that momentum. and keep working together to increase the economic security for millions of workers and families. so, mr. president, i was so disappointed that the conference report does not reflect that provision. instead of keeping our bipartisan amendment and providing paid sick days to help workers and families this conference report instead allows for tax credits for employers that would not guarantee access to paid leave. mr. president, that is a step in the wrong direction but it doesn't have to be the last step is congress takes. so i urge our colleagues to work

with me to pass the healthy families act on the legislation that would move this debate beyond budget and them at and make paid sick days a reality for millions of americans. because allowing workers to earn paid sick days is one way we can assure our workplaces are working for our families all of our families, not just the wealthiest you. mr. president, i also want to talk about one more way this budget would be devastating for families across the country. the affordable care act was a critical step forward in our efforts to build a health care system that puts patients first. and it allows every family to get the affordable high quality health care that they need. but the work didn't end when this law passed, far from it. families across the country are expecting us to keep working to build on this progress and continue making health care more affordable and more accessible and higher quality. and that's what democrats are

focused on. but unfortunately, mr. president, this republican budget would do the exact opposite. it would roll back all of the progress we've made, take us back to the bad old days when insurance companies called all the shots we and being a woman was a preexisting condition when far fewer families could afford to give the health care they need. and, in fact this republican approach could even mean an average tax hike of $3200 a year on working families who would have to pay more for their care. mr. president, families are tired of republicans playing games with their health care. so help my republican colleagues will listen to the millions of people across the country who have more affordable, quality health care and to the vast majority of our constituents who want us to work together to solve problems not rehash old fights. and they will finally drop the political games and work with us to move our health care system

forward, not backward for the communities we serve. mr. president, republicans control congress. it is their job to write and pass a budget but our constituents said this year to work together not simply to argue with each other. of people across the country are expecting us to break through the gridlock once again. like we were able to do last congress and deliver results for the families and the communities we represent. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this budget that would be devastating for middle-class families seniors, investment in refuge and the economy. and it would help republicans decide to come back to the table and work with us on policies to grow the economy from the middle out, not from the top down and move us toward a government that works for all families, not just the wealthiest few. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. >> the senator from arizona. >> mr. president, i want to thank senator into the and members of the budget committee

-- senator enzi -- the 2016 budget conference agreement that we are currently considering on the senate, included in the budget conference agreement our policy provisions that i believe begin to move this country in the right fiscal direction come including balancing the budget within 10 years without the need to raise taxes on the hard-working american taxpayer, something that the administration's budget fails to do. in addition a budget agreement provides a pathway to repeal the failed policies of the obamacare. i'm pleased the resolution does provide some relief from sequestration's devastating cuts for our national defense. and the good news is that there is some relief, providing additional resources for defense to the overseas contingency operations account known as

ocoa, is a good one but it's temporary and it's a band-aid. and again i want to thank senator enzi for the great job he has done. but the fact is this body and this congress is guilty, is guilty of not repealing sequestration which is devastating our military and destroying our ability to defend this nation in these most perilous in difficult times. before the senate armed services committee on january 29th former secretary of state henry kissinger testified as i quote as well as around the world we encounter a people than conflict. the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war. and what are we doing? were slashing defense year after year after year i think all the sequestration which is never intended to happen. that is a devastating indictment

indictment, a the congress of united states and our first priority which is protecting this nation. general mark welsch chief of staff of the air force stated where now the smallest air force we have ever been. when we deployed operation desert storm in 1990 the air force at 188 fighter squadrons. today we have 54. we are headed to 49 and next couple of years. in 1990 over 511,000 active duty airmen problem. today we have 200,000 fewer. we currently have 12 fleet of airplanes that qualify for antique license plates in the state of virginia. general odierno said in the last three years the army's active component constraint have been reduced by 80000 reserved and polite ap thousand aware 13,000 less active component brigade combat teams. we eliminated three active aviation debate. we've slashed investment in modernization by 25%. and he went on to say number

one thing that keeps me up at night is that if we're asked to respond with unknown contingency, i will send soldiers to the contingency not properly trained and ready. we simply not used to doing that. the chief of naval operations quote due to sequestration of 2013, our contingency response force that's what's on call for the united states is one-third of what it should be and what it needs to be. general joseph dunford, not other marine corps now nominated the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified, testified quote where investing in modernization at a historically low level. we know that we must maintain at least 10%-12% of our resources on modernization they feel the ready force to pay the bills were currently investing seven to 8%. i ask every single one of our

single chiefs and our area commanders the same question. if we don't reveal sequestration, will -- repeal kashmir will put the lives government and women are serving in the military in greater danger? the answer by every single one of these uniformed leaders not the civilian leaders uniformed leaders said yes we will put the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger than less we reveal sequestration. or on defense. i say to my colleagues, i say to my colleagues of united states senate, this is not acceptable. this is not acceptable for us to ask the young men and women are serving in our military in uniform to put comes out their lives put in greater danger because we copped out, we failed to address the issue of

increasing and unsustainable deficits. we are making them pay the price. 13% of the budget is allocated to defense. defense is taking 50% of the cuts. the ryan-murray agreement was something that was welcomed. we need another ryan-murray. we need the men and women who are serving in both as members of congress to understand that we have no greater responsibility than a defense of this nation. i can assure my colleagues that working with my friend, senator reid of rhode island, the ranking member of the senate armed services committee, we will be working, we will reduce the waste and mismanagement. we will address acquisition. we will reform acquisition and the terrible cost overruns that plague our ability to do business in the defense business. we will be cutting the size of

these huge staffs that have grown and grown and grown. we will be making significant reforms in the way that the military does business. but these reforms will not have the impact that necessary in the short term, and that is that we are putting the lives of american soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen in greater danger. so i want to thank my colleague from wyoming, senator enzi, for the great job he has done on this budget. i will tell my colleagues that we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to fix the damage that sequestration is doing. i only have one of the pointer that is very important. some of us have forgotten that in the days after the vietnam war the military was in terrible disarray. and ronald reagan came to the present on the slogan peace

through strength. we'd rebuild the military. we put back to being the greatest condition of being the greatest military and effective force in the world and we won the cold war. right now, right now if you look at the map of the world in 2011 come and look at a map of the world today, 2011 when we enacted sequestration you will find that henry kissinger and george schultz and madeleine albright and brent scowcroft and every person who is respected our national security in this country will tell you that we are in grave danger whether it be from isis whether it be from iran whether the aggressive behavior by the chinese. the matter what it is to our severe crises, or no matter where it is in the world, we are in the midst of serious challenges to our national security and that is at the last place, the last place we should continue to cut is on our defense and our capability defend this nation.

mr. president, i yield the floor floor. >> mr. president speak with the senator from michigan. >> thank you, mr. president. i first want to thank the distinguished senator from arizona for his leadership and i echo his words that we need a bipartisan solution on this issue and hope we will be able to address it not on support our men and women when they are actively in harm's way that supported when they come home. which is why we need a bipartisan balanced solution like we had before. so thank you for your leadership leadership. and mr. president, the reality is that this budget, any budget for the united states is about our values and our priorities. that's what it's all about as a country. and i have to say as a member of the budget committee i am deeply concerned about the values portrayed in this budget. i greatly respect the chairmen

and ranking member, and thank them for their service. but when you look at this budget in total this is opposite frankly to what the majority member talk about everyday. because this particular budget keeps the system rigged in favor of the wealthy and well-connected against the interest of hard-working middle-class americans. now picture this. in this budget if you are a family with assets of $10 million or more you hit the jackpot. you get at least $3 million bonus tax cut in this bill. in terms of the policies laid out in this bill. how is it paid for? well, it's paid for by everybody else. 60 million hard-working americans will see a tax increase of at least $900 based

on these policies and we will see critical investment and services cut. nothing done to address jobs going overseas. not wonderful proposed to be closed that is sending our jobs overseas. we want to create an economy and really balance the budget? let's bring those jobs home. nothing in this budget about that. the about wealth of over $10 million your it's your lucky day. $3 million in your pocket or more. it's christmas in this budget for very wealthy multimillionaires. but if you are everybody else you are in trouble. no focus on creating jobs and god help you if your family has a mom or dad or grandma and

grandpa with alzheimer's disease and is in a nursing home because this budget gaps -- guts nursing home care for millions of americans. a lot of folks who desperately need day care. one out of five medicare dollars today goes to treat alzheimer's. this is an area i have been deeply involved in come important work that needs to be done. but if done. but he gets some of the needs long-term care that has alzheimer's disease, you are out of luck in this budget. this morning i talked to a group of women who were in town breast cancer research. this is the month to focus on breast cancer research. if you care about breast cancer research in this budget you are out of luck. if you want to make sure that we are investing in cures and treatments, we are so close in so many areas now where american

research and innovation in the best minds in the world are working on opportunities for us to solve alzheimer's and parkinson's disease and cancers, and all kinds of areas of concern. but the budget is cut for nih. national institute of health. what kind of priorities does this reflect? and on top of that, for 16 points for many people now have affordable insurance, it is gone. what's interesting about the budget -- 16-point for. it is great because of the revenue, all the fees to pay for health care is in states to balance the budget. it's just health care that goes away. so for those breast cancer patients that i talked to this morning who are now so grateful that if they need to go out and get new insurance, they won't he

called someone with a preexisting condition. that goes away in this budget. if you have a child who is 22 23, just graduated, i spoke at graduation ceremonies this last weekend, and they are on your insurance right now while they're trying to get himself together and get that first job that goes away. so this budget attacks health care, which by the way is not a drill. we don't control what and how we get sick or if our children get sick or if our parents or grandparents needs a nursing home or what may happen in terms of medical issues in our families, but health care is directly attacked. the affordable care act gone. gutting.

wearying from our republican friends that they are making government work but i will do you what, it's not working for middle-class families. it's working for you if you make over $10 million a year, have more than 10 million in assets, but it's not working for you if you golden together two or three jobs and you just try to make it for your family. we believe as democrats that this ought to be a middle-class budget, because everybody deserves a fair shot to get ahead and have a chance to have a better future. and so for us and that means it is budget should have a major focus on creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our roads rebuilding our bridges our infrastructure. and by the way the funding for that, the authorization for the highway trust fund runs out at the end of may. there's nothing in your to address of that. no funding in your to address that. we are going to do all kinds of

jobs that are illuminated all across the country. if that funding is eliminate. so we believe in rebuilding the roads and bridges and creating millions of jobs. we stand up for social security and medicare. this budget has $430 billion in cuts in medicare and it doesn't say where they come from. and it is proposing a structure that would actually eliminate medicare as we know it turning it into some kind of voucher system or some other kind of system that is not guaranteed care under medicare. we believe in protecting medicare and social security. we believe that everybody ought to have a fair chance to work hard and make it and go to college. this does nothing but increase costs to students going to college, and we believe they are to go down so that when you because you don't end up with enough depth to go out or you could have bought a house. but then you can't buy a house as realtors in michigan have told me because people have so

much debt they can't qualify to get a loan for house or start a new business. we as democrats want to make sure everybody has got a chance to go to college and that it is affordable and that we're protecting social security and medicare, and that we are creating jobs rebuilding our roads and our highways and opportunity to invest in america. and, finally 20 we want to bring jobs home. -- mr. president. it is insane we saw the tax code that rewards those sometimes only on paper who lead this country. they still breathe the air drink the water, drive on the road, they just don't have to pay their fair share of taxes as business because on paper they moved somewhere else. that's not fair to every small business in michigan who is working hard every day every taxpayer across this country every business that we have a truly in american business. and there's nothing in this budget that is done to address

that. so i conclude by saying that we should resoundingly object and vote no on the priorities and the value set out in this budget that they do not reflect what is good to create a middle-class and grow a middle class and great opportunity in this country. if you are one of the privileged few, alleluia, break out the shipping act of his passes. but if you're the majority of americans, hold on to your seat put on your seatbelt because if this is, in fact, put into place come it's going to be a rough ride for america. at our site is going to do everything humanly possible to make sure that doesn't happen. mr. president, i yield the floor floor. >> the senator from new york. >> i thank my great colleague from michigan for for outstanding work and leadership. she's a senior member of the budget committee she knows just what's wrong with this budget and she knows how to reach of

the american people in terms of revealing just that showing just about. so i thank her but i want to thank my dear friend senator sanders, fellow graduate of james madison high school in brooklyn for his great leadership on the budget committee as well. and look and a certain sense of this republican budget is a gift to us into the american people because it shows their real priorities. and their priorities are so far away from what average americans want that this budget will resound from one into the country to the other between now and november of 2016. the budget the house and senate republicans have put together help the very wealthy and powerful in our country who frankly don't need any help. this idea, cut taxes on the very wealthy and that's how to make a better place? how many americans actually believe that?

we understand a lot of our colleagues do. they hang out with these people i guess. but that's not what most americans think. that's for sure. the budget should reflect economic reality right now. middle class incomes are declining. it's harder to stay in the middle class. it's harder to reach the middle class. ended budget should help those folks were in the middle class stay there. we are trying to get to the middle class, create ladders so they can get there. and again this budget seems to focus all its attention at all its goodies on the very wealthy. the economy is getting stronger, but mainly at the very high-end. so we need to cut their taxes. they are hurting. and at the same time we need to raise taxes on 16 million americans are working and making

20, 30, $40,000 a year. raise their taxes $900? how many americans would say we should cut taxes on the 4000 wealthiest people, an average of $3 million, a cost of $260 billion over 10 years and raise taxes on people making 20 30, $40,000 a year by $900? is that 1% of america thinks that way? maybe. but it seems our colleagues on the other side of the aisle fall about pied piper, that 1% and putting together their budget. it makes no sense. the republican budget is a document of willful ignorance. it was constructed in an ideological house of mirrors. where no one sees reality. no one to put together this budget is israeli. they don't see me -- they don't seem middle-class people

struggling. making it harder to pay for college? what the heck is going on here in this great america? we are trying to pass a budget our colleagues that says we should make it harder to pay for college. while our veterans should lose food stamps. veterans people who served us. people i'm sure the vast majority are looking for jobs and income. income. that's the veterans are income. that's a veterans or. income. that's the veterans are. they don't income. that's the veterans are. they don't want a handout but when you're down on their luck maybe they injuries, maybe was rough adjusting to family life back home again, and you can't their food stamps? wow. what kind of budget is this? as i said, it's a budget in an ideological house of mirrors and loan payments, 30 year old, four year olds can huge burdens of

debt. they can't even buy a home. may be put off having kids. and worse, this budget, our republican friends are saying eliminate programs cut programs that at least reduce some of the debt burden. wow. what world are you folks living in? it sure isn't the world of reality. it's an ideological house of mirrors. a document, a budget document of willful ignorance. you can go on and on and on with this budget. how many families have elderly parents in nursing homes of alzheimer's? we know that tragically. this budget makes it harder for those people to stay in those nursing homes by cutting medicaid, which many of them are on. and then these young families are going to have the burden of

taking their gear parents, their loved ones come back into their homes. do we want that? well, you say well we've got to get summer. how about not getting the 4000 richest families 260 billion over 10 years and put some the money into cancer research, but some of my into helping veterans feed themselves puts on the money into making it easier to pay for college, put some of the money into making sure we continue cancer research. republicans are going to to figure out a way to convince the american people that they're doing something, anything to help the middle class. so far they are striking out. we know there is only one bit of good news. our colleagues when they are forced to put real numbers to these budget numbers in the appropriations process will not be able to do it. and i hope this will be up to

our ranking member of the members of our appropriations committee i hope they take this budget and actually crafted into the appropriations bill and put it out there and lets him of our colleagues actually vote for. how many of our colleagues will vote to make our to pay for college? how many other colleagues will make it harder for veterans to be themselves when out of luck? how many of our colleagues will vote to raise the taxes on people making 30 $40000, $900 a year? i doubt many. so this is a fun day for our republican colleagues. they get to be their ideological breasts, show the hard right that they really mean it and then maybe we can go back to governing that country and helping the middle class. spent a look at senate floor debate from yesterday. senators about the gavel in for this wednesday to work on an iran nuclear bill that would require the obama administration is beginning obama administration is making nuclear agreement with iran to congress

for review. mitch mcconnell filed cloture on the bill yesterday evening setting up a couple of procedural votes on the bill for tomorrow morning. now to live coverage of u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. holy god, thank you for daily blessings and mercies, for you fill the void of our spirits with your abiding presence.

lord you provide us with strength for each day and hope for each tomorrow. your ways are just and true. supply all the needs of our senators. give them wisdom to solve the complex problems of our time. help them to express their gratitude to you with deeds of faith and compassion. lord use them to call us out of the night of selfish living to the sunrise of sacrifice and service. continue to be their refuge and

strength, a very present help for every trial. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president we've all heard the legal maxim justice laid is justice denied and it's really applicable what's going on in the senate today. here in this body justice is being delayed by the republican majority. the republicans in the senate refusal to heed their constitutional duty in providing the advice and consent on judicial nominations as injustice to the american people. so far this year the senate has confirmed two judicial nominations. just two. this has been in more than four months. by contrast, in 2007, my first year as majority leader, during the bush administration we had already confirmed 16 nominations. if the republican majority keeps up their current trend of

ignoring judicial nominees, by the end of this year we will have confirmed five for the entire year. the last time the senate confirmed so few judicial nominations was unsurprisingly, the republican majority here in the senate at the end of the clinton administration. it's funny how history repeats itself. federal courts depend on the senate to do its job so justice can be dispensed in courtrooms all across the country. as of today, there are 55 federal court vacancies 24 of which are classified as emergencies. at the beginning of the year there were only 12 judicial emergencies. now it's double that. 24. these vacancies create a backlog of cases effectively delaying justice for plaintiffs and defendants for prosecutors and the accused and for the sitting judges who are trying their best to administer justice. but they can't do their work because they are so overwhelmed with work.

mr. president, this is more than judges and more than lawyers. it's people who come before the courts people who have a case that they have been waiting and waiting and waiting. the prosecutor who is moving forward after somebody who is, in their opinion somebody who has been, who's done something really bad. and we've heard that expression, they're trying to make a federal case out of it. the reason we say that is because federal prosecutors do such a great job. but if they have to wait and wait until there's availability in the courtroom witnesses disappear. it makes it much more difficult. so what has happened to our judicial system is because of the republicans we're having justice delayed. it's rely unconscionable. it's no wonder republicans are

scrambling for cover on judicial nominations. they are scrambling because they have been ignoring their constitutional duty. this afternoon the courts are going to have a -- going to be looked at by the judicial committee -- excuse me. in fact, they're going to hold a hearing on several delayed judicial nominations. but everyone should look at fill fill -- phillipe, restrepa, to be a nominee for the third circuit court of appeals very important circuit. despite being nominated by the president six months ago this man is not even going to be on the calendar. and this is what was done previously. the man my friend, the chair of the now the finance committee was chair of the judicial committee back in those days, and he did the same thing.

just ignored them. didn't even schedule them for a hearing. senator leahy has been to the floor many times -- our chair of the judiciary committee, ranking member of the judiciary committee, talking about how bad that used to be and now he's talking about how bad it is even today. so restrepo and others will not be on the agenda despite the fact that this philadelphia-based seat is an emergency, a judicial emergency. they ignore people like restrepo. they say we only have a few people on the calendar. why aren't there more on the calendar? because they don't schedule hearings. it's so unfair. now, restrepo won't be on the agenda in spite of the fact that the junior senator from pennsylvania said he would be an excellent addition to the third circuit, why doesn't he come

here -- the junior senator from pennsylvania -- to talk about this man being held up by his own party? there is no reason that he's held up for six months other than the republicans just simply want to do everything they can to create problems for president obama. but it's not a problem for president obama. president obama is doing just fine. it's for the people that i've talked about the prosecutors those who are accused of crimes, plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases and of course the judges. after having heard the statement from the junior senator from pennsylvania i wonder what pennsylvanians are thinking. are they left wondering why this qualified judicial candidate is not moving forward and not a word from the junior senator from pennsylvania? not a word. it appears republicans are heeding calls from the far right to retaliate against president obama by blocking judges. republicans couldn't defend

their trying to shut down the department of homeland security. they tried to. they tried to block loretta lynch's confirmation. they couldn't get that on. so now they want to block president obama's judges. our courts should be above political gamesmanship. qualified judicial nominees like mr. restrepo deserve their vote in the senate. president bush's judges were considered fairly. when i was there, they were considered fairly when i was the majority leader. and there's no one can say that the nominees are now being handled fairly. it's certainly not unreasonable for democrats to expect the same measure of cooperation of fairness and cooperation of republicans that i gave them. the american judicial system should not be taking a back seat to republican politics here in the senate, our nation's capital. but, mr. president if it were only the judges that they're holding up, that would be one thing. but republican senators are

holding up basically all the nominations with rare exception. for example the chief law enforcement officer of this country, loretta lynch; well-qualified in every way experienced, education character; was held up for six months. if that wasn't bad enough, now what they've done, they're not allowing her to have the people she needs around her. her number-one assistant not allowing a vote on that. it's really unfair and just so bad that justice delayed is justice denied. i'm sorry that that's where we find ourselves today.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the senate is now nearing completion of the bipartisan iran nuclear agreement review act. this is a bipartisan bill based on an important principle. if the american people, through the congress they elect deserve a say on one of the most important issues of our time, it would require that any agreement reached with iran be submitted to congress for review. it would be require that congress be given time to hold hearings and to take a vote to approve or disapprove of the agreement before congressional sanctions could be lifted. and it would give congress more power to rapidly impose

sanctions if iran does cheat. many wish the bill was stronger. i don't disagree with them. but this is a piece of legislation worthy of our support. it offers the best chance we have to provide the american people and the congress they elect with power to weigh in on a vital issue. and we will pursue other opportunities to address iran's full spectrum campaign to increase its sphere of influence in the broader middle east as well. i look forward to senators of both parties coming together to pass this bipartisan iran nuclear agreement review act soon. once we do, the senate will take up another measure designed to hold the administration accountable, the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act. this bipartisan bill is about a lot more than just expanding

congress' oversight authority. it's about delivering prosperity for the middle class and supporting jobs. it's about helping american workers sell more of what they make and farmers to sell more of what they grow. and it's about eliminating unfair rules in other countries that discriminate against american workers and american jobs. remember the united states already has one of the most open markets in the world but other countries maintain unfair barriers against american goods and services, barriers that trade agreements can reduce or even eliminate to make things fairer for america. that's why the united states is currently involved in negotiations with europe and several nations in the pacific like japan, in order to break down barriers to goods stamped made in america.

that's the main point here, we want to knock down barriers to our goods stamped with "made in america" to be sold in other countries. one estimate shows that trade agreements with europe and the pacific could support as many as 1.4 million additional jobs in our country including over 18,000 in kentucky alone. but in order to get there we'll first need to lay down some clear and fair rules of the road for our trade negotiators. that's what the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act would do. number one it would make congress' priorities clear issuing specific objectives for the administration's trade negotiators. second it would mandate transparency forcing the administration to consult regularly with congress and stakeholders. and it would reaffirm the supremacy of this body, requiring our explicit approval before trade agreements are

enacted. the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act is good bipartisan legislation that was endorsed overwhelmingly in the finance is one kentucky con consequent recently wrote to say on the issue guantanamo -- -- quote -- "we need free trade to compete with grain farms in south america he wrote. dozens of people have jobs as a direct result of our small business input suppliers truckers mechanics and traders just to name a few. he went on, "help me and all these people by expanding trade and consumption globally. our future depends on it. mr. president, i couldn't agree more with that farmer from

spencer county. our future does depend on cultivating better opportunities for american goods american crops and american workers in the 21st century. i look forward to the senate turning to the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act very soon. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business for one hour, equally divided with the majority controlling the first half of the time and with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: as we continue to fight against isis and those radicalized by them, i rise

today to urge my colleagues to provide efforts to provide direct assistance to a crucial critical partner in that fight the kurdistan regional government. yesterday, i joined senator barbara boxer of california to do just that. we introduced bipartisan legislation to provide for the temporary authority for the president to provide weapons directly to iraqi kurdish pesmurda forces in the fight against isis. this legislation builds upon a similar bipartisan house effort led by house foreign affairs committee chairman ed royce and ranking member elliott engel. the bill's three-year authorization seeks to reduce delays in arming pesmurda forces to fight isis while still maintaining consultation with the iraqi government. beginning in the first gulf war the iraqi kurds and their

peshmurga forces have played a vital role in supporting u.s. interests and a free iraq despite limited means of doing so. since august 2014 the kurds have provided sanctuary to nearly two million ethnic and religious minorities in iraqi kurdistan and have been the only force to hold its ground against isis in northern iraq. currently, by law the u.s. must provide support to the iraqi kurds through the iraqi central government in baghdad, which is often -- which has often not been timely or adequate in the past. this has had a negative impact on the kurds' act to defend iraqi territory and provide security for those iraqis and syrians who have sought refuge in iraqi kurdistan. last november, secretary of state john kerry said that if

chairman royce wanted to change current law to fix it, then he invited him to do so. well that's exactly what this legislation does. it makes it the policy of the united states to provide direct assistance to the kurdistan regional government to combat isis. we do that because we believe that defeating isis is critical to maintaining an inclusive and unified iraq, and that the iraqi kurds are the key in that goal, as well as helping end the humanitarian crisis in iraq through their support of over 1.6 million displaced persons from iraq and syria. the legislation preserves the president's ability to notify the iraqi government before weapons, equipment defense

services or related training is provided to iraqi kurdish forces. it ensures this emergency authorization does not construct a precedent of providing direct support to organizations other than a country or an international organization. finally, it works toward accountability by requiring a report to congress on u.s. weapons provided to the iraqi government which have ended up in the hands of iranian-controlled and supported shia militias or foreign terrorist groups. isis is deadly and determined, and iraqi kurdish peshmurga forces our critical force in the fight against isis need u.s. weapons as quickly as possible. this three-year authorization would bolster efforts against

isis, which is a critical -- which is critical to maintaining a unified and stable iraq an imperative to our national security interests. we simply cannot afford future delays at this critical moment in the battle. i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much-needed legislation to arm the iraqi kurds in the fight against isis. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president thursday a week ago i had the privilege as a member of the finance committee serving on the markup of the trade promotion authority and trade adjustment and assistance. this past saturday, i was given the opportunity to give the republican response on the radio saturday and i talked about trade promotion authority. i have been privileged to be a ranking member and chairman at

one time of the africa subcommittee. i have traveled back and forth to the continent of africa, seen the opportunities of trade and business and exchange with the african people. i came to the congress in 1999. in that year, i voted for trade promotion authority for president bill clinton a democrat. later, i voted for trade promotion authority for president bush, a republican. and i proudly will vote for trade promotion authority for president obama a democrat, because trade is not a partisan issue. it should not be nor should it ever be trade a partisan issue. it should be an issue of the american people's employment, opportunity, jobs in the future. trade is the cement that holds together the diplomacy and the agreements between countries to work together, play together and not fight together and not have armed conflict. trade is important to the security of the united states of america, and in fact the rest of the world. but i don't want to talk about trade promotion authority today. i want to talk about the african growth and opportunity act. africa is the continent of the 21st century for the united states of america. 1.5 billion mouths to feed. a number of votes on the u.n. in terms of the african countries.

but most importantly the rarest minerals and the natural resources so important to us and the rest of the world. africa is a gold mine waiting to be mined but it's not one that we abuse like the chinese are abusing it. it's one we share in prosperity. you know, when china goes into africa they bring their own workers, pay their own workers with chinese currency, leave and extract the rarest minerals, oil and petroleum and natural resources. when america goes, we invest in the human capital with petfor to reduce the rate of aids and we invest in the minimum challenge opportunity to bring jobs, opportunity and a lack of corruption to the african people. this act is a godsend for the country of africa but also for the united states of america who the future of africa will be our greatest trading partner if we handle it right. the african growth and opportunity act that will be before us is a ten-year extension of our goal. that's important because it gives predictability to the african countries and the united

states. more importantly it gives us the opportunity to file cases with the trade representative against those companies that are not playing by the rules. south africa is a perfect example. they have blocked access to their market to poultry from the united states of america. with arbitrary and capricious blockades to keep our poultry from going in. senator coons and i senator coons from delaware, myself from georgia, two big poultry have confronted the south africans. we know that under the new act when it is passed and ratified by this congress and by the african congress as well will give us the opportunity to file a petition to ask the trade representative to file a case to open up the south african practices. if they are found to be corrupt then we can block south africa's participation in parts of the goal or all of it. in other words, it will have consequences, much like the minimum challenge account does. today when america makes an investment in a foreign country in africa for the minimum challenge corporation, there are consequences if they don't end corruption, if they don't have private sector participation if they don't have the rule of law governing their project we pull

the minimum challenge corporation without and they don't get another grant. look at the nation of ghana which is working on its third grant. both are improving their infrastructure and their ability to trade and produce with america because of a joint venture between our country and those countries. i want to urge all of my colleagues in the house and the senate to adopt the average growth and opportunity act for three reasons. one, it's a ten-year predictable extension of a relationship we need to grow and prosper. that's number one. number two it gives us the tools to not be abused and make sure that one of the south african countries is abusing american access to their market, we can stop it and file a case with the trade representative. but number three it offers hope and prosperity for america in the 21st century. a billion and a half mouths to feed rare earth minerals, natural resources the power of the people and the power of the purse of the people. africa is the couldn't tent of the 21st century for our country. having a trade agreement with africa is essential to seeing to it that we have a prosperous and a free future.

with that said, mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call: