world and proponents of dodd-frank will tell you it was caused by low documentation and prepayment penalties and exploding a.r.m.s. i would poimed -- point you to a number of analyses gao has done as well as empirical studies in the results are quite clear. the main drivers of default -- i guess i should say you could even look at the studies by organization like center for responsible lending. their own studies show that the main drivers of default are loan-to-value borrower credit score. everything else is literally a rounding error. and so, of course the final dodd-frank qm and qmr rules essentially abandoned the things that actually drive default. and, of course giving qms obstacles to foreclosure and endless servicing requirements, again, making it near impossible to foreclose my opinion is that the qm rule will actually increase foreclosures next time around rather than decrease them. of course, as we know the harder it is to foreclose the more

people are willing to go into default. and this is all too consistent with the views of the cfpb. its mission has nothing to do with financial stability to force prudent borrowers to subsidize inprudent. we all know the crisis was quite costly. it also provided a cover for massive expansion of government powers. wrapping up. >> one minute. >> i'm not even going to need that. so i would say and was saying if we hope to avoid financial crises we've got to repeal dodd-frank 100%, but i think it's repeal is certainly not enough. our pre-crisis system was broken, it was fraud. in fact, to me one of the real flaws of dodd-frank is it extends the pre-crisis system whether it's the cfpb, fsoc, the theme of dodd-frank is let's expand bank-like regulation to everybody else. so again, think about it that way. the notion of dodd-frank is that if only aig had been as regulated as well as citibank was regulated everything would have been fine. [laughter]

[applause] >> thank you, mark. i'm going to let each of the panelists in order add something if he likes or take up something somebody else said or reiterate a point. maybe about two minutes each or so. peter? >> yeah, thanks. there were a couple of things that occurred to me that we might add a little bit. first of all, i've heard a lot about the costs of swaps and you didn't cover that as much as we might have covered it. but that and also the question of hedging under the volcker rule. that's also a problem where you talked about market making. market making is a problem. you can't distinguish market making from prop trailing very well but it's also -- trading very well, but it's also a problem with hedging. a lot of activity that banks engage in is hedging activity, hedging their risks. that also looks a lot like prop

trading. so how -- today i think, is the day that the dodd-frank that the volcker rule goes into effect. how are banks going to deal with this problem? >> well, they're going to hire a lot of lawyers in this room. [laughter] >> that's always good. [laughter] >> you know? and i think that's the problem here is that when you layer in so many rules and so many exceptions and ambiguities inside of these rules and a lot of them are done -- and there's a political compromise inside of agencies. this rule in particular has six different agencies working on it. and each one of them had to get their pound of flesh right at the last minute. and what we have is you will do hedging if you're a bank out of your bank account but you could also be doing hedging because there is a reasonable anticipatory demand that your customer -- who you know holds the same products as you -- may also want to hedge. but then you have to explain that transaction and tell people why it's not prop trading. so this is why i think you're

going to see pullback, and you're going to see flow out of the fixed income corporate markets and into the safe markets, into the markets that are easy to value easy the collateralize, easy to mark on a daily basis. and when prices move up and down, you don't have a problem because you don't have to deal with that rule. and, again, this is very bad for the real economy because corporate treasurers need to hedge. they need these instruments and they need them -- and they also need to know that when they issue their debt into the capital market as, that if the debt is not fully subscribed, that the banks will take that debt down and stand behind it to make a market whenever markets move up and they move down. and it's not clear to me that if there's a brings or if -- a bankruptcy or if there is an issue with specific debts, and we could have an issue coming very shortly here in the high yield energy, oil and exploration area coming within the next six to eight months

whether banks are going to step in and take on the liabilities they used to for fear of holding inventory too long or being told that they're not hedging that that hedge turned out to be a prop trade because the customer's reasonably anticipatory demand vanished. so i agree with you peter, this is a very, very -- this is micromanagement of the capital markets. >> all right chris that took up peter's time. you have another two minutes if you want to add something else. [laughter] >> well, i mean i wanted to agree very much with what mark said. i was a securitization attorney during the crisis, and what we did -- my entire industry was predicated upon taking advantage of rules. it was, basically you took advantage of the risk-weighted capital requirements in the banking book and changed that into a aaa-rated security that got less that you had to hold less capital against and put it in the trading book. and to me, that is, again,

that's government interference that created an incentive for people to act and create an asset bubble. and you accurately stated the credit rating agency reform didn't really happen, and i'm not -- to me, i think that the capital, the basil capital risk-weighting rules are still a huge problem that haven't been addressed. and i think what you're going to see, because there's global growth stagnation, all of a sudden the idea's going to be, well, infrastructure bonds and emerging markets, united states infrastructure bonds, all these things should start getting better capital treatment. they should be treated more like government debt. i mean i wonder what your comments are. >> let me say, you know, i fully agree with that. so basil was out there that has not been fixed and so, you know, let's keep in mind that basil told us that greek debt was risk-free and you had to have zero capital against immaterial that fannie mae was

risk-free. basil iii in my opinion is an improvement over basil ii, it's only a small immaterial proven. improvement. we were very very fortunate in this country that our banks did not adopt basil ii before the crisis because they would have been even more highly leveraged, and i attribute some amount of credit to senator sarbanes and senator shelby beating the fed upside the head and saying don't implement this thing, you will end up having less capital. which gets me to a different theme of, you know, one of the themes of dodd-frank is to hand ever more discretionary power to the federal reserve. and you talk about a string of regulatory failures. >> shoals paradox, which is named after my friend, the professor, is no matter how much the fed fouls things up and how gigantic its blunders with each crisis it always gains more power and more authority. and it's historically true, and dodd-frank is the last example.

j.w. further comments? >> sure. i just want to touch on another issue that i see in dodd-frank perpetuated, perpetuating a problem that long precedes dodd-frank which is the inclusion of immaterial disclosures in securities disclosures. i mean this to apply to both conflict minerals disclosure and to lease payments disclosure for oil. minerals developed in the congo they finance the bad guys, they finance the good guys, and they finance people completely uninvolved in the war but oxfam decided that we should stop purchases of conflict minerals in the west. so there's a mandatory requirement for disclosure of conflict minerals for firms not only firms getting the actual hard commodities mined there but also for firmings well down the supply -- firms well down the supply chain who have no idea where the aluminum for

their electronic parts came from. so i think it's telling when a liberal law ultimately convinces "the washington post" editorial board that it was a bad idea -- which they have come out against conflict minerals -- i think it's time to revisit the notion altogether of including immaterial disclosures in securities laws both by legislative fiat and by the sec's own power. and republican and democrat chairmen have both been guilty of this. i think materiality should be a binding constraint on any mandatory sec disclosure rulemaking. and business round table versus sec stands for the proposition. the sec's supposed to do cost benefit analysis. how is a mandatory immaterial disclosure going to cause benefit? so by definition, it fails analysis. we have the dominant means of which is stock price studies, methodology that's gotten great in the last ten years. i think materiality should be a binding constraint on the sec

the same way it is for litigants trying to sue under the '34 act. we need to look at everything we've done and going forward. not only do we excise the bad things in dodd-frank, but i think that's important. >> good point. and, mark, you have another chance here. two minutes if you want them. >> try not to take too much, little more than that. first, let me comment on j.w. mentioned the pay ratio and i think partly got it right in that it's an attack on executive compensation. of course, i think many of the labor groups would prefer that you improve the ratio by increasing the income in the middle. i worry about one of the other potentialities is that you can increase that ratio by hiring fewer workers on the left side of the distribution. and so i do really worry that this is going to have a tremendously adverse impact on entry-level jobs, and as somebody who started at a minimum wage job and learned some valuable skill this is that, this war on the lower runnings of the job ladder, to me, can have -- rungings of the

job ladder can have stamm impacts and ones that i worry about significantly. let me first also note a number of institutions in the past, you know long-term capital management, of course, sing trade was the treasury market and i believe alex might remember this better. what was it first pennsylvania in the '80s blew itself up trading treasuries as well. so if you go back and look at remember the bear assets that were transferred to the new york fed, half of those were fannie and freddie securities. so go back and look at those, the new york fed. so absolutely institutions have blown themselves up with treasuries and agency trading -- >> you know, we could add origin county to it. >> yes, we could. >> which blew itself up on agency securities. >> so i want to end with a question for peter to parse out and to go back to his first chart about the goc share. as peter is well aware fannie and freddie at the height were the single largest purchasers of private mortgage label securities. i'll add as an aside i've done

some dig around too and found that, for instance, german gses, london's banks were very large purchasers of u.s. subprime securities too so it wasn't just ours, it was european. so the question is, is that included in the number, or is that in the subprime part? >> that was included in the number. and they -- in order to understand the risks that they were taking, you have to include also their purchases of subprime mortgage-backed securities. and the problem is that they created market. because in order to, in order to comply with the affordable housing goals, they could get credit for the subprime mortgages that were in these private mortgage-backed currents. and so -- securities. and so they told wall street deliver these things to us, we're happy to buy them. and that's how we got such a gigantic market in private mortgage-backed securities that were backed by subprime loans. >> and that, i agree is understood by very, very few

people. >> unfortunately. now everyone in this room understands it. >> so we're making progress. >> well, yeah. it doubles or triples -- [laughter] >> thank you for excellent discussion, panel. now, ladies and gentlemen, it's time we're going to take your questions. let me remind you of aei rules. first, you have to wait for the microphone because we're being recorded. tell us your name, your affiliation and then ask your question shortly and briefly. if you forget to keep it short the chair will remind you. we'll start right here, and then we'll come over and pick up you. >> yeah. thank you for the panel for the presentation. my name's -- [inaudible] you are comprehending that -- [inaudible] is no good? the problem is i haven't heard

what is bad. it doesn't say they -- [inaudible] too big to fail -- [inaudible] do you have any data -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> i think you touched upon a really important observation which is so much of it relies on the discretionary decisions of government decision making, whether it's the doj or the sec. there's nothing inherently too big to fail about a company --

[inaudible] too big to fail by its very nature of political decisions. and, of course, when eric holder goes before congress and says somebody's too big to jail, that reinforces that perception. so on the data point so, again i would start with data can be suggestive at best, and so i do think during the crisis we saw suggested data that the funding advantage for the large institutions had expanded, and yes, that has contracted. but, of course in my opinion you would expect that no contract postcrisis. i think what's important to do is compare the funding costs today versus precrisis over time. so, for instance, people forget that before the crisis, say in 2006, the largest banks actually paid more to borrow than the smallest banks. the funding advantage was completely flipped. and today the largest banks still, in my opinion, get about 25, 30 basis point advantage. of course, there could be a number of reasons for that, but to me, the data suggests that too big to fail has not ended. >> we'll break away here.

the u.s. senate is gaveling in to begin work on advancing a bill set to extend highway bridge and mass transportation projects. a six-year deal was agreed to by mitch mcconnell and barbara boxer of california, six-year highway funding bill. the hill writes the deal would fund highways and federal infrastructure projects for three years putting the burden on the next congress to come up with the funding for its second half. we expect a vote on moving forward to the bill at 4 p.m. each. the house meanwhile passed a temporary extension on highway funding through december. now live senate coverage here on c-span2.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion.

we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 19, h.r. 22, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage under tricare or the veterans administration for being taking into account for purposes of dirge the employers to the the employer mandate applies to the affordable care act. signed by 17 senators. poison pill by unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the mawnd -- the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is shall the debate be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 56. three-finals of the senators duly chosen and sworn not vk voted in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: motion is intended. -- is entered. mr. mcconnell: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: let me just say to my colleagues -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

mr. reid: mr. president, there is far too much conversation in the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: it is my understanding that many of our colleagues on the other side who voted against cloture at this particular point wanted to have further time to read the bill. i want everybody to understand the text is filed. it is at the desk. there are detailed summaries available online on the epw committee web site. as everyone knows senator boxer and i and others have been discussing this in great detail. i'm hopeful that by tomorrow we will have cloture on the bill and an opportunity to go forward. let me just say to everybody, i don't think i have -- i know i

haven't threatened a saturday session all year, but there will be a saturday session and probably sunday as well. and let me tell you why. we have a chance here to achieve a multiyear bipartisan highway bill. senator inhofe, senator boxer reported out a six-year bill. we paid for the first -- this is a six-year bismbill. we paid for the first. there is not a phony one in there. if we can get this bill over to the house, it is my belief that they will take it up, give the house of representatives an opportunity to express itself on this bill. imagine the scenario if we actually were able to produce a multiyear highway bill and get to the president's desk for signature before the august recess.

it's something we could all feel proud of. it has been outstanding outstand -- there has been outstanding in my view bipartisan work on this. and so we need to keep at it. and that will require us most definitely to be here this weekend. madam president let me just while he i have the floor i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: madam president first of all we all appreciate the work done by senator mcconnell and senator boxer. senator boxer has been tireless on this, as she is on everything. but we have an issue here that i think we need to address. we received this bill, which is more than 1,000 pages about an

hour ago. many a going to have a -- i'm going to have a caucus tornlings and by this i hope that we will have an opportunity at that time to have reports from committees of jurisdiction. committees of jurisdiction is more than the environment and public works committee. finance is involved in this. commerce banking and other committees of course are interested. and so we need the opportunity to look at this bill. this is a big big bill, with a lot of different sections in it dealing with a lot of different issues. we're not asking for anything unusual. we just want to be able to read and study the bill and talk about it at a private meeting tomorrow at 12:00. now, if we were doing something that was -- what are you talking about, you mean you want to read

it? -- please, i mean, we have pages of quotes from my friends. senator enzi said, "that is what created this enormous outrage across america. and did you read the bill? how can you read the bill if you have not seen anything in it. it's not being given to you. i don't think it's being intended to be given to you until we've to shuffle to the end." lamar alexander here is what he said a couple years ago. "we want to make sure the american people have a chance to read it. they have a chance to know exactly what it costs and they have a chance to know exactly how to fix it. this is not an unreasonable request we don't think. this is the way the senate works. this is our job. when it came to the defense authorization bill, we spent a couple weeks doing that. when it came to no child left behind the education bill, we spent seven weeks doing that. homeland security bill, took self fen weeks fl energy bill in 2002 took eight years. the farm bill took four weeks.

so we have a little reading to do, a little work to do. we have john mccain -- but could i also add if we haven't seen it, i don't think we should have time to -- shouldn't we at least have time to examine it? i don't think it would be outage us a to ask to have a bill read that we haven't seen." so i as a number of people in this body, have worked on highway bills in the past. we have worked on these bills and they've taken weeks to get done. we're being presented with something here, madam president that basically says, you take this or leave it. that isn't the way it should work around here. i'm going to do everything i can to move forward on a long-term highway bill. i want to get to done. but we're going to have to look at this and find out what my different committees think what different senators think what people at home think. you know, i have a lot of people

at home that are interested in what's in this bill. there is a banking provision. there is pay-fors -- i've looked at them last week, but that's been a moving target also. the ranking member of our finance committee at this stage unless he's lrned something in the last half-hour he doesn't know what the pay-fors are either. in short, we want to be as cooperative as we can. but we're not going to lump into this legislation -- lurch into this legislation without having the chance to read this 1,000 page bill and after having read it to have a discussion within the cause on this bill. we would be in a very difficult position if, as the republican leader said, we're going to work over the weekend, which is fine. i have no problem with that. i've tried that myself a few times. it didn't work so well, but i'm willing to be part of the deal here if we're we're willing

need to work the weekend to get this done. i don't know what the house plans to do. but we're planning a lot that the house is going to take this bill. if they did, that would be wonderful. but i have to say tbhaifd on my conversation with the democrats in the house in conversations they've had with republican leadership over there, i don't think there is a chance in the world they're going to take up this bill. they have sent us a bill, a bill that's for five months, with conversations between the white house -- not our white house but the president's white house. -- to come up with a long-term highway bill. so part of that is some consideration of the ex-im bank. i realize how important that is. i have been on this floor talking about how important that is. we have about 45 different countries who who have, as we speak ex-im banks that are working that are taking away all of our business. so it is important we get that done also. but we can't let one get in the

way of the other. it is not our fault. democrats' fault that we don't have an ex-im bill. we didn't create the problems with ex-im having gone out of business. so i want to have a highway bill done i want to get ex-im done. but the ex-im problem should not stand in the way of us getting a good strong, robust highway bill. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: my good friend, the democratic leader, was saying as recently as a couple of weeks ago, we need to do a long-term highway bill. well senator boxer and i took him seriously. we've worked hard here to come up with a bipartisan, multiyear paid-for highway bill. the fact that it hasn't been online very long is a good argument and our friends will have an opportunity to read every bit of it, and i hope at that point they will find it attractive to move forward. and as i've said for over, i

guess now something like two months this bill is an opportunity for those who support the ex-im bank to offer an amendment on that subject. so it is further complicated in terms of timing by the fact that the house of representatives is leaving a week earlier than week we are. -- a week earlier than wemplet i -- than we are. i can't say with certainty that they will take up a highway bill that doesn't raise the gas tax deduction, but it is a lot more attractive than a six-month extension. that we have to revisit again in december. and so i'm hopeful the house will take a look at what we've done over here on the senate side and find it pretty appealing. and so we would like to work our way through this and we intend to work our way through it, including the weekend to get what we believe is an important

accomplishment for the country -- for the country -- over to the house of representatives so they can take a look at it and maybe they will find it appealing as well. mrs. boxer: madam president? if i could say to both leaders -- the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: if i could say to both leaders whom i respect tremendously and agree with leader reid 99.9% of the time, here is the situation we've got a highway trust fund expiring, going bust, going broke. and, yeah, we've dpot to spend some time, you know, we've got a lot of staff, we can divide this up 250 pages four people. we've got a summary we've got a summary of the bill out there for everybody. and we can just say we need four weeks or six weeks to look at the thing. the e.p.w. piece my friend senator inhofe knows, has been out there for three months -- or not that long, at least two months.

we haven't changed much in that. so it's been out there. so that's been reviewed. all i want to say is this: if we could just keep the eye on the prize. and i understand that the way we proceed over here is important. that's why i voted "no" not to go to a bill that i wrote with senator mcconnell because i agree with my leader completely. we need a chance to look at it. but i would submit, this isn't the first time we've ever done a highway bill. this is a little different than a health care bill in the sense that it's a highway bill. most of it's very similar. i would say e.p.w. bills off the old bill we had before, and most of the bills track older bills. i don't think it's going to be that hard for us to detail our stay of to read it because here's the problem: if we don't we've got 800,000 construction workers that still are not back to work. we've got seven states that have stopped doing anything. so if we can just keep our eye on the prize, which is businesses being able to do what

they want to do -- build -- i had a bridge collapse two days ago. you can't get from california toes a. so i hope tomorrow will be able to join with our friends and vote to proceed. if we don't like the bill, we'll have three more opportunities to vote "no." but i'd love to get on this bill and get moving on it and seeing if we can keep this economy moving in the right direction and not take a chance, as many economists said we will, if we don't do a long-term bill. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: will the senator from california yield for a question? mrs. boxer: at yes i. mr. mcconnell: i understanding is that you and chairman inhofe have been discussing with people out in the country who would benefit from this bill. do you have a sense of their enthusiasm for the product that we've been able to come up with here? mrs. boxer: i do. and as i shared with leader reidside today 68 organizations from labor to business to general contractors -- i have the list. as a matter of fact, i ask unanimous consent to place it in

the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: already asking us, begging us, to move forward. the governors association, it is really a broad-based number of organizations that don't agree all the time. i mean shall the building trades isn't often dprea with the chambers of commerce. but they agree on this. mr. mcconnell: -- i would be correct in saying that they are less than enthusiastic about another short-term extension? mrs. boxer: they agree with those of us who have said that's a death by 1,000 cuts. we just can't keep on doing these short-term extensions because i will just say this to you, mr. leader, if you or i went to the bank to get a mortgage and the banker smiled and said, you get that mortgage but it's only for six months or five months, you wouldn't buy the house. no one is going to build a new project or fix a bridge that has multiyear costs if they know the money could run out in five months or short term.

mr. mcconnell: would it also be correct i ask the senator from california, if we're fortunate enough to send this multiyear paid-for highway bill over to the house and the same constituent groups whrof -- who have an interest in this would suggest this might be something to take a look at? mrs. boxer: i think there would be huge momentum if we're able to pass this in a bipartisan way. yes, i do. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i think that -- i've been listening carefully to what concerns people have. i have to remind everyone that it was the 24th of june -- 24th of june -- that we passed this bill out of committee. we've been working on this bill for months before that. and all of us realized that we've gone, the first bill -- the last bill that we had that was a multiyear bill was 2005. it was a five-year bill. and since that expired at the

end of 2009, we've had nothing but extensions. those extensions cost 30% off the top just because short-term extensions don't work. we went ahead and we passed a bill and i can recall -- and the reason i'm optimistic that we can get this over to the house, they will sign it, because that wasn't a problem at all when it went to the house last time. we showed them that the cost of the bill is far less. the conservative position -- and this was with 33 members of the house on the t & i committee. so all the republicans, all the democrats on their committee voted for it. those same democrats and republicans over there would support this. i think the reason they came out originally for a shorter-term bill was for it to, to pack it in with some other things they wanted to get passed. but i have yet to talk to the first member of the house who

doesn't say if you bring us a multiyear bill, we will sign it. i think that will happen. we're willing to stay here until it does happen. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president i appreciate the chairman and the ranking member of the environment and public works committee pointing out that the actual underlying authorization language in this legislation has been public information since june 24. june 24. the only thing that's a little different about this underlying bill it's not as if this was airdropped out of heaven and showed up on people's desk. what is a little different is that senator hatch the chairman of the finance committee and other committee chairmen of the commerce committee e.p.w., the homeland security and governmental affairs committee have come up with a group of

pay-fors to figure a way to pay for three years now of this underlying six-year bill. so i think it's absolutely accurate to say that the good work being done by the environment and public works committee to pass a six-year bill, we will do that when this bill is passed. but we've only been able to agree on three years of pay-fors. i wish we could have gone longer but that's not bad considering our recent record with these temporary patches which i agree is a terrible way to do business. so i congratulate the senator from california for -- and those who have worked to make, make this bill as good as it is. but i want to make another point. there are others who are arguing that well, we shouldn't be doing this. we ought to be passing a temporary patch and then we ought to be doing international tax reform and trying to come up with some additional revenue out of that process that will pay for a six-year bill. well the fact of the matter is

nothing that we will do with this bill precludes that good work from going forward. and as a matter of fact, after three years of paying for this bill at some point we're going to have to find a way to recharge the bill in order to complete the work that was first started in the six-year bill, in the six-year underlying bill. i don't want anybody to be under the misconception because i think you might if you didn't know the context of thinking that all of a sudden this bill, this 1,000-page bill appeared on people's desks and they don't know where it came from and they don't know anything about its providence or what it will actually do. the truth is very, very different. it is important and i respect the fact as the senator from california has made the point people do need to get comfortable with the pay-fors. but what we tried to do is come up with credible ways to pay for the bill that really actually represents a consensus to pay for three years rather than do this idea of a six-month patch

and hope that somehow we'll come up with the money in december for a six-year bill. so while i regret this failed cloture vote, this bill does represent a significant step forward. i am encouraged by what i've seen in terms of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed us to make progress on a number of contentious matters so far this year. and i think -- thank the minority whip for his good work on this as well. we passed an education bill. we passed trade promotion authority, not universally popular on both sides but this was a priority for the president and i think something that represents a step forward for our economy opening up markets for the things that we raise and grow and the things we make in this country. and we've done a number of important things that i hope begin to regain the public's

trust and confidence that we are actually able to function, and even though we have very different ideas about how to get to a conclusion that we can actually find ways to find common ground so that we can make some progress. in my state in particular, texas being a large state the texas a&m transportation institute estimates that by the year 2020, 8.4 billion hours will be spent waiting in traffic. 8.4 billion hours. and of course that also means that four billion gallons of gas will be wasted in the process. can you imagine the pollution not to mention the heartburn associated with congestion on our highways and roadways?

we are thank goodness, a fast-growing state relative to the rest of the country. we're a big state. we need the transportation infrastructure to keep our economy moving and to create jobs and economic growth. so i'm confident we can work in a bipartisan manner to address this, what i hope is just a temporary obstacle and avoid these patches which kick the can down the road and provide no predictability or planning ability so that these long-term projects can be initiated and completed. i would just point out the fact that texas has not waited on the federal government in order to deal with its transportation needs. last november by an overwhelming four to one margin texans approved a ballot initiative that provided $1.7 billion additional to upgrade and

maintain our transportation network. i congratulate our leaders at the state level who have taken the initiative to begin to make that down payment on upgrading and maintaining our transportation network. but estimates are that we need as much as $5 billion in order to do that, so this represents just a down payment. so we need to pass the federal highway bill in order to complete our work. as i pointed out our state is currently about 27 million people and by 2040 it's estimated to reach as many as 45 million people. so we need this infrastructure, but we're not alone. we're not unique in that sense. every state needs the transportation infrastructure to keep people and goods moving in order to continue to grow our economy, because growing our economy creates jobs and opportunity. and the one thing we need in this country is a growing

economy. last year, 2014, the texas economy grew at 5.2%. the u.s. economy grew at 2.2%. and that's why because of that three-point differential we have created more jobs in texas or seen jobs created by the private sector, i should say than anywhere else in the country. and if we fail to pass a multiyear transportation bill, if we somehow decide to shoot ourselves in the foot here and fail in this important effort, we will have only ourselves to blame. and we will be contributing to the problem rather than contributing to the solution. but the resources provided for in this legislation will help relieve urban congestion, upgrade rural routes and improve the overall safety and efficiency of our highways. and it's something that our friends across the aisle just a few short weeks ago said they wanted. they said they were worried

about this impending deadline coming up where we needed to do something, and they were predicting perhaps we just have another patch. and they called for a longer-term highway bill. and so i would just urge our colleagues to say to take "yes" for an answer. thanked -- thanked to the good work done by senator hatch we've come up with enough money enough legitimate pay-fors to pass a three year transportation bill with the prospect if we can come up with additional funds through international tax reform, we can backfill the final three years and so nothing here actually precludes that effort. nothing cuts that off. but this is, i think, part of doing our basic job as members of the united states congress. it's not particularly attractive or sexy or interesting but it is about competence.

it's about doing our job. it's about putting the american people's interests first. so i hope tomorrow after our colleagues will have had a chance to satisfy themselves and understand the pay-fors in this bill recognizing that most of this information has been out there in the public domain for a long long time, i'm not asking them to like it. i'm not asking them to fall in love with the pay-fors. but i am asking them to let us go forward and to let the senate be the senate, to let people offer their ideas hopefully get votes on constructive suggestions but eventually to pass this legislation and send it over to the house where i predict if it comes out of the senate with a good, strong vote, our friends in the house will take it up and pass it and send it to the president. we will have fulfilled our responsibility. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president let me add my voice to the

bipartisan chorus. it is embarrassing to the united states of america that we are now in the midst of our 33rd short-term extension of the highway trust fund. this 60-day extension ends in 10 days and it's true. the senator from texas is correct. many of us have come to the floor and said this is beneath the dignity of a great nation that we cannot invest in our own, in our own economy in our own business growth. building the highways and bridges, the mass transit which sustains a great nation takes a determined long-term effort. now, there are those -- not on our side of the aisle -- but there are those who question whether the federal government should be involved in this at all this so-called devolution movement argues, i understand, that this really should be a state and local matter. get the federal government out of the business of planning the transportation grid for america. i have three words for those

people who believe that: dwight david eisenhower. a republican president who in the 1950's had the vision and determination, once he had seen the ought bonn in germany to say the united states of america needs an interstate highway system for its national defense and that's how he sold it. he sold it to a bipartisan congress and we have lived with that benefit ever since. our generation and those even before us have inherited the vision of that president and members of congress who said let us invest in a long-term development of america. think about your own home state and what interstate highways mean to your economy. in my state if you are a town lucky enough to live next to an interstate you're bound to have a good economy. and if you are blessed with the intersection of two interstates hold on tight the opportunities are limitless. so that generation 60 years ago

had a vision. the question is do we have a vision? we certainly don't with 60-day extensions of the highway trust fund. and that's why when senator mcconnell on the republican side offered a long-term approach three years -- i wish it were six -- but three years actually paid for, i believe we should take it seriously. and one senator among us, senator boxer did. as former chairman of the public works committee she started negotiating, crafting an agreement. how about this for an assignment. we said to senator boxer come up with a long-term highway trust fund bill, get it through four different committees to the satisfaction of at least a majority of the 45 other democratic senators, and work out your differences and report to us in ten days. well she did. and i have to give credit to her as big as this bill may be, and

by senate standards it's one of the larger ones, it was an undertaking she took seriously and we should take seriously, too. now that we have the bill there's no excuse. there's plenty of time to read this. don't believe that every word on every page is valuable but let's go through it carefully and make sure that we understand completely what we're doing before we vote. that was the cloture vote that we had earlier in the day. when i went home over this weekend and called leaders in my state, i called the c.e.o.'s of two major corporations, i called the labor unions, i called the chamber of commerces and they were over the moon and happy with the notion that we're finally going to come up with at least a three-year highway trust fund bill. i'll be reading this carefully. in the course of reading it, i hope that we can come to the conclusion that this is the right answer to move us forward to build our infrastructure for the next generation. mr. president, i ask that the

following statement be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: when president obama came to the office he looked out at the threats across america and there were four hard target threats -- russia, china north korea and iran. and the situation in iran was particularly worriysome because there was -- worrisome because there was a belief that iran was developing espn. i've heard critics say what difference what it make. how foolish would it be for iran to launch a nuclear weapon against anyone. every nuclear weapon that's launched has a return address. and that country will pay dearly for a reckless decision such as that. but the fear that the president had and we shared was that if iran developed a nuclear weapon in the middle east, it would

trigger an arms race. and many other countries in that volatile region of the world would then seek to develop their own espn and -- nuclear weapons and the con flog ration was incredible. there was also a concern one of the first targets of iran would be our close ally and friend, the nation of israel. it's easy to reach that conclusion when you read and hear the rhetoric of the right wing in iran, which will not even recognize israel's right to exist. and so president obama set out to do something about it. it was clear from our experience in iraq and afghanistan that sending in american troops was something that had to be thought about long and hard. we have the best military in the world but let's face it, what we faced in iraq with roadside bombs maimed and killed so many american soldiers that we realized that this new world of asymmetric confrontation didn't

guarantee that the best might in the world would have an easy time of it so we ended up with almost 5,000 casualties in iraq nearly 3,000 in afghanistan, and afghanistan turned out to be the longest war in united states history. so this president and the american people were reluctant to face another military confrontation. and so this president made a decision of. i've talked to him about it. he decided that every leader from every country that came in to see him would be asked to join in an effort to impose sanctions on iran to bring them to the negotiating table over the issue of their nuclear capability. the president put together an incredible coalition because we've learned long ago unilateral sanctions aren't worth much but if you can bring many nations around the world to common purpose in putting the pressure on a country it can have a positive impact. the coalition the president put

together was amazing. witness the negotiations themselves where china and russia were sit at the same side of the table as the united states and the european union england and france, and many other countries joined us in imposing these economic sanctions when they had little to gain and a lot to lose when it came to the oil resources of iran. so the president's determination to put the sanctions on iran was for the purpose of bringing them to the negotiating table. that diplomatic gathering would literally have been the first meeting in 35 years between iran and the united states. representing that period of time when our relationship with iran had reached its lowest possible point. and at this point the goal of the negotiation was very clear -- stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. how real was the threat of their

developing such a weapon? if you go back in time and read the quotes from the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu, for years, more than ten years he has been warning that the iranians were close to developing a nuclear weapon. it was a matter of weeks months a year at the most by most of his estimates. and of course israel, more concerned than most about the nuclear threat, warned the world of what would happen if iraq developed a nuclear weapon. last week after lengthy negotiations, the president announced with iran and the others that sat at the table p-5 plus 1 as they're known in short-hand that we had reached an agreement with iran. it was interesting to watch the reaction of members of congress. there were some members of congress to condemned that agreement before it was even released to the public.

you see, 47 members of the other side in the senate here had sent a letter to the ayatollah in iran during the course of negotiations before any agreement was reached warning him and his nation not to negotiate with this president of the united states. madam president, that was unprecedented. that had never happened before in american history. when a political party reached out to a sworn enemy of the united states and gave him advice not to speak to our leader. that letter went on to say that even if you think you've reached an agreement between iran and the united states, don't be misled. ultimately congress would have the last word on that agreement. so it was no surprise in that environment that so many senators and congressmen from the other side of the aisle instantaneously condemned this agreement. some of us decided to take a little time and perhaps reflect

on it, read it and reach out to people who were involved in it. i took last week to read the hundred-plus pages of this agreement, and to talk further to our nation's top experts consideration including the secretary of energy, ernest moniz, secretary of state john kerry, about this agreement. hoping i could understand exactly what was being offered by way of stopping iran from developing a nuclear weapon. i'm under no illusions about the iranian regime. its support for terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas is well documented its human rights record is well known and its suppression of its own people during the 2009 election in iran is well documented. iran continues to hold a number of americans on outrageous charges, including emir heck

hack maddie, and "the washington post" reporter jason rezaian. i joined a few years ago with republican senator gordon smith in introducing the iran counterproliferation act key components became the basis for the sanctions regime that helped to bring iran to the negotiating table. i voted for all the key sanctions bills against iran, and i've tried to be a consistent voice for increasing military assistance to israel when i chaired the defense appropriations subcommittee i was proud to double the iron dome funding request of israel for their own defense of their nation. the agreement before us is a comprehensive solution to the nuclear weapons issue with iran. without a nuclear weapon, it allows the u.s. and its allies to better deter iran's

destabilizing actions. now, let's take a reflective moment and look at the history recent history in the united states. strong leaders of nations such as the united states meet and talk to their enemies and negotiate when it's in their national interest. it was john kennedy who said we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. these kinds of negotiations aren't an example of weakness but in most cases of strength. and sometimes the benefits aren't obvious immediately they're realized over time. it's simply common sense and it's been the practice of this nation america for generations, regardless of who was president to meet and try to negotiate for a more peaceful world. throughout our history american leaders have successfully and aggressively used diplomacy. presidents of both political

parties. 1962 the cuban missile crisis. we faced the prospect of a nuclear war. a stand-off with a nation where we knew and they knew they had the capacity to detonate a nuclear weapon in the united states. few realized how close we came. there were many hawks in washington during president john kennedy's administration who said let's take them on. some even suggested a full invasion of cuba. but john kennedy wisely pursued a careful balance of strength and diplomacy using a blockade and negotiations to bring us back from the brink. few people knew that the kennedy administration was secretly negotiating with the soviets while the cuban missile crisis was unfolding and that ultimately president kennedy agreed to remove american nuclear armed jupiter missiles from turkey as part of an agreement with khrushchev to

remove soviet missiles from cuba. so are we going to say now in reflection that john kennedy should never have negotiated during this crisis because the soviets were out to destabilize the world and spread communism? let's not forget when john kennedy entered into this negotiation, the soviet union had not only placeed nuclear missiles in cuba, they were in the process of placing them, but it was occupying eastern europe and trying to spread communism around the world. the bloody korean war where my two brothers served in the u.s. navy was a war in which the soviets held the north koreans -- helped the north koreans against the united states. and yet we sat down and negotiated with the soviet union. fast forward a few years. in 1972, then president nixon traveled to communist red china to begin establishing normalized relations.

china wasn't a friend of the united states. it was a key supporter of the north vietnamese who were ruthlessly fightling and killing u.s. forces at the same time. in fact during nixon's visit then the premier of china said china was sending more weapons to the north vietnamese. this was happening even while nixon was asking china to end its support of the north vietnamese. china's regime was fomenting communist movements in indonesia and thailand all against u.s. interests. domestically in china now say tongue had brutalized his people as part of the cultural revolution. i realize it's hard to enter into negotiations with a regime as nefarious as china and just as with iran today many conservatives denounced republican president nixon for doing so.

however, as china's sphere of influence grew many in both parties, including president nixon recognized it was time to change. nelson rockefeller president nixon's rival in 1968 called for more contact and negotiations and it was vice president hubert humphrey a democrat who proposed building a bridge to the people of mainland china. then senator ted kennedy then recognized president nixon's efforts as a magnificent gesture. other members of the democrat-controlled congress agreed. you see there was a time when foreign policy was bipartisan. there was a time when democrats would speak up defending a republican president even when the most conservative members of his own party were condemning him. over time, president nixon's decision paid dividends in america's interests. china moderated its foreign policy and established better relations with our country.

these relations aren't perfect but we know that we made progress and we are in negotiation and china sat with us on the same side of the table trying to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. more recently in the late 1980's , president ronald reagan began discussions with soviet leader mikhail gorbachev. it was unconceivable when the talks started in october of 1986 that they could really negotiate. who would imagine that these two countries, the united states and the soviet union with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at one another could sit down and reach an agreement limiting the use of nuclear weapons. the cold war was far from over at that time. in 1979 soviet forces invaded afghanistan and continued to attempt to spread communism and led president carter to halt negotiations to the salt 2 arms

limitation treaty. the list of aggression of the soviet iewp was -- soviet union was long at that time and yet it was president reagan who said he would sit down and negotiate with the soviet union. this is from the 1988 "new york times" about the opposition ronald reagan faced in negotiating an arms agreement with the soviet union. it may sound familiar to what you're hearing today about president obama's efforts in iran. and i quote -- "already, right-wing groups have mounted a strong campaign against the i.n.f. treatyment they have mailed out to close to 300,000 letters opposing it. they've circulateed 5,000 cassette recordings of general bernard rogers, former supreme commander of the north atlantic treaty organization, attacking it. and they're preparing to run newspaper ads this month savaging ronald reagan as a new nevill chamberlain and promoting

peace in our time." these were conservative republican critics of president ronald reagan who was negotiating with the soviet union to try to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. being likened to nevill chamberlain. sound familiar? the conservative national review magazine in may of 1987 had a cover with the title "reagan's suicide pact." president reagan eventually agreed but then secretary of state schultz -- with then- secretary of state schultz that arms control would and improve national security. in december of 1987, reagan and gorbachev signed the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty of, comightd the two super-- committing the two superpowers to eliminate all our conventional and ground-launched comistles with ranges of -- missiles with ranges of 50 to 500 meters.

this was the first on-site negotiations for verification. do you know who coined the phrase "trust but verify"? it was op ronald reagan in his negotiations with the soviet union. it took five months after this agreement was reached for this chamber to vote 93-5 in favor of that treaty at a time when the democrats had a majority. i could go through the long list of democratic senators who supported president ronald reagan in his efforts to try to create a more peaceful world. ultimately, because of that agreement, more than 2,000 short, medium and intermediate-range missiles were destroyed. our relationship with the soviet union didn't improve overnight and we certainly still have our problems with them today. but going back to what i said earlier, the russians sat on the same side of the table in the united states in this negotiation for this agreement to delay the threat of nuclear

power, nuclear weapons in iran. mr. president, imagine if 47 senators during the course of ronald reagan's negotiation with gorbachev, if 47 senators had written in the middle of those negotiations to mr. gorbachev and said, ignore president build ronald reagan don't negotiate with him because we're not going to accept it here in congress. there would have been cries of treason for sending that kind of letter. it didn't happen. those were the days when there was a bipartisan approach to foreign policy in the united states. so today we have a chance and an opportunity with iran what hasn't presented itself for more than 30 years. the opportunity to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it's not going to solve all the problems with iran overnight but it does solvable one critical one -- the agreement retains u.s. freedom of action to counter iran any part of the

world. after all ronald reagan didn't stop trying to counter soviet actions after negotiating an arms treaty with gorbachev. president obama will not and should not stop working to if diminish iran's influence after this agreement. mr. president, i'm under no illusions that for some period, iran did pursue a nuclear bomb. if that had happened, it would have been disastrous. and i'm under no illusions that iran lied in the past about these efforts. i know they did. but the agreement reached last week provides unprecedented safeguards and inspections to prevent iran from building nuclear weapons now or in the future. the united states and its allies are strong enough to enter into this agreement not because iran is suddenly trustworthy or an open democracy but because it serves our national security interests to do it. secretary of state john kerry secretary of energy ernie meniz under secretary of state wendy sherman negotiated this

agreement with a single focus -- prevent iran from getting any closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. they achieved that goal. and that's why i'm supporting this effort by the president to bring a more stable and peaceful situation to the middle east. to appreciate the magnitude of their challenge let's step back and take stock of iran's nuclear weapons program as it is today before this agreement goes in place. iran currently has enough nuclear material to make 10 nuclear weapons. it has more than 19,000 centrifuges, many of which are more advanced and powerful. immediately prior to the interim agreement with p-5 plus 1 iran was enriching its you're uranium to 20%. the breakout time for iran to develop a nuclear weapon was an estimated three months. it was an incredibly large and dangerous nuclear capability growing at a significant rate. virtually unconstrained. that's what this president

inherited from the previous administration. but thanks to this effort, this agreement cuts off every single one of iran's potential pathways to a bomb. it shrinks major portions of their nuclear infrastructure. it eliminates many parts of it. it extends the breakout time to at least one year. should iran renege on this and decide they're going forward with a nuclear weapon, we believe that under this agreement, it will take them at least air -- least a year to achieve it, a year in which we can put pressure and more, if necessary. the agreement reduces iran's uranium stockpile by 98% cuts its number of centrifuges by more than two years and caps enrichment at 6.7%. it prevents fordhow from being used for uranium enrichment. they have to change the heavy water reactor at iraq so it can no longer produce weapons-grade

plutonium. how will we know? we're designing a way to monitor fuel in and out of this facility and verifying it every step of the way. all of us have deep suspicions about iran's nuclear ambitions as we should. what if they twrie to build a -- try to build a secret facility? well our negotiating team designed a verification plan with no exits led by an extraordinary man, secretary of energy moniz our team thought long and hard over the last two years about how we might be able to stop cheating. for every potential technique they embedded a countermeasure in the text of the agreement. this week, secretary moniz explained it would be -- quote -- "virtually impossible" to hide nuclear activities under this agreement. it's the strongest nuclear verification system ever imposed on a peaceful nation. its end result is that iran will not be able to do anything of significance without being caught and going back to ronald reagan our inspectors will be

on the ground. i ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: this agreement requires the iaea have 24/7 access to all of iran's declared nuclear facility. this means in-person inspectors, remote cameras tamper-proof seals, all the world's most sophisticated detection technology. as one nuclear expert commented last week, if a rat enters a nuclear facility in iran, we will know it. critically, this intrusive monitoring goes all the way in to the nuclear supply chain from uranium mines to centrifuge production. we cover it all in this agreement. i see the senator from south dakota is here and i'll wrap up by putting the rest of this in the record. but let me conclude, when i sat down to read this agreement and i don't know how many of my colleagues have, i was struck on the third page with this statement in the agreement with iran.

iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek develop or acquire any nuclear weapon. that's quite a statement. it was our goal at this negotiation. do i believe it? some. but i have my doubts. that's why we had to have an inspection regime. from the uranium mines right through the production facilities. that's why we had to dramatically cut back on their capacity to build weapons-grade fuel. and that's why this agreement is now most of the countries believe moving us in the right direction in iran. there are critics. we've heard ate lot of them here in the -- we've heard a lot of them here in the senate. there isn't a single critic whose stepped up with a better idea. they say oh, let's go back to the sanctions regime. the countries that joined us in sanctions did it to bring iran to the negotiating table and it worked. they now have an agreement that they believe in and we should believe in too.

to think that we're going to renew sanctions or unilateral sanctions that to me is something not likely to occur if iran lives up to the terms of this agreement. and let me add the other alternative. we know the cost of war. we know it in human lives. we know it in the casualties that return. we know it in the cost to the american people. given a choice between the invasion of iran or working in a diplomatic fashion toward a negotiation so that we can lessen this threat and the -- in the world, i think president obama made the right choice. i support this administration's decision to go forward with this agreement. i'll be adding my vote to many in the senate in the hopes that we can see a new day dawning. in the hopes too that like president nixon like president reagan even like other presidents before us who have sat down to negotiate with our enemies, at the end of the day

we'll be a safer and stronger nation because of it. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i want to speak about the iranian nuclear agreement in just a moment but before i do that i would like to briefly talk about the legislation that's before us on the floor and that's the reauthorization of the highway bill which is something that we have to do on a fairly regular basis around here. every so many years the authority to spend out of the highway trust fund expires and we can't fund the infrastructure needs that our country has in terms of roads and brings, construction and maintenance and all those things that are so important to our competitive economy. and we have an opportunity this week to do something that hasn't been done around here in a long time and that is fund a multiyear highway bill. and the reason that's important is because people who rely upon

highway funding that comes through the highway trust fund need to be able to make plans. state departments of transportation those who are involved in the construction, contractors, all the people who are involved the jobs that are associated with -- with this process need the certainty that comes with a long-term bill. and we have seen now -- i was told today that it's been 33 now short-term extensions in the last few years since the last long-term highway bill was passed i think somewhere back around the 2005 time program. i was a part of that. i was a member of the environment and public works committee at the time. i worked on highway bills as recently -- or i should say as far back as my days in the house of representatives when i served on the transportation and infrastructure committee. this is something that we here have to do on a regular basis if we're going to ensure that we have a competitive infrastructure in this country suitable to moving people and

goods in a way that keeps our economy moving forward and growing. and that's why in my view, when we have an opportunity here to get a multiyear bill, we shouldn't pass on it. if we continue to pass six-month and year extensions all we're simply doing is kicking the can down the road. and i would say that 33 short-term extensions is not a very good way to run a railroad and it's certainly not a very good way to run a highway program. so i know there are going to be differences. the committee that i chair the commerce committee was involved with marking up the portions of the bill, the highway bill, that pertain to highway safety and some railroad provisions and other things that would be included in this bill. we worked on that through the weekend and i think addressed many of the concerns that members on both sides had to wear i feel very good about where that part of the bill is. and then i've worked as a member of the finance committee on trying to find ways to pay for this. but if we can get a multiyear bill in place that provides the certainty, the predictability the reliability that we need in

our highway funding process in this country, it would be a very good thing. of and as we all know, it is incredibly important to economic growth, to jobs and the certainty that comes with a long-term bill is something that we all ought to strive for. so i hope notwithstanding the differences that exist here and the vote that we had earlier that tomorrow when we take this legislation up again that we'll get the votes necessary to proceed to the bill and begin to move forward with that process in hopes that we can get something to the house that they might be able to act on and actually put on the president's desk and get at least to the foreseeable future this issue dealt with so we don't have to come back and do this every six months or every three months or whatever those 33 extensions have consisted of the past few years. mr. president, former president jimmy carter was recently asked about president obama's successes on the world stage. he said in response, "i think they've been minimal. on the world stage just to be as

objective about it as i can i can't think of many nations in the burled where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over." he went on to say, "if you look at russia if you look at england, if you look at china if you look at egypt and so forth, i'm not saying it's his fault, but we've not improved our relationship with individual countries, and i would say that the united states' influence and prestige and in the world is probably lower than it was six years ago." that's jimmy carter describing current president obama's foreign policies. unfortunately, that's an accurate assessment of president obama's rocky history on foreign policy. mr. president, last week's deal with iran does not look likely to improve the president's record of minimal success on the world stage. last week the administration announced that the united states along with five other nations had reefed an agreement with iran that the administration claims will prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the contents of the agreement

however, were met with skepticism and concern from a number of quarters. former senator and democratic presidential candidate jim webb said that the deal sends a signal that "we the united states are accepting eventuality that they were acquire a nuclear weapon." end quote. senior senator from new jersey said "the bottom line is the deal doesn't end iran's nuclear program. it preserves it." end quote. "the washington post" noted that tehran fought for and won some troubling compromises on inspections, especially considering iran's record of violations. the "post" also pointed out what many republicans have noted that "mr. obama settled for terms far sthort of those he originally settled for." israel, the only functioning democracy in the middle east, called this deal an historic mistake and neighboring countries like saudi arabia expressed concern that this agreement may actually increase the threat iran poses to their

security. then of course there was iran's reaction. iran's president hailed the agreement while iranian supreme leader ayatollah khomeini praised negotiators. lest anyone think this marks a softening of iran's attitude toward the u.s., khomeini emphasized that "our policy toward the arrogant u.s. government won't change at all." end quote. echoing the chance coming from the people he statuted, "you heard death to israel. death to the u.s. we ask almighty god to accept these prayers by the people of iran." end quote. mr. president, these are not the wordswords of a rival partner. these are the words of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. mr. president, there's good reason to be concerned about this agreement. this deal not only fails to provide assurance that iran will

not acquire a nuclear weapon, it may enhance iran's chances of acquiring a bovment this deal fails to ensure any adequate measure of dealing that iran is complying with the agreement. iran has a history of building nuclear facilities in secret. the enrichment facility at ford hoe which will remain in -- the fact is iran cannot be relied on to follow the outlines and agreement means that verification specifically any time anywhere inspections of suspicious sites is an essential part of any credible deal. but the final deal that emerged doesn't come close to ensuring any time, anywhere inspections. it does provide for 24/7 inspections of iran's currently known nuclear sites but it forces inspectors to request access to any other site that

they deem suspicious. iran can refuse requests and appealing those refusals could take close to a month leaving the iranians plenty of time to hide evidence of suspicious activity. mr. president, forcing iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure and halt uranium enrichment would have provided some is assurance that iran's quest for a bottom had been halted. but the nuclear agreement the administration helped reach doesn't require iran to dismantle any of its nuclear infrastructure. the agreement does not require iran to take some of its centrifuges oche off -- the agreement does require iran to take some of its seine pri fuges off-line but they don't have to be removed or dis-manhattan the. simply put into so forth. the agreement also allows iran to continue enriching uranium. while it prohibits iran enriching uranium to the level for nuclear production, the level is at a value considering that iran retains the equipment and production capacity it would need to build a bomb.

mr. president, i haven't even meninged other areas of concern with this agreement. in exchange for iran's agreeing to supposedly stop its effort to acquire a nuclear weapon, billions of dollars in iranian assets will be unfrozen and the sanctions that have crippled the iranian economy will be lifted. right now despite its struggling economy, iran manages to provide funding and other support to syria's oppressive government, to hezbollah and lebanon, had a mas in the gaza strip to the hewittty rebels and the shia rebels. it is not hard to imagine what it will do with the billions of dollars it will gain access to under this agreement. the deal negotiators reach with iran will also expand iranian access to intercontinental ballistic missiles which are generally used as a vehicle for delivering for nuclear weapons. while the deal does temporarily extend restrictions on the import of these weapons it does so for just five years in the

case of conventional weapons and for just eight years in the case of ballistic missiles. that means that in as few as eight years iran will be able to purchase a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. obviously there is a lot to be concerned about when it comes this to this deal and after the agreement was released last week both democrats and republicans expressed their desire to closely examine its provisions and hear from members of the administration. so what did the president do? he declared that the agreement was a triumph of diplomacy and took immediate action to send the bill to the united nations for a vote. that's right. the president didn't wait to hear from members of congress and the american people. he just went ahead and asked the united nations for its approval. in other words the president unilaterally committed the united states to supporting the deal without knowing whether the united states congress or the american people are in favorite

agreement. this is especially disappointing considering that just two and a half months ago democrats and republicans in the senate voted overwhelmingly to require that the president submit full details of any nuclear agreement to congress before it could be agreed to. the president signed this legislation, the iran nuclear agreement review act into law on may 22. but apparently he feels free to ignore the spirit if not the letter of the act. the word emerged that the president was going to send the resolution directly to the u.n. without waiting for the congress and american people weem to weigh in. both republicans and democrats asked the president to hold off. democrats who requested the president wait to submit the agreement including the lead democratic on the senate foreign relations committee who characterized the white house's decision as "somewhat presumptuous." and the democrat whip in the house of representatives who said, "i believe that waiting to go to the united nations until such time as congress has acted would be consistent with the intent and substance of the nuclear agreement review act."

circumventing elected members of congress to gain the u.n.'s approval before congress has had a chance to review the agreement suggests that the president has a higher regard for the united nations' opinion than for the opinion of the american people. mr. president, president obama is apparently betting on the chance that in ten years' time iran's views toward the rest of the world will have changed and it will no longer be seeking death to israel and america or furthering terrorism in the middle east. it's a nice notion, but nothing in iran's history of terrorism violence and deceit suggest that it's a scenario that's likely to come to pass. and if it doesn't happen as a result of this agreement iran will be a much better position to develop a nuclear weapon than it is today as even the supporters of this deal acknowledge. not to mention that iran will be in a position to purchase the missiles necessary to deliver nuclear weapons to locations in

the middle east. and beyond. mr. president, during negotiations on this deal, it became obvious that the president was determined to make reaching an agreement with iran his legacy. it is possible that he will get his wish, but it may not be the legacy that he wanted. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. white house quhows in that case, may i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted and that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator is recognized for 20 minutes. mr. whitehouse: thank you

mr. president. as you know, since you've had to suffer through a considerable number of them, this is the 107th time that i have come to the floor to urge my colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. all over the united states state by state by state, we are already seeing the real effects of carbon pollution. we see it in atmosphere, our oceans our weather in habitats and species and the american people see it. two-thirds of americans including half of republicans favor government action to reduce global warming. and two-thirds, including half of republicans, would be more likely to vote for a candidate who campaigns on fighting climate change. polling from florida atlantic university shows that more than

73% of u.s. hispanics a pretty key voting block think global warming is a serious problem. 62% of republican hispanics are concerned about this. and i've said this before, if you ask republican voters under the age of 35, they will tale you that climate denial is out of touch ignorant, or crazy. those are the words they selected in the poll. not my words. so we might expect republican presidential hopefuls to incorporate climate change in their campaign platforms. we might expect the republican candidates to address this problem in an honest and straightforward manner. but we would be wrong. what have we seen from the republican presidential hopefuls? these candidates avoid any

serious talk of climate change, even as their own home states face climate and ocean disruptions. so in the weeks ahead, i will a he take a look at the -- i'll take a look at the republican presidential candidates on climate change and what's up in their home states. today i'll look at florida home to 20 million americans including two of the top republican presidential candidates. a swing state with 29 electoral votes, florida is a major political prize and florida is also ground zero for climate change. with over 1,200 miles of coastline, florida is uniquely vulnerable, for instance, to sea level rise.

so what do florida's two republican presidential candidates have to say about climate change? well it seems they're not sure. i don't think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. it's convoluted says former florida governor jeb bush. there's never been a moment where the climate is not changing says florida's junior senator. the question is, what percentage of that is due to human activity? well scientists tell us that warming is unequivocal. that's a strong word for scientists to use unequivocal. and that human activity is the dominant cause of the changes that we have seen. indeed the only plausibly valid

explanation. the only plausibly valid explanation. both presidential hopefuls from florida have invoked the now-classic denial line, i'm not a scientist. well good thing then, that we're not elected to be scientists. we are elected to listen to them. and if these two floridians were listening to their own best scientists they'd learn a lot. in fact, 42 scientists from florida colleges and universities wrote an open letter to florida state officials. it is crucial for policymakers to understand, they wrote that human activity is affecting the composition of the

atmosphere which will lead to adverse effects on human economies, health, and well-being. human activity is affecting the composition of the atmosphere, which will lead to adverse effects on human economies health and well-being. not so convoluted after all. the letter continued the problem of climate change is not a hypothetical. thousands of scientists have studied the issue from a variety of angles and disciplines over many decades. those of us signing this statement have spent hundreds of years combined studying this problem not from any partisan political perspective but as scientists seekers of evidence and explanations. as a result we feel uniquely qualified to assist policymakers in finding solutions to adapt

and mitigate, so we can protect the people of this state and their enterprise and their property. end quote. so it's okay if we're not scientists. the scientists are there to help. they've offered to. and they understand this. why all my senate -- while my senate colleague is unsure about his own home state climate science, he seems quite certain about the economics of policies to curb carbon pollution like cap-and-trade. i can tell you why certainty he has said, it would have a devastating impact on our economy. well, i would suggest that the senator from florida take a closer look at his facts because his position on these two issues

boils down to wrong and wronger. i know this because my home state is one of nine northeastern states that require utilities to buy carbon emission allowances. we're actually doing it. the proceeds are directed back into the local economy through things like energy efficiency investments and renewable energy projects and we have the results. the results are in. just from 2012 to 2014, the program generated $1.3 billion in economic benefits for new england. and it saved consumers over $400 million in energy costs. this climate solution was a boost to the economy and --

and it cut carbon carbon dioxide emissions in the region by a quarter. mr. president, the republican candidates from florida are running against the facts and they're running against the opinions of experts and local leaders in their own home state. in a june 19 editorial the "the sun sentinel" praised pope francis' encyclical on climate change called" to swift action" because of the threat climate change poses to south florida. the editors wrote this -- "the pope's declaration puts pressure on the candidates because they are floridians and because they aspire to be national leaders." the editors continued "the editors who aspire to be

inclusive, effective leaders cannot see science through a political lens." that's "the sun sentinel." archbishop toms betweensky of the archdiocese of miami explained pope francis' message to "the miami herald." but the pope -- what the hope is saying is let's talk about this the archbishop said, and that requires whether you're democrat or republican or left or right, it requires that you transsend your -- transcend your particular ideological lens and look at it from the common good. that's archbishop wensky. that common good is imperilled by climate change. south florida has seen almost

one foot of sea level rise in the last 100 years. southeast florida has a southeast florida regional climate compact a bipartisan coalition, republicans and democrats, of four south florida counties. those four south florida counties predict that the waters around southeast florida could surge up to another two feet in less than 50 years. mr. president, our children will live to see that. i visited florida on my climate tour last year and i heard firsthand about the threats climate change poses to the sunshine state from glen landers, senior engineer at the u.s. army corps of engineers everglades division. engineer landers has worked on water resources and restoration

projects in florida for nearly 20 years. this is the map he used to show me what just two feet of sea level rise means for south florida. what it means for south florida is there's a lot less of south florida above water. florida's home to some of the country's top universities and research institutions. the florida climate institute is a network of scientists and research programs from eight universities including the university of florida florida state, the university of miami, the florida climate institute is dedicated to -- quote -- "climate research and service of society." these are some of florida's brightest minds recognizing businesses and communities' need for use of data and solutions

based on florida's unique characteristics, the florida climate institute publishes research to help improve understanding of the increasing climate variability in florida. if florida's leaders respond responsibly to the changing climate, writes the group -- and i quote -- "florida is well positioned to become a center of excellence for climate change research and education and a test bed for innovations in climate adaptation." well responsible officials in florida are already taking action. my friend, the senior senator from florida took the senate commerce committee to miami beach town hall to examine the dangers posed there by rising seas. here is what "the miami herald"

said about senator nelson's efforts to raise awareness about the threat to his state. south florida owes senator nelson its thanks for shining a bright light on this issue. everyone from local residents to elected officials should follow his lead, turning awareness of this major environmental issue into action. it is critical -- critical -- to saving our region. end quote, "the miami herald". in fort lauderdale, mayor noah siler is working with county officials and the south florida planning council to protect his community from flooding and climate change. yet on climate change florida's own presidential candidates have

got nothing zero, no plan. miami beach mayor phillip levine showed me the huge pumps his city has installed to pump out the floodwaters that come in on high tides from the rising seas and with storms. each pump can move 14,000 gallons of water per minute. imagine that. but florida's presidential candidates have no plan. mayor of monroe county, sylvia murphy a republican, has put climate and energy policy at the heart of her 20-year growth plan for the county. why? her county covers all of the florida keys, and some of the everglades. she's going to lose a lot of it

if we don't get ahead of this. and she also sees what's happening to her reefs off shore. despite the overwhelming consensus of scientists in their own state florida's republican presidential candidates have got nothing. the junior senator from florida even suggested we should wait for china to take action before we address this problem. mr. president, the junior senator from florida on foreign policy has spoken often about the need for american leadership on issues of global importance, saying, for instance, america must continue to hold this torch of peace and liberty. earlier this year jeb bush echoed that sentiment saying american leadership, projected consistently and grounded in principle, has been a benefit to the world. well fine words but where's

their leadership on climate change? they got nothing. it is our responsibility as a great nation to set an example for others to follow. not to sit back and wait for others to act. failing to act on climate change would both dim our own national torch and give other nations an excuse for delay. failure with the stakes this high becomes an argument for our enemies against our very model of government. as pope francis said, the world will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility. we will own that, mr. president. the question is, why republican

presidential candidates continue to refuse to engage on climate change. they ignore their onancock home state universities, they ignore their home state mayors, local officials. they ignore their home state engineers. why? why, when the evidence is so plain? why the pretense that climate solutions are bad for the economy, when actual experience proves that's not true, why the pretense? why can't they credibly speak about america's responsibility to lead? why would they have us ignore one of the most pressing national and global issues of our time. all i can hope mr. president for their sake and for ours, is that they soon wake up. i yield the floor.

mr. perdue: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: i ask to speak for

up to five minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president five years ago today president obama signed into law the dodd-frank act. following the 2008 financial crisis, washington passed the 2,300-page bill creating more burdensome regulations that cannot solve the cries and in the many ways made it worse. we're going to hear a lot about the failures of the dodd-frank act over the next few years. what was intended to rein in five major banks who led us into trouble in the 2008 crisis, the unintended consequences today are affecting thousands of small town and regional banks across our country. i rise today to speak about one agency created by the dodd-frank law, the consumer financial protection bureau or the cfpb. while many americans may not have heard of the cfpb before, they will in the future.

this agency touches every aspect of people's lives from credit card records mortgage applications, student loan loans, car sales and much more. the cfpb seemingly knows more about american consumers than we do about the very agency that is supposed to be protecting us. according to a report by the government accounting office, every month the cfpb scrubs data on all credit card transactions all debit card transactions all consumer mortgage loans all car loans and hundreds of thousands of other personal financial information. this leads to several questions mr. president. why are they collecting this information in the first place? how does collecting credit card statements help protect consumers? how secure is all this data? unfortunately, we know very little about what the cfpb is doing with all of this sensitive information except looking for additional opportunities to

regulate. remember before 2009, we already had six prudential regulators mandated among other things to protect the consumer. and yet as a result of 2008, instead of streamlining and consolidated we actually added a seventh prudential regulator charged with consumer protection the cfpb. today the cfpb operates on top of the existing regulators and in addition to not in place of these regulators who are already doing their best at duplicating efforts among these other agencies. by design, is dodd franken insured that the cfpb doesn't have the same oversight controls as other agencies. currently the congress doesn't have control over how the bureau spends its funds or even is appropriated. the cfpb operates outside the very appropriations process of congress which other independent agencies like the securities

and exchange commission, the federal trade commission consumer protection and safety commission and others are all subject to. why would any government agency with access to that much consumer data be unaccountable to congress? recently i introduced legislation to help shed more light on this agency and bring the cfpb under the appropriations process of the u.s. congress. the sheer volume of consumer data being collected by the cfpb is concerning and ripe for abuse. in fact, with the g.a.o. and the federal reserve inspector general both have warned about the need for increased security. without full congressional oversight how can we be sure that consumer data is secure? what kind of records does the cfpb keep? how would we know if it's been compromised? we already have seen the devastating effects of data breaches all over our federal government and the damage it's

doing to the american people. across all sectors of our government, including the most recent o.p.m. data breach impacting millions of americans and some of our intelligence assets abroad, we've seen the potential exposure of extremely national security sensitive information. also, we recently had a debate about privacy regarding the n.s.a. metadata program. many of my colleagues expressed outrage for the scope of the n.s.a. program even when the mission was protecting national security. we're now talking about an agency collecting massive amounts of personal consumer data, many times more data than the n.s.a. programs. while the cfpb's goal claims to be consumer protection for all we know this information they're collecting is even more susceptible to security threats and security breaches. if there's one thing we can agree upon, we need to make sure all americans' personal information is safe and secure especially from washington.

if we were upset about privacy in the n.s.a. debate, we should certainly be paying attention to what the cfpb is doing with this personal information today r. getting the cfpb under congressional oversight should not be a partisan issue mr. president. in order to protect consumers we need to know what's going on in the very government agency tasked with protecting them. that's why we need to put in place more transparency not less. more controls, more oversight. what we can start -- we can start by bringing the cfpb under congressional oversight immediately so we can actually protect consumers and stop the potential for abuse fraud or identity theft while this agency was originally designed to protect consumers one can only wonder how washington collecting so much personal information will actually protect them. mr. president, i'll be speaking much more on this topic as the

weeks go by. let its said tonight though -- sthie let it -- let it be said tonight though, that on the fifth anniversary of dodd-frank, we're beginning to see the unintended consequences of this rogue agency, the cfpb. i yield my time. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: first i'd like to thank the senator from georgia for his outstanding comments. he is truly a great addition to this body and to the budget committee where i've watched him go through numbers. i once mentioned that he knew how to balance a budget because he'd been in business before at which point he corrected me and said in business, you don't get to just balance the budget. and he's very, very correct on that. and we're at a point where we can't afford to just balance the budget. we've got to start paying down some of the debt if we expect our kids to ever be able to afford the interest. so i thank him for his comments and i'm going to pile on with some more comments about some of those same things. i want to talk about what i've

talked about several times over the past five years and that's the dodd-frank act which passed this body five years ago today july 21, 2010. this mammoth bill which totaled 2,300 pages has five years later led to many thousands of pages of rules and regulations. it's estimated that only 238 of the 390 rule makings required by the law have been completed. millions of pages and we still only have 238 of 390 rule making s that 2,300-page bill required theoretically then, tens of thousands more pages of regulations can be expected in the coming years. regulations that do not fix too-big-to-fail, regulations that unduly burden our community banks and our credit unions. regulations that cover a host of

industries that didn't contribute to the financial crisis and compromised -- and it does compromise the privacy of americans. i'd like to take this opportunity to expand on these ideas. first of all i'd like to point out that i actually read the whole bill. i read it, i highlighted it, i put in colored tabs in different sections so i could refer to them easily and then i talked it my colleagues and i spoke on the floor to raise concerns about the bill roping in industries that didn't cause the financial crisis. about the fact that it didn't fix too-big-to-fail and i raised a real raucous about the creation of the consumer financial protections bureau known as the cfpb when they're just trying to gloss over it, and its ability to clengt the -- collect the financial information of american citizens without their consent. i filed a simple amendment that would have required this consumer financial protection bureau to obtain written permission from consumers before collecting their information.

and, of course, my amendment was not allowed a vote and now the cfpb is collecting massive amounts of personal financial data. so here we are five years later and the hindsight is proving that many of the concerns i raised during the consideration of this bill were valid. i've often said that knee-jerk reactions to legislative form have a very real danger of overcorrecting and causing a myriad of problems. in fact, some people say that if it's worth reacting to, it's worth overreacting to and that's exactly what happened here. and we did it through a comprehensive bill. 2,300 pages. i don't like comprehensive bills the purpose of comprehensive bills is so that they're uncomprehensible so that people can't understand them. the best way to legislate is to take things in logical pieces and solve that problem in a way that all of america can come along with it and understand.

those problems are unintended consequences when they're in comprehensive bills why correspondence and conversation with folks from wyoming over the years, i've said that i treat all legislation the same -- i read it and i consider both intended and what might be unintended consequences of the legislation. what i'm here to talk about today are some of the consequences of the dodd-frank act after five years. first, the too-big-to-fail question. the dodd-frank act was supposed to make it so american taxpayers would according to president obama -- quote -- "never again be asked to foot the bill for wall street mistakes. there will be no more tax-funded bailouts period." dodd-frank increased capital requirements it increased liquidity requirements and it's been adding rules and new regulations steadily for the last five years. folks who support the law would say all those things are good things and make for a more secure financial sector. however, one of the contributors to too-big-to-fail was the

consolidation of banks in the financial industry, a by-product of which has the reduction of the number of smaller community banks that serve small business owners families, farmers and ranches they're the people who actually know their customers. now, thanks to the massive amount of rules and regulations the dodd-frank act has resulted in the compliance costs for community banks and credit unions has gone up significantly and increased the likelihood of consolidation. that fails the consumer. smaller community banks struggle to keep up with the flow of regulations and compliance costs for example since the passage of dodd-frank, the average compliance costs for larger institutions is about 12% of operating costs. ha for community banks the cost to comply with the same regulations a one-size-fits-all approach, is 2 1/2 times greater, or 30%, of the operating costs. that's a big bite.

i was visiting some of these community banks and listened to them talk about the different regulations they now had to comply with and one them had made this magnificent chart so that all of their loan officers both could follow along and make sure they got all the parts of the procedure that this law had in regulation at that time. now, they had to hire a compliance officer as well. they've been able to handle that part themselves before. but after they explained all this to me, i said, now let's see. my wife would kind of like to expand the kitchen in our house. we've added on to it once before and if i wanted to get a loan from you, how long would it take me to get the loan? i said, i've got a house in gillette and i've got a house in d.c. and i've gotten both of them paid for. so we really don't have any outstanding debt. how long would that take? they said, a minimum of 77 days. and then, of course, there would have to be an extra week so that if you decided it wasn't a good

deal, you could -- you could undo the loan. hmm. let's see, i wanted the loan, i wanted it 77 days before. i had to wait that look and then there's a week for it. but here's another little kicker that's in the bill. the consumer financial protection bureau has up to 150 days to tell me that i made a bad loan and cancel it. hopefully the construction would already be started by that time. well i remember when i wanted to do that addition on the house i went to my banker. and i explained to him what i wanted to do. and it took me a whole day to get that loan. a whole day. now it's going to take 77 days plus one week and then i guess we have to wait 150 days to see if the consumer financial protection bureau is going to decide that they know better than me. my state of wyoming is one of the most rural in the country. we had mostly community banks in wyoming and i can attest that every visit i've had with

bankers in wyoming since this law was passed has one main constant -- we're being crushed under the weight of these regulations and we're having to make tough choices about the services we provide. some of these banks are starting to consolidate with larger banks and become branches. credit unions aren't faring any better. according to the national association of federal credit unions, more than 1,250 credit unions have disappeared since the passage of dodd-frank. of that number over 90% had fewer than $100 million in assets and the number-one reason they give for having to merge out of the business is the inability to keep up with the regulatory burden they face. this is an unacceptable consequence of the dodd-frank law and one folks on both sides of the aisle should be apauled by. -- appalled by. now, equally appalling maybe more appalling, is the power of the dodd-frank act afforded to the agency it created that the senator from georgia just talked about the consumer financial

protection bureau or the cfpb. now, this is an agency that really doesn't come under our jurisdiction. it actually works under the federal reserve and gets i think it's up to 12% of the revenues of the federal reserve now plus inflation. they'll get up to 15% plus inflation. we have no say over that. they don't report to us in any way, shairntion or form. this agency that is grown to every 1,450 employees. it has a facility whose office's renovation budget has spiraled over $216 million. and faces almost no accountability to congress. i don't have enough time allotted to talk about all the activities of the cfpb, but make no mistake this agency's reach has increased exponentially over the past five years to the point where it's now taking enforcement actions covering

telecommunications companies and has broad understand its authority over the auto industry which was specifically exempted from the cfpb in the dodd-frank bill. let me tell you how that happened. i did a lot of speeches higher on the floor. the first section was about banks. the third was about this new consumer protection bureau that wasn't going to have any control by anybody. and i found that little paragraph in there that said that they have the ability to cancel a loan up to 150 days after the bank and the person or whoever they're borrowing the money from and person receiving the money agree to the loan. they can cancel it. i pointed that out in speeches. one group of people listened to me. it was the automobile dealers. the automobile dealers flooded washington with lobbyists and they got an exclusion in the bill for automobile loans. that's the only exclusion in there.

of course they're being retaliated on now for that, and i'll talk about that in just a minute too. now, the cfpb issues a final rule on june 10 that would allow it to supervise nonbank companies qualifying as larger participants of a market for automobile financing. along with a separate rule defining certain auto leases as a financial product or service. what does this mean? it means the cfpb has expanded its oversight powers by saying, oh yes auto leases are a financial product. we don't like what they did to us. it is a service and we're allowed to regulate those. so we'll just increase our level of oversight over this industry. in fact, they've even taken a look at some of the loans that have been resold by automobile dealers and said, those were discriminatory because they weren't the same. when you go to the bank to sell a loan, you don't get the same deal every day so that's really not discrimination. but organize ko ringbut according

to this group who no one has any oversight oarvetion it is. on the same day the cfpb released its auto examination procedures cfpb decided to examine both banks and nonbanks. this is one example -- one example of hundreds of rules enforcement actions and other activities this agency is involved in across industries. beyond its increasingly incredible oversight reach it has also engaged in massive data collection dating back to 2011. i spoke about this and the senator from georgia spoke about this data collection. i spoke about the data collection before the confirmation of richard cordray to be the director of the cfpb on july 16, 2013. i was the only senator to speak before this vote, and i repeated something i said during the gast debate of the dodd-frank act.

on may 20, 2010, i said, "this bill was supposed to be about regulating wall street. instead, it's creating a google earth of your every financial transaction. that's right. the government will be able to see every detail of your finances. they can look at your transactions from the 50,000-foot perspective or they can look right down to the fining knee details of the time and place where you pulled cash out of an a.t.m. quks "i talked about some of the data that we had at that time. i'm unfortunately going to expand on those comments today because the cfpb continues to collect mass sufficient amounts of data without consent of the consumers. the government accountability office g.a.o., is a nonpartisan, independent agency that investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. they released an extensive report on september 2014

detailing the data collection of the cfpb. here's what they found. of the 12 large-scale collections reviewed, three included information that identified individual consumers. the cfpb said those three collections weren't subject to the dodd-frank prohibition on collecting personally identified information. what? the cfpb is collecting data on 700,000 automobile sales per month. 10.7 million consumer credit reports per month. 25 to 75 million individual credit card accounts. 29 million active mortgage loans. and 173 million total loans. as well as one-time collections of 5.5 million student loans and 15 million payday loans. this isn't the whole list.

it's a sample rundown. they're in automobile sales everything with your automobile sales, your consumer credit reports, your credit cards your mortgage loans your total loans, your student loans and if you do it, payday loans. again, that's just a sample rundown. let's take a minute to let these numbers sink in. the cfpb collects information on 25 million to 75 million credit card accounts 0en a monthly basis. they want to be able to monitor 95% of all credit card transactions by 2016. i don't know about you but this is highly disturbing, especially in light of the fact that the g.a.o. report found that cfpb did not employ significant privacy collections to make sure this data remains safe. in summary the cfpb is collecting sensitive financial

information on individuals by name on millions of americans some of which has personally identifiable information that supposedly is removed or not used and they don't have the appropriate safeguard to protect this information. considering the increase in cyber attacks across sirch sectors in our country including the federal government this information is not just troubling it's terrifying. especially because there's no way for a single american to opt out of this collection or require notification if they are information is being collected and stored. let me assure you, it is. not only that, there's really no way for congress to have a say to exert oversight to take a closers look at what the cfpb is up to. one thing is clear to me -- every american deserves better than this. after five years i think it's safe to say, we can do much better than this, and we better do much better than this, or

we'll have what the book "1984" suggested it was going was going to happen. i yield the floor. i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. daines: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president the headlines in the past few months have been enough to paint a startling picture of how our nation is handling cybersecurity and technology issues these days. before i came to congress, i spent 12 years working with technology sector. but it doesn't take an extensive background in these fields to

see that in this ever-changing realm of technology and online communications americans' constitutional freedoms and their civil liberties are at risk and our security as a nation is under attack. when it comes to protecting american citizens' privacy and personal information we as a nation need to respond to the new threats our enemies are posing and the new tactics they are using and demand equal vigilance from those in our government who claim to have americans' safety at heart. the modern battlefield is change. we see it changing before our very eyes, and america needs to adapt. with the incredible advantages that modern technology offers also comes with that greater risks as well as greater responsibility. and our enemies america'sen miss are utilizing social media it particular to recruit others to their side in a plot against

our rights, our freedoms, our american way of life. as michael steinbeck the assistant director of the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism division said at the house homeland security committee just last month he said, "the foreign terrorists now has direct access into the united states like never before." we know for a fact that isis aggressively uses social media to spread its propaganda, to target individuals in our own country, and to urge them to attack us on our own soil. in march of this year, "the new york times" reported that isis' use of social media including twitter and high-quality online recruiting videos, has been astonishingly successful. in the speed at which modern social media moves means that america must move faster. in fact, we read about the

recent foiled terrorist attack in boston where islamic extremists planned to behead law enforcement officials. it shows us the importance of engaging these online terrorists their propaganda machines interpreting their encrypted communications, and cracking down on the spread of online terrorist networks. but how can we fight back against these cyber threats from abroad when our own government officials show themselves to be woefully incompetent? we in this country spent months debating about the national security agency's bulk collection of americans' met dat and in the -- metadata, and in the meantime, while we're having this debate, chinese hackers stole millions of americans' personal information. in fact, it's estimated now those chinese hackers broke into the office of personnel

management the h.r. system of the federal government, and stole over 20 million employees of the federal government's records. this recent breach of federal employees sings information may possibly be rooted in a phishing e-mail. in fact, in a recent article in "ars technical" on june 8 they said this and i quote "it may be sometime before the extent of the breach is known with any level of certainty. what is known is that a massive mal-ware package likely delivered via an e-mail phishing attack against o.p.m. employees managed to install itself within the o.p.m.'s i.t. systems and established a back door for further attacks. these attackers then escalated their privileges on o.p. m.'s systems where they had access to a wide swath of agency systems." these hackers broke into the

computers at the federal government's office of personnel management. they were yellowstonethey were downloading the very forms that federal employees use to gain national security cleaners. in the "usa today" earlier this month, they said "the hackers took millions of the forms used by people that disclose intimate details of their lives for national security cleaners. " t the information could be used to unmask covert agents or try to blackmail americans into spying for an enemy. in fact, i was one of those millions of americans as were other members of congress, whose personal information was compromised in this breach and i demanded accountability from the director and others of the o.p.m. but we need others to direct it directly.

these outdated security systems at the o.p.m. and other agencies of the federal government that have been recently hacked show america is not up to speed with the kinds and levels of cyber threats our country is facing. let me give you an example. in the publication rars tech nicka" the latest lack is just the latest of invasion including incidents at the i.r.s., the state department and even the white house. these attacks can occurred despite -- listen to this -- despite the $4.5 billion national cybersecurity protection program and its centerpieced protection capability called einstein. falling under the department of homeland security's watch it sits astride across the internet

gateways. einstein was originally based on what they call call a deep packet inspection technology from a decade ago. and the system's $218 million upgrade was supposed to make it more capable of active prevention. but the capabilities of einstein drawn from both d.h.s. and traffic analysis and data shared by the nsa appears to be incapable of catching the sort of tactics that have become the modern baseline for state-sponsored espionage and criminal attacks. once such attacks are executed, they tend to look like normal network traffic. put simply, as new capabilities for einstein are being rolled out they aren't keeping pace with the kind of threats facing federal agencies and with the data from o.p.m. and other

breaches foreign intelligence services have a gold mine, a gold mine of information about federal employees at every level of the government, and this just at a time when the threats to our nation are at very very high levels. it's a worrisome cache that could be easily leveraged for additional targeted cyber attacks and espionage. in a nation with a growing reputation for state-of-the-art surveillance and initiatives and cyber warfare techniques, how did we become the ones playing catch-up? but this isn't just a problem about being sloppy or being slow. this is a problem -- this is a matter of national security. america needs to get smart on cybersecurity and tech issues and to hold officials accountable for their behavior because there's just too much at stake if we fail. the american people will pay the

price for a failure to adapt to this rapidly changing world of technology this rapidly changing world of media this rapidly changing world of information gathering for sheer carelessness on those in authority. the private sector innovation and progress can help america compete. as a member of the commerce committee and having spent 28 years in the private sector, the last 12 years with a cloud computing start-up that we took public became a great cloud computing company with offices all over the world based in my home state of montana i admit i had to smile when i saw that so many congressmen that want to regulate the private sector to protect the private sector from cyber threats. you know, 28 years of serving in the private sector, i never once had information breached, never once had a letter from my

h.r. department saying my official had been compromised. it wasn't until i became a federal employees elected to congress a few years ago when my information was compromised. the private sector runs a whole lot faster than the public sector. i think the government needs to look within to make sure that we can be the forefront of cybersecurity but these efforts will be thoroughly wasted if the public sector, the federal government does not take the necessary precautions and procedures to protect the american people. thank you mr. president. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i have come to the floor this

evening to speak about our nation's strategic petroleum reserve. we sometimes refer to it as the s.p.r. or the spro but it is a national security asset that has come into the news of late for a host of different reasons. and i'm here this evening because of the concerns that i have that others are potentially looking to our strategic petroleum reserve our strategic energy asset as nothing more than a piggy bank to fund some of the needs that we have here in this congress. mr. president, i believe it is extremely shortsighted to raid

our nation's oil stockpile as an offset for the extension of the highway trust fund, and that's what we have had some kind conversation about today we had a vote earlier about whether or not to move forward on the highway trust fund, but as we have looked to find paths forward for a multiyear highway trust fund reauthorization which is something that i support it's important to note that not all pots of money are equal. that perhaps some are truly -- are national security assets that perhaps we need to show more considered respect. i had an opportunity a few days ago on friday to go to tour a strategic petroleum recognize. i went to the choctaw bayou near

baton rouge louisiana to get a firsthand look at some of the challenges that currently face our four strategic petroleum reserves that we have down in louisiana, texas area and to have a better understanding as to their operational readiness. and quite honestly, mr. president, it's a trip i wish more of our members were willing to take. because i think it would become clear to many of the potential mistake that we would be making in forcing the sale of billions of dollars of our emergency oil solely to pay for unrelated legislation. it's akin to selling the insurance on your house in order to pave your driveway. it just doesn't make sense to do.

now, for some the strategic petroleum reserve may be a very unknown national security asset, they don't really know what it is, but the spro, the s.p.r. is our nation's insurance policy against global energy supply disruptions. the strategic petroleum reserve was established by law back in 1975 under the energy policy and conservation act and its mission is twofold to ensure u.s. energy security by reducing the impacts of potential disruptions in u.s. petroleum supplies, and then secondly, to carry out u.s. obligations under the international energy program. so we've got about 700 million barrels of oil that are tucked away in underground salt caverns again in

louisiana and texas a couple of refined product reserve in other parts of the country but our strategic petroleum reserves are there in louisiana and texas. so if we have a major hurricane that takes out production in the gulf of mexico as we saw with hurricane katrina back in 2005, we can turn to the s.p.r. to help fill the gap. we did that in 2005. exactly the type of reason that you would have this strategic asset. but there are other times that we have turned to the s.p.r. if you had a terrorist attack or broader war disruption that alters our ability to -- for other nations to send us oil we can again turn to the reserve for help. we did this in 1991 with the iraq war and then again in 2011

with the libya supply disruption. so again when there was an emergency and we needed to ensure the u.s. security we had a ready reserve fund to turn to. in the absence of policies that will allow our nation to produce all of the oil that it consumes every day the strategic petroleum reserve is really our best answer to the sudden absence of the energy that we need whether it's driving to work whether it is powering our ships or our airplanes moving our goods whatever that reason may be. but the discussion that was being had today in terms of how we pay for this multiyear transportation bill, we're being asked to dramatically diminish the size of the

strategic petroleum reserve based, again on the need to pay for the extension of the highway trust fund. totally unrelated. totally unrelated. and those that would argue in favor of taking from the s. s.p.r. their argument is pretty simple. in fact, it's way too simple. they suggest that our international obligations require us to store enough petroleum to match 90 days of net imports. that is true. and they will say that given the growth that we've seen in domestic oil production, we have enough now that we've got a surplus within the strategic petroleum reserve. some have even suggested that an s.p.r. is not even necessary anymore. mr. president, i would be the first among us to suggest that changes do need to be made to the strategic petroleum reserve.

again, this was established back in 1975, and i think it's very fair to say that the world has changed. it's changed dramatically since the 1970's. the global environment in which we're operating has changed dramatically. and the department of energy has said that today the impacts of an overall supply disruption of global oil markets would have the same effect on domestic petroleum product prices regardless of how u.s. import levels or whether or not u.s. refineries import crude from disrupted countries. so there is a recognition that we've got to get to modernizing the s.p.r.o. we have to ensure we have right-sized it, that we are in alignment when it comes to moving oil from the strategic

petroleum oil reserve at times we have determined is appropriate. and so i think it is important to know that we're not just sitting still on this. the department of energy has begun work on a comprehensive long-term strategic review of the s.p.r. and we had good discussion about this when i was down there in louisiana on friday with the deputy secretary of energy, chris smith talking about what this review will entail. it's looking at future s.p.r. requirements. regarding the size, regarding the composition of it, the geographic location, it's been suggested perhaps there might be regional approaches, determining where we have choke points within the system in terms of distribution, how we move it determining the impacts of what we see globally

and what is happening with our own domestic production. and, again being smart in how we are making sure that we have right-sized the spro and in fairness modernized the strategic petroleum reserve. we have a committee process mr. chairman as you know, that likes to roll up our sleeves and get into the weeds on making sure that our policies are current are relevant. we need a deliberative process that will provide with us a proper understanding of the stakes and the options when it comes to how we handle our strategic petroleum reserve. what we do not need, what we do not need is an arbitrary process that just kind of picks a number and right now for purposes of the offset that they're coming to the energy

committee for they're picking a number of let's sell 101 million barrels of oil to fund a portion of the highway trust fund. again, where's the connection here between ensuring that we don't erode our national energy security assets? i have said many times the strategic petroleum reserve is not an a.t.m. it is certainly not the petty cash drawer for congress. we've got a responsibility here. a decision to sell substantial volumes of oil will increase our vulnerability to future supply disruptions at a time when we are still importing oil about five million barrels per day. but think about this, think

about the timing, mr. president. it simply could not be worse. when you talk about volatility in the world think about the news you read about today what's happening in iran iraq and syria. now is the time for us to say that our national energy security assets are not that important, it's okay to kind of nibble around the edges or worse? take significant amounts to put out on the market? so let's just consider a few facts to put into perspective here. first of all you talk about the market. it's a buyer's market out there mr. president. we are warned about a massive the oversupplied balance sheet. the energy information administration shares that's assessment in its latest aannouncement noting that production continues to exceed

use across the globe. of course, now as we are seeing the outcome from the negotiations with iran, they're going to be in a position soon to put their oil out on to the world market. oil prices are sitting right now around $50 a barrel. so think about it. not all of the oil that is in the strategic petroleum reserve was perhaps bought high but think about it. selling it now is the very definition of -- of selling low. we're at $50 a barrel right now. the sales that are envisioned in this highway bill would both shortchange taxpayers in terms of emergency protection because you're eroding the fund but think about the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars. effectively we bought high and we're sure going to sell low.

second drawing down barrels from the s.p.r. would put the federal government in a position of direct competition with domestic producers. and that may be temporarily defensible during a severe interruption but let's remember again, where we are right now. the mid-continent is already awash with crude. our outdated ban on oil exsports which should be fully -- exports which should be fully repealed and fully we peeled soon, in my view, it's not been repealed yet. it's sitting there in place and what it's doing is it's keeping oil trapped in the united states threatening productions and jobs at the same time. so what you're talking about here with this proposal to sell off the oil fromspro is you're going to put it -- first sell it very low and put it into a market that is already oversupplied. i was down in the gulf of mexico this weekend a place called

port f sphru s -- fort fushon, where truly you think about the part of the country that is supporting an oil and gas industry robust, ready to go to work. but what you saw there was supply vessels that were sidelined drill ships that were waiting. you tell those hardworking men and women there who aren't working as hard as they would like that perhaps somehow it's a good idea that we should be taking money from our savings account taking the oil from our savings account and dumping that into the market? the third point here. our nation's energy security cannot depend on commercial stocks alone. they rise, they fall based on market expectations and not on the strategic environment and they're not tethered to our nation's energy security. since the passage of the energy policy and conservation act back in 1975, there was a bipartisan

consensus that maintained that it's the federal government not private industry that will ensure that our obligations are met. and so clearly not much has changed in that calculation certainly in my mind. and then finally threats to global security continue to abound and in fact, they just seem to worsen. as iran and isis and other threats destabilize the middle east some 17 million barrels per day still flow through the straits of hormuz. the suez canal and its accompanying pipeline carrying just under 5 million barrels per day despite a budding insurgency that fired a rocket at an egyptian navy vessel earlier this month. instability in venezuela which produces about 2 1/2 million

barrels were day would also directly impact the major american refining center in the gulf of mexico. so you have all of this volatility all of this instability and really this is the time again that we're going to take our insurance policy we're going to erode it we're going to make us less energy security makes no sense. now, by way of comparison, the drawdown rate of the strategic petroleum reserve is about 4.4 million barrels today probably a little bit less but seriously, any number of disruptions could arise and make those barrels very, very precious. secretary moniz gave a speech just about a month ago and he -- he stated that it is -- this distribution rate of 4.4 is --

excuse me, the distribution rate is probably much lower than our drawdown capacity of 4.4. and the distribution rate is -- is compromised because of some of the issues that we talked about earlier, which is changes in midstream infrastructure congestions in the system. so when you talk about our ability to respond we're limited. so if congress is going to sell any oil from the spro -- and i'm not suggesting that this is a good idea -- one of the things that we must do is that we should agree that any proceeds would first be used to pay for upgrading the reserve itself, pay for the modernization help to ensure that it has the ability to do that which we have tasked it to do. it needs significant modifications to preserve its

long-term viability and to ensure that it can truly move the oil in the event of an emergency whether it's a natural disaster or whether it's a terrorist threat or a war. but it would be a travesty, mr. president if we were to dramatically reduce the size of the strategic petroleum reserve while we continue to ignore its maintenance and its operational needs. the strategic petroleum reserve must be modernized for the 2 2 1st century. its size, its geographic disposition, the quality of oil that it stores. right now it's about one-third to two-thirds distribution between sweet and sour crude. the desirability and understanding if we need to move more into a refined products storage or holding instead of the crude. these are all issues that merit

further attention. but we need to have a deliberative process. we need the review that the department of energy is conducting. we need the review that committees such as ours will advance and consider. what we do not need is a spur-of-the-moment deal that would sacrifice our energy security and perhaps much more. so mr. president, i know that the conversation will continue about how we move a highway bill forward h. count me as -- forward. count me as one that wants to ensure that we're doing right by our highway systems. our infrastructure is key. but we also have key energy infrastructure and part of that key infrastructure lies with the security asset this strategic petroleum reserve that we have.

let's focus on that word "strategic" before we move too quickly and in a manner that is shortsighted and will jeopardize our security and our ability to respond. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings ender the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 227 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 227, condemning the attacks of july 16, 2015, in chattanooga tennessee, honoring the members of the armed forces who lost their lives and expressing support and prayers for all those affected. the presiding officer: without objection, the sna will the proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., wednesday, july 22, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. lastly that the majority control the first hour and the democrats the second hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. t +g:ryq[8+oe-6]>l[d34

ñ66;e0[ p3ñdpz':v)e>;a 5ç:ínkyi

president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: it is my understanding that many of our colleagues on the other side who voted against cloture at this particular point wanted to have further time to read the bill. i want everybody to understand the text is filed. it is at the desk. there are detailed summaries available online on the epw committee web site. as everyone knows senator boxer and i and others have been discussing this in great detail. i'm hopeful that by tomorrow we will have cloture on the bill and an opportunity to go

forward. let me just say to everybody, i don't think i have -- i know i haven't threatened a saturday session all year, but there will be a saturday session and probably sunday as well. and let me tell you why. we have a chance here to achieve a multiyear bipartisan highway a multi- year bipartisan highway highway bill. bthis senator in half and boxer reported s a six-year bill. we paid for the 1st three. they will find this credible there is not a phony one in they're. if we can get this bill over to the house it is myhoe belief they will tofake it upn give the house of representatives an opportunity to express b themselves on this bill.nd get

imagine a. imagine a scenario if we actually were able to produce a multi- year highway bill and get it tong wou the president's desk for signature before the august recess? something that we can all feel proud of. it has been outstanding in ts. my view, bipartisan work on this. we need to keep at it which we will require us to be here this weekend. madame president, let me just follow up and ask unanimous consent the senatep be in a time t of mornings business. >> with no objection. >> without objection. >> the democratic leader. >> madame president 1st of all we appreciate the work done by senator mcconnell and senator boxerse. senator boxer has been tireless on this as she is on everything.

but we have an issue that i think we need to address. we received this bill which. is more than 1,000 pages about an hour ago.at te i'm going to have a caucus tomorrow. by this i hope we will have public an opportunity to have committees of jurisdiction c finances involved inco this,. commerce, banking we need the opportunity to look at bil w this billit this is a big big f bill with a lot of different we sections and a lotus ofea different issues.d private meeting tomorrow nowou

we were doing something we have pages of quotes from my ha friends.th that is what created this it. enormous average. i don't thin gk it is intended until we have to shuffle through. the mayor alexander -- lamarr alexander, you want to make sure the american exactly people have a chance to reado it and no what it costs and exactly how to fix n them.he this is not unreasonable.izatn b this is the way the senatele wks works in our job. we spent a couple weekstion doing that. that.

we spent seven weeks going through that. homeland security bill took seven week es energy bill took eight weeks. we have work to do. we have sean mccain. can i also ask if we have not seen it out think -- it ul shouldn't we at least have out time to examine it? i don't think it would be outrageous.n he i and a number of people in this body have worked onills highway bills in the past. they have taken weeks to getith done. we are being presented with something here thatm gng basically says take thi ts we will leave it which is not for the way it should work. a i will do everything i canone. to move forward on a loo long-term highway bill but fin we need to look at this and at

find out what my committeesu know, think, what the differentat senators think, what people at home think. i have a lot of people interested in this bill. there is a banking provision i looked last week, it has been a moving target. o the ranking memberur of the finance committee unless he has learned something in the last half-hour does not no either. in short, we wish to be as cooperative as possible but we will not lurch into witho legislation without having had a chance to read in detail the 1,030 page bill.his after having read it and a having a discussion within the caucus we would be in aoing difficult position as the republican leader says.

i have noi have no problem working over the weekend. t i've tried it hemyself a few times. i am willing to be a part of the deal here. to i do not no what the house plans to do but we aretheou assuming a lotse.akehi the house will take thisheyid bill.ave t s if they did, that would besati wonderful w but based upon myvers conversation with democratiosad in the house and is c conversation i have had withhey' republican leaders i do not think there is a chance in for the world it will take up this bill.onths, they have sent us a billuse- with conversations between b the white house not our white house, the presidents white house to come up with a long-term highway bill. so part of that is is. consideration of the xm bankhat which i realize how important it is. we haveav about 45 different countries who have come asorki

we speak xm bank's that are working at taking away our businesst.waof it is important we get thats not done but we cannot let one get in the way of the other. we did not create theexm problem with xm having gone of out of business.ill i want to get a highway bill get e done.x- way o the xm problem should not stand in the way of us getting a good strong,mr robust highway bill.co goo >> madame president. the democratic leader, w >> the majority leader. >> my good friend was saying we need a long-term highway billll. sen. boxer and i took him-forig seriously and we have worked hard to come up with a bipartisan multi- year paid for highway bill.ur the fact thatthe fact that to it has not been online very long is a good argument, and

our friends we will have an h opportunity to read every bit. i hope at that time they will find it attractive to move forward. as i have said for something opportunity for like two months this biller is an opportunity for those who supported the xm bank to offer an amendment on that subject. it is further complicated ining terms of timing by the factk that the house of representatives is leaving a week earlier than we are. i cannot say with certainty t the house of representatives will take up and pass theaise multi- year highway bill that does nodet raise the gas tax and is credibly paid for but it is more attractive than a six-month extension that we must revisit again in december. ne and soand so i am hopeful the s that the house wienll take a look at what we have done on d the senate side on a bipartisan basis and find it this appealing.

and so wet, would like to work our way through this and to intent to work our way bel through it, including i the weekend to get what weacco believemp is an important to compass but for the country over to the house of representatives so that they it can look at it and maybeoxermadam find it appealing as well. lea >> madame presidentrs if i could say to both leaderstremdo whom i respect tremendously and agree with leader read 99.9 percent of the timeuati here is the situation. we have a highway trust fund expiring.pot yeah. we have to spend some time. we have a lot of staff and can divide this up. we have a summary.an we have got a summary of the say bill out they're for everybody. thi wewe can say that we need four or six weeks to look at

it. t the mpw piece has been out they're a for at least two months. we have not changed much in wt that. that ha s been reviewed. t all i wishhe to say is if we can keep our e wye on the prize -- and i understand the way we proceed isrote important. mcconne that is why i voted not i w because i agreoue with my leader completely. we need a chance to look at it. i submit this is not the 1st time we have done a similar bill in the sense of it is a highway bill. most of it is very similar. most of the bills track all the bills. detai i do not think it will bet bec that hard to detail our staff. here is the problem.

ifif we don't have 800,000 i construction workers still not back to work seven the states that have stopped doing anything. if we couldif we could keep our eye on the prizee businesses doing what they want to do i had abridged cal last two days agoif. you cannot get from california to arizona. i hope you will be able to join with friends and vote t get on to proceed. we were helping more opportunities.il i would love to get on this bill and get moving on it. we can keep the economy ec moving in theon right direction and not take a lg- chance if we don't do amr m long-term bill.a yld i yield the floor. >> my understanding is you and d chairman and half haveould been discussing with people out of the country who wouldct tha benefit.mrs.er do youdo you have a sense of there enthusiasm for the product? >> i do.ns

sixty-eight organizations place from labor to business to general contractors, i haveg oic the list. a it is really a broad-based't agr number of organizations thatrce. don't agree all the time. they agree on this. >> what i be correct in wit saying that they are less than enthusiastic now him. >> mr. leader if you or i said, went to the bank to get a mortgage in the bankernly smiled f and said you get that mortgage, but only for six or five months you would h

not buy the house.house.ts no one we will build a knew run project or fix a bridge with multi- year costs if they nold i that the money could run out in five months or short-term >> what it also be correct gros if we are fortunate enough to send this multi- year paid for highway bill over ve to the house if the same constituent groups have an interest for this and suggest this might be mr something to take a look at. >> there we will be huge momentum if we pass this in a bipartisan way. yes, i do. >> madame president. >> the senator from oklahoma >> listening carefully to what concerns people have an must remind everyone it was 24 the 24th of june that we pass this bill out of committee. we have been working on it for months before that.one, all of us realize the 1st multi

bill to thare last bill thatas we had 2005. says that expired at the end of 2009 we have had nothing but extensions which cost 30 percent off the top justad a because short-term extensions don't work. we passed the bill and if i can recall that was not a problem when it went to the house last time. we showed them that the cost of the bill is far less. the conservative position and this was with 33 members of the house on the committee. all of the republicans allvod the democrats voted for it.ould those same democrats and republicans which support this.er-tm the reason they came out originally was to package ind.

with other things they wanted to get past. i have yet to talk to the 1st member of the house t does not say if you bring as a multi- your bill we will sign it.illi t i think that is a move statement and we are willing to stay until it does happen. i yield the floor. >> also today congressional leaders ordered the us flag to be flown at half staff time of the victims at the chattanooga, tennessee shooting. the senators spoke on the floor about how the community responded. senator bob corker spoke 1st followed by lamar alexander. this is abomrut ten minutes. today

>> thank you, mr. president. to i am hear with our senior senator to speak onur something very tragic that occurred in our state and in my hometown.o today i rise with our. american heroes. the five amhonoerican heroes we honor today with the lowering of flags ou at the us capitol, the committee is heartbroken.s our state is heartbrokenartbro and i believe our nation is heartbroken that these young outstanding young men died the way that they did but we honor their lives andos mourn the loss. we think of the greatness that they embodied.

thomas sullivan david wyatt carson holmquist skip wells and randall smith. i think the nation has learned about these individuals here carrying out what many w would considerne to be mundane activities in support of our us military tnk those who protect us. i think as they have gotten to no these individuals they understand the greatness they symbolize. most of them having served in afghanistan and iraq and some of them younger beginning their careers, but careers, but all having based -- having excellent backgrounds an example find mourns, the best america has to offer. our nation mourns. our committee mourns.

we have lost g five of our greatest. also hospitalized is theved young man named dennis pettengill his mother and father both served on thed i thi chattanooga police department. he has followed in theall ar footsteps. trem people have hearend all aroundas the country the tremendous heroism that was exemplified by the chattanooga d police th department who rushed at his assailant and brought him to his end. bu by the wayt, trained to do so nd these were patrol squads who were trained to deal with l the situation and save the lives of other people in doing so. so we we honor them from all of them, celebrate them. also as a committee we have com been harmed. our committee has prayed. we had a visual that wasordina extraordinary. senator alexander was they're with our governor mayor county officials and

others, extraordinary time coming together around what has happened and i believe the a thing people all over the country in the world o have heard about chattanooga strong is true and ourned. committee we will be stronger because of what has happened, but our nation must understand where we are in the world and that these types of activities possibly, we will continue.riday wi i had a good conversation on pen friday with the pentagon to and talk about what they aret doing and the threat activity that has been rising. they are looking at what a needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again.h sat i had a good conversationno with senator mccain who is leading efforts with thea, a house members to figure out. a peace ofer legislation we can deal with quickly just weeks in the next few weeks ways

of making sure we haverayi policies to protect. our committee is praying for these individuals. it is my hope we will put iniduals place policies to ensure we appropriately protect these individuals. in addition to that they're are tangible things that wethis can do. cer i no thatta when things like this happen there are types of benefits. outde our offices are working w together to coordinate that.hankll i do want to say thankfully our committee has come together to make sure thatinanci these families have the and financial support that they need beyond thatn and thereooga is an effort underway where people we will participate to make sure that thes neces financial support necessary th to sustain these families in light of what happened. ha my frienden a great he tennessean, at least we

claim him of that, peytonart of manning has lent his name to has this effort.e is at the bas ye level some of the needs of these families if not all we will be dealt with in an appropriate way. we have lost five outstanding people command it has shaken and families. i have the opportunity to meet with the family briefly of the fallen sailor the last person to pass was riddled with bullets and the trauma squad worked with them for hours and hours and hours trying to save his life. finally after a tremendous fight he lost his life again in the line of duty. but the needs of these families are great.

while our committee is praying they will try to meet the needs another way. how do we respond to this? we both have mentioned what comes out of this. i feel like our committee is like none that i have witnessed. from the standpoint of the compassion others. my sense is the way our committee is going to respond to this is much like i would refer to and genesis 12 where god said to the jewish people that they were blessed. i think that most people in our committee believe that in our committee and our state and nation we have been incredibly blessed and my sense is that in addition to responding to the specific needs that need to be dealt with both here in washington and by the state level my sense is that our

committee will rise up and ensure that because we have been blessed we continue to be a blessing to others. that is my hope, what i am seen happen. i have never seen such an outpouring of compassion anyplace in my life. i am proud to represent tennessee. i am proud of my hometown has responded in the way that it has in spite of the deep mourning and grief that we have for these outstanding men who have lost their lives in the line of duty. with that, we will be introducing resolution later today and my senses the entire senate will want to be a part of it. with that i turned to my distinguished friend great colleague, one of the greatest senators our state has ever had senator alexander. >> the senator from tennessee. >> i thank senator corker for his eloquent and

heartfelt comment. he mentioned the word we have heard the most often since last thursday when he and i 1st got word of this tragedy. the word his heartbroken. heartbroken for the lives that were lost for the families heartbroken for the committee of chattanooga you can see the deep emotion that senator corker has as a resident of chattanooga former mayor of chattanooga that is special to that place and committee. on friday at 530 in the baptist church it was a memorial service. senator corker spoke. our governor spoke. other spoke the police chief. i know most people no about what happened that day.

most of them would have liked to have been they're to do what you can do at a time like this. you never no quite what to say. sometimes all you can do is be they're. this is especially hard because these were young men in the service of our country, young men whose lives were filled with happiness and you have the expectation of a long life for themselves who were filled with duty and the service. and they were living in a strong community. and chattanooga, faith is strong. i have a sense of helping one another that a strong. it is a place of good neighbors recently named the best midsized city in america.america. everything seems to be going in the right direction and then this. it is especially heartbreaking in the

committee. i said oni said on friday and trying to think about what i could add to the words that were being said i thought of the time in 1985 when 289 members of the 101st airborne division lost their lives in a plane crash. .. to fort campbell to meet with the families and talk about it. i was governor then and i drove up to here what he had to say. he spoke of those men and women then as these five were, as peacekeepers, there to protect the lives and to protect the peace, to act as a force for stability and trust for our country. their work, president reagan said at the time of those 289 which can as equally well be said of these five, their work was the perfect expression of the best of the judeo-christian tradition. they were the ones of whom christ spoke when he said blessed are the peacemakers for

they shall be called the children of god. president reagan said of the 289 who lost their lives 30 years ago what could be said of these five this week. what a poet said of soldiers in another war, they will never grow old. they will always be young. and we know one thing with every bit of our thinking they're in the arms of god. chattanoogaans said last friday the two words: chattanooga strong. they were repeated by senator corker, by the governor, by most of the members of the community people standing up supporting each other supporting the families who had been heartbroken by the loss of their loved ones. i'm enormously impressed with the people of chattanooga and with their current leaders the mayor, the governor, their senator who is also their former mayor. and i believe that chattanooga

will be strong, but i think it's important that we reflect here in the united states senate how much we grieve with chattanooga with not just the families, not just the people who knew the five but as we honor the five we honor the city and its response to this terrible tragedy. and i will pledge to continue to work with senator corker to do all that i can to help those five families and to help create an environment that can keep chattanooga strong. i thank the president. i yield the floor.

>> over war, politics god, and sex. >> there in lies today, today i believe there is someone saying in normal time and you mention as the moderator with a distinguish member of the crowd. he was moderatoring and they would not have a moderator.

i think everybody at abc stood back and let the fire burn. >> tonight on c-span2, the senate conformation hearing for army chief of staff general mark milley. and we discuss british foreign policy at a parliament committee and the senate debates the six

year transportation bill. >> good morning. senate armed services meets to consider the nomination of mark milley. we welcome you general milley as well as members of the family. we are grateful for the sacrifice and continued support of the nation.

>> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. i appreciate the united states. >> i was wanting to ask you if you would like to introduce your family. first senator reed and i have to mode for a while. >> my wife hoois here holly ann and my son and daughter are not here. they are both working. my son peter is down in texas work in the oil industry and my daughter is also washing working in the oil industry and based from chicago.