attorney general today, should there be some kind of broad message to police departments, something stronger than we have seen in the past to say this is happening too often. that is not language we have necessarily heard from the president or the attorney general, an imc in april saying yes it has. but this needs to stop and that the police method needs to be criticized more directly. ..

-- sangha border has not -- [laughter] >> that's right. >> [inaudible conversations] >> the senate is in recess for another 15 minutes or so until 2:15 p.m. eastern time so republicans can attend their party luncheon today. work continues in this than on the highway bill. and to members return a portion of a house judiciary subcommittee hearing assessing so-called sanctuary cities and immigration enforcement laws. we wish we opening statements from earlier today. you can watch the entire hearing

at c-span.org. >> this is a judiciary immigration subcommittee meeting. come to order. pictures authorized to declare recess at any time. i want to start this point with a matter of requesting portion of departmental my secret for the potential beneficiaries of two private bills, h.r. 422. and h.r. 396 or the relief of carmen ramirez. under long-standing agreement between the committee and the first immigration and naturalization service now the department, to get a distributed request report of a bill. u.s. immigration and customs enforcement will state removal of the ailing fidel march 152 the first of the nest congress. i will request a part of homeland security report on beneficiaries of these two

private bills that teachers find no derogatory information the committee and to make the decision to mark up the private bills and place them on the private health calendar. committee has has approved and how fast these private bills in the past but they did not come law. one that would prevent permanent residence to maria ramirez and mr. rojas is u.s.-born born children -- is that would grant permanent residence. she can be as to care for then fiancée and let her husband who was left a quadriplegic after being hit by a drunken driver in new jersey. ms. lofgren from what you wish to make any comments speak with i would just note that you are likely state of the matter and we are of one mind when it comes to these private bills. >> i thank my friend from california to wet objection any written statement regarding these private bills been a part of the written record. i'm disappointed because department reports 45 bills pursuant to rule five for

private immigration bills to the question on the motion to those in favor aye. those no? the ayes have it. the reports are requested. that would be the end of the private bill hearing. [inaudible conversations] >> we will now begin our welcoming to go into this military on sanctuary cities our threat to public safety. i would recognize myself for an opening statement. i want to thank all of our

witnesses for being here today and express mr. stinebert, to you my profound sympathy to you and to kate's mother to her father and all of your film and those who cherished her for the tragic loss of your beautiful daughter. the preeminent function of government is to provide for the safety and security of the law-abiding public or it is among the chief reason we among the chief reason among the chief recently consented to govern about my collection of laws. we want those who love to be protected so we abide by the law in hopes others will feel similarly about. what makes this nation different is our respect for and against to the law. the law is the greatest unifying force in our culture and the greatest equalizing force. in fact, we think so highly of laws that we make aspiring citizen take an oath that contains six separate references to the law. this system of law failed kate stein as it has failed others

like her. this is more than academic discussion about prosecutorial discretion it is more than political pandering to certain voting constituencies. it is more than the supremacy clause or the common doing clause but it is quite literally like -- life-and-death. this is the real world where everyone is in a dreamer and a going isn't about victorian. there are criminals motivated by malice and a conscious disregard for the lives of others and our cities were interested in providing a sanctuary for those criminals than they are provide a sanctuary for the own law-abiding citizens. i've been on this committee for almost five years and i've listened closely to the debate over immigration. you don't hear many witnesses called by our colleagues on the other side to talk about law enforcement or background checks or enforcement mechanisms. you do hear certain phrases repeated with catatonic frequency as if repetition will somehow make it true.

you hear phrases like functional control over the border hundred by witnesses who are uniquely well-positioned to know better. either citizenship for 11 million undocumented aspiring americans as 11 million of any category to pass a background check. you hear arguments against empowering state and local law enforcement to assist federal authorities and those of most illogical arguments of all. we toasted a local enforcement to investigate all manner of crime for murder, successful kidnapping to narcotics trafficking. but god forbid to help us enforce immigration laws. stay on local law enforcement are good enough to buy protection for members of congress. in this city and when they are back home, but somehow someway all that changes when it comes to the issue of immigration. they are no longer smart enough to enforce federal immigration law. and even though some do not trust state and local law

enforcement to enforce federal law, they are more than happy to allow state of local officials to open ignored that same federal immigration law. which brings us to the benign sounding phrase sanctuary cities. the definition of sanctuary as a place of refuge or safety. it almost sounds utopian a place of refuge, a place of safety. refuge for whom? safety for whom? for a young woman walking on a. with her father? or for a career recidivist like one francisco lopez-sanchez? who had a quarter sanctuary's worth of lawlessness dating all the way back to 1991. he committed local, state and federal crimes in at least five separate states. that is supported by times and it's time has little regard for the law that he reentered the border that we are supposed to have functional control over.

his procedural history is every bit as disturbing, and made 20 -- he was convicted for illegal entry again. at the conclusion of that since he was released from the bureau of prisons to announce sanctuary jurisdiction for the ostensible prosecution of an older drug case. of course san francisco did not positive that older drug case. they dismissed it wouldn't surprise exactly no one. and then they released this definitive they did not return to the bureau of prisons or to federal probation. probation. they did that not honor the detainer placed on him by i.c.e. they released someone they knew was not legally in this country and have a criminal history dating back to the early 1990s. and we are given a let me of excuses for policies like this. we're told we need policies like the one in san francisco. so people will cooperate with law enforcement. i want you to consider how

utterly illogical that is. we are releasing known criminals back into society so society will help us catch known criminals. and, of course, the more friends on the other side say all of this is necessary so folks will, to use the president's word come forward or get on the bus or get right with the law. i want you to ask your self. what this dependence background lead you to believe that he would ever come forward or get on the books or get right -- get right with the law books he was already on the books. better than that he was in jail and he was there because he had not complied with a single damn thing we have asked him to do. so are we supposed to catch them again after san francisco releases him? do we wait on another victim? is that the strategy behind sanctuary cities was released in and waiting to the victim of someone else? is that will mean by coming

forward? the president and others constantly talk about comprehensive immigration reform but they're very light on the details when it comes to enforcement and background checks. they just fundamentally fail to understand that border security, both of borders by the way, and internal security our fundamental conditions precedent to fixing our broken immigration system. mr. steinle, about a year ago there was a precious little girl waiting on the steps of the capitol for me after votes, and i knew what was coming. so i could not walk past her. i knew or suspected that she would repeat those phrases that so-called advocates teach children to repeat two members of congress. but i had to stop, as any father of a daughter would. and i stopped and the little girl said, i want to pray for you.

none of the stuff that the advocates tell the children say i want to pray for you. so i picked her up and a mixture of spanish and english, she told god that she was not here legally, but she wanted to stay. and everyone that i know would want to help that little girl. but everyone also should have wanted to help your little girl mr. steinle. she wasn't five but she is still your daughter and this country should have protected her. i know you're given answers. i hope the politicians in san francisco will explain to you why they thought it was more important to provide a sanctuary to one francisco lopez-sanchez admitted to provide a sanctuary for your daughter. and i hope this message will tell you why the bureau of prisons released -- for a drug

charge. that wound up being dismissed. and health services go to you why they released a convicted felon rather than honor the detained in place, which is simply returning to the i.c.e. you deserve those answers and you deserve to know that your daughter's side by side meaning and purpose and that her death will serve to save the lives of other people. when trayvon martin was shot and even before our criminal justice system had acted the president said that could have been his son. for those of those that have daughters, which includes the president, your daughter could have been our daughter. i just want a quote quote on the wall of my old office at the court of it was given to me by a victim advocate them from a greek philosopher named -- i will paraphrase it but this is pretty close. he was asked what city was the

best one to live in and answered that city with those who were not injured by crying. take up the calls of those who are as if it had been death. that's the kind of country we should want to one where we do not have to lose our daughters to feel the pain that you feel. we shouldn't have to lose daughters to know that no one else should have to feel like you feel this morning. without i want to recognize the ranking member. >> first, i would like to welcome all of the witnesses to the hearing today, but i especially want to welcome members of the kindly family and to extend my heartfelt condolences to you. as a parent i can only imagine what you're going through -- steinle family.

and anytime an innocent person is lost to violence i think it's important that we all stop and consider what steps can we take what policies and processes procedures and rules and laws could be altered so that we would have a safer community so that that tragedy would not occur. so it is an important process we're going through at this time. a hearing like this offers members and the public an opportunity to learn more about the issue and i hope that we can work together collaboratively to address some of the problems we were sent here to washington to solve. now, i'm eager to hear what each witness has to say. i must note that last night chairman goodlatte and i testified before the rules committee on h.r. 3009 a bill

that has already been decided is the answer fairly to this, and i would note that if 3009 had been enacted into law it wouldn't have had any impact on the circumstances that resulted in the death of your daughter. in addition to that major law enforcement associations like the fraternal order of police, major county sheriffs association and others come are telling us that they would actually make us less safe come and they all opposed that bill. i do think that the testimony of the police achieve a dayton, ohio, i hope will be -- i have not heard a single person who suggested that it was wise come appropriate or even legal for the sheriff in san francisco to have released the individual who

is charged with killing your daughter. having said that there are police agencies around the united states who believe that it makes our communities less safe to inquire as to the immigration status in every case. for example, that domestic violence organization have contacted us to say that if there is a call for a domestic violence situation and of the individuals who are calling know that then everyone in the household will be interrogated as to their status a family where there is next status will not call -- >> watch this hearing in its entirety at c-span.org. we leave it now as the senate has returned following a recess. the senate continuing debates on the highway bill. it sets the federal portion or

highway bridge and mass transit projects nationwide for the next six years. live coverage on c-span2.

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president vermonters, probably typical of most americans are frustrated, we're frustrated we see short-term patches that don't make investments in our roads and bridges and our crumbling infrastructure they're frustrated with seeing meaningful policy advance while congress bickers over how to pay for it. and when we take it out of other critical programs. passing a long-term authorization to make needed improvements to our aging roads and bridges is a matter of common sense. it's a matter of safety. quite frankly it's part of your job. vermonters take place of our small communities. in our cities and towns we have

a culture of getting things done. we find a way to accomplish our shared goals. we come together without any political party identification. but with those shared goals we rely on a federal funding stream that's unreliable at best, uncertain at worst and makes it impossible to double down on investments needed to keep the cars the buses and the trucks moving on our roads. we can invest in bridges and roads, we do that all the time. we decide to spend a couple trillion dollars in iraq, we didn't have any offsets we just put it on a credit card. as one vermonter said to me, back home he said we spend billions upon billions of dollars to build roads and bridges over there then they blow them up. why don't we spend a little bit

of that money here at home and we'll take care of those roads and bridges. this bridge is in east montpelier about five miles from where i was born. it was built in 1936, the year my parents were married. it's in dire need of repair. and weather sometimes very harsh for the vermont climate think of 25 degrees below zero weather age and traffic volume, more than 4,400 vehicles cross every day incidentally 10% of those vehicles are trucks. a great deal of deterioration. but as one of nearly 300 bridges in vermont that are deemed structurally deficient. this east montpelier bridge will be replaced in 2018 at

$7.3 million to do it, that's about two minutes worth of money we wasted in iraq. it's an issue of safety. it's an issue of economic certainty. it's a commonsense investment that has been made -- delayed too long, because as could be he said of all 50 states represented in this body. main street, the heart of a vermont downtown has businesses and services such as post offices and stores, groceries and banks and in a state like vermont, if you invest in your infrastructure beyond bridges and roads it's sidewalk repair establish crosswalks, roads for parking things such as street lighting and receptacles and landscaping.

after years of economic decline, the city was empty was empty storefronts and streets. but they decided to revitalize it. they fund -- the funding from the transportation grants, federal funding from the agency for transportation. 200 employees relocated into new offices built in the heart of downtown. look at the before and after pictures. the differences are stark. one is a viable, livable space. the other just looks like a haunted ghost town. we can do this everywhere. this project brought life back into main street. businesses filled vacant spaces restaurants opened

their doors the sidewalk welcomed locals and visitors alike. a more healthy community and the taxpayers made money. the highway trust fund is not just about infrastructure, it's about jobs. jobs that can't be shipped overseas. earlier this year i met with jeff tucker, president of dubois and king, consulting engineering firm that employs 180 people. his frustrations are clear. the short-term -- short-term investments do not allow him to plan. now we debate moving forward on a long-term investment of roads and bridges and railways. it's an important debate. the policy is not perfect but how we should pay for it should be considered. the highway bill is not going to be the one -- any one of us

individually would write but one that we all have to work to pass. but let's not unlike when we go into a $3 trillion war that turned out to be a fiasco paid for on a credit card, let's not sit here and make mistakes how we pay for those things in the united states of america. the roads and bridges we need in the united states of america. the things we need for americans the highway trust fund has been supported for the most part by useer the fee-driven system. our roads and byways need attention but if we pay for them by robbing from other critical programs that's another form of short-term patches and the people of the united states of america suffer. we better start thinking what we need here in the united states of america.

and do things here. we're starving for real certain infrastructure investment. the highway trust fund can't limp forward on a continuous series of short-term extensions and i ask unanimous consent that my statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and last week mr. president, the junior senator from arkansas objected to a request to vote on any of the five nominations to the u.s. court of federal claims. they've been waiting for ten months. he didn't want to debate the merits of these eminently qualified nominees. i think the junior senator is dusting off the playbook from last congress to try to do to the u.s. court of federal claims what couldn't be done to the d.c. circuit. now, all five of these nominees, blocked by the

republicans are impeccably qualified. one of the nominees, armando bonilla, would be the first hispanic judge to hold a seat on the court but the junior senator from arkansas objected. another knee, jeri somers retired with a rank of lieutenant colonel in the united states air force. the senator objected. mr. bonilla and ms. somers are two of the five nominees being blocked. since president obama was sworn in as president of the united states i'm afraid republicans have made it their priority to obstruct the nominations put forward. for half a year into this new congress the republican leadership scheduled votes to confirm only five judicial nominees. now, let me contrast that to the last two years of george w.

bush's tenure. democrats have taken over, have taken over the senate. if we treated republican president bush the way the new republican majority is treating democratic president obama, it would have been just five nominees confirmed. instead we confirmed 25 district and circuit court judges by this time in the last two years that president bush's term. let me say that again. i want to make it clear that we would not play politics with judges because they are supposed to be outside of politics. i move by this time in the last two years of president bush's term, i was chairman, i moved 25 of his judges.

the republican leadership has allowed only five of president obama's. i actually moved 68 of -- in the last two years of president bush's term. and we find they object to even considering, considering highly qualified people, men and women to the judgeship. actually we -- in the last two years of president reagan's term we did 85. democrats were in charge. five. 25 by this time, 68 in all. president bush. five for president obama. 17 by this time, 85 in all under president reagan. five with president obama. you know, all that does is

politicize the federal judiciary. they're an nnd branch of government -- they're an independent branch of government. the senate ought to be quirnlg quirnlg -- confirming them. let's not have a double standard. we made it clear we would not do that with president reagan and president bush. we shouldn't do it with president obama. these men and women they objected not because of the debate, because of the vote. just object to them. mr. president, i see my good friend and i yield the floor and ask consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president i rise to talk about a very important amendment that senator feinstein and i will be offering

to the transportation bill when we move to consideration of that vote. to move to consideration may be around 2:00 a.m. and then the clock may tick but then at some point on sunday i'm hoping that we will begin the process of considering amendments, and chief among them should be the feinstein-wicker amendment to the bill regarding truck length increases. our amendment would authorize the secretary of transportation to require a truck size and weight study before promulgating a rule to increase the minimum length limitation for trucks. now, i show to my colleagues and i show to you mr. president a poster. what i am showing you is a picture, a drawing of what we

call twin 33's. here's the tractor-trailer. here's the 33-foot trailer. and here's another 33-foot trailer tacked on to the back of that. so twin 33's. long trucks. longer than is allowed in 39 states. so far we've let the states make the decision about whether to accept these. and some 39 of our federal states have decided no, we don't want trucks this long with the twin 33 trailers on them in our states. our amendment would accept that decision on the part of the states. our decision would allow those 39 states to continue to make that decision. and of course the states that want trucks that long, they can make that decision themselves.

why are we having to offer such an amendment on this highway and transportation bill? because the appropriations committee by a very close margin of some 16 yeses and 14 noes has decided otherwise. and unless we act as a senate, that legislation on the appropriations side of things will go forward and will become the law of the land, telling 39 states that they can't make their own decisions on twin 33's. and so we would -- we would allow the states to continue to make this decision while the secretary of transportation promulgates a full rule to increase the minimum length limitation. now, i will tell you that a

preliminary information from the u.s. department of transportation indicates that we don't need to go mandatory twin 33's. u.s. department of transportation has concluded there should be no change to the current maximum truck length limits allowed on federal highways. their preliminary report goes on to say the department finds that the current data limitations are so profound that no changes in the relevant laws and regulations should be considered until these data limitations are overcome. so that's the council of the u.s. department of transportation. i will say i'm not always bound by what the federal departments say. as a matter of fact, again, i would stress that decisions are better made by the states and state legislators and governors and transportation commissions

but i do think it's instructive that even these people at the federal level are counseling against this idea of a federal mandate to all 50 states, that they must -- that they must move to the twin 33's. now, so that's u.s. department of transportation. why is roger wicker from mississippi down here advocating for federalism and advocating for states making their own decision basically advocating against a federal mandate for these long trucks? i'll tell you i started hearing from folks when this issue came before the appropriations committee. a group of people rose up and said what are you doing? what are you thinking mandating this to all 50 states without their consent? so who is for the

feinstein-wicker amendment and opposed to mandatory p twin 33 trucks in all of our states? i'll tell you who's opposed to it. advocates for highway and auto safety. triple-a knows a little something about getting around the united states of america triple-a is for the feinstein-wicker amendment. the national troops coalition know a little something about safety on the highways, they are opposed to mandatory twin 33's. i will also tell you mr. president, it's very interesting that the mississippi trucking association you'd think every trucker would want to be for this, make more money get to haul more stuff. the mississippi truckers association contacted our mississippi delegation and said we don't want this. senator wicker, others members of the senate and house oppose this federal mandate that is

about to come out of the appropriations committee and pass the feinstein and wicker amendment. the mississippi trucking association is for our amendment and against twin 33's along with a host of other trucking associations from east to west to north to south. i'll tell you who else is opposed to mandatory twin 33's. the mississippi sheriffs association and a host of other state sheriffs associations. the mississippi association of chiefs of police and a host of other state associations of chiefs of police. did i mention that the illinois state senate unanimously passed a resolution in support of what the feinstein-wicker amendment would do and opposed to

mandatory twin 33's. the illinois state senate unanimously passed this resolution saying to the congress, leave it up to the state of illinois. we know what's best for our state when it comes to infrastructure. we know what's best for our state when it comes to the safety of our citizens. and so it's people like that -- the mississippi department of, mississippi transportation commission mdot passed a unanimous resolution asking us to oppose twin 33's on a mandatory basis. why are people so opposed to? there are a lot more. obviously people would make a lot more money if they can have this much area in their trailers to haul things. so why are people opposed to it? well they're concerned about for one thing about wear and tear p on our nation's infrastructure. we're going to pass a bill, i hope, in a few days, send it over to the house.

we hope we get it sent to the president on a bipartisan basis. and we want to build some more highways. we want to strengthen our bridges and everyone within the sound of my voice knows we need to do that. it's a question of how to come up with the money. but the last thing we need to do is authorize -- not authorize -- mandate something. mandate something that is going to cost more wear and tear. and to an extent, the 39 states don't want to have it because of the wear and tear. also estimates are that this forced mandate if it comes from washington d.c., if the feinstein-wicker amendment or something like it doesn't pass, it will cost $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion per year in additional funding because of the pavement damage. it just doesn't stand to reason that you can mandate this sort of additional truck weight on

the highways without more damage to the highways. it makes sense and we have statistics to prove it. also it's a matter of public safety. you know, i'll tell you not every interstate in my state of mississippi is exactly straight and narrow. we've got some hills. we've got some places where the curves are less desirable than i would like them to be. we're told that stopping distances are going to increase if we mandate this sort of thing on the 50 states. longer stopping distances for double 33's than the trug configuration -- truck configuration we currently have on the roads in the united states of america. the double 33 trailers in some studies took 22 feet longer to stop than the current double 28's with normal operating

brakes. you know, i've got four grandchildren in mississippi. i've got two daughters with small children, two sons in laws -- two sons-in-law in mississippi, and they're driving up and down these highways. i'd just as soon they not have to compete on the roads. on water works curve in jackson mississippi, i'd rather my three grandchildren not be in a van with a twin 33 trying to pass them. i just don't think it's safe for my children and my grandchildren. and the state governments in 39 states apparently agree. if they decide they disagree, they have that right. also, i think that senator feinstein and i with our amendment, are standing up for

small business. you know who can afford a twin 33 tractor-trailer rig? double 33's. it's the big guys, the big companies. you know their names. they can afford to do this. and certainly one can understand why they would think it would be better for their business. but i'll tell you there's a reason why the mississippi trucking association is opposed to this. they don't have the money to convert to a bunch of twin 33 trailers. as a matter of fact, this federal mandate the if congress decides to do this and i certainly hope we don't i hope we don't think we're so smart we can mandate this on 50 states. but if we do, we're going to put some small truckers out of business. that's why the mississippi trucking association passed a resolution that's why they have contacted me and i'll tell you this mr. president -- the american trucking association says they're for these twin 33's

but individual members of the a.t.a. the american trucking association, have come up to me and said thank you senator wicker for standing up up for our interest, because we're small business and we can't afford to get in this competition and it will run us out of business to have to go out and make the capital investment. i would also make an argument just in the name of federalism. there's a reason we have 50 states. and, you know, my republican party won an election in november and we won control of this body and one of the things we have said as republicans is we don't think all the wisdom resides here in washington, d.c. we don't like a lot of federal mandates. we like states making decisions. we made a bold statement mr. president, last week that states should make their own

decisions in school boards -- and school boards locally should make their decisions with regard to education. i voted for that. i applaud that. it didn't go as fa far as perhaps many on our side wanted but we made a strong statement we wouldn't have a national education school board policy, we'd move the decisionmaking more back to the states. why on earth a week and a half or two weeks later would we make a decision that here in washington, d.c. we know more about how to take care of infrastructure we know more about truck lengths we know more about safety for our children and grandchildren here in washington, d.c. than the state legislatures do? i just don't think -- i don't think we will do that. so i urge my colleagues during this time when we have some time

to debate get down to the floor. let's talk about this issue. we'll we'll be standing in quorum calls and recesses subject to the call of the chair perhaps for most of this weekend. we have time to debate this issue, and for the few moments that it takes sunday or monday ortuesday or whatever to actually vote on this, we're entitled to a vote, mr. president. on this germane amendment. it is germane. it's not something extraneous dealing with social issues or planned parenthood or any number of nongermane issues that i'm sympathetic with. this is a transportation issue. it is germane to the bill. the senate needs to work its will on this issue it needs to go over to the house and they need to work their will. i think once we think about this mr. president, i would

say to you and i would say to my colleagues, i think we'll make the decision that we ought to leave this issue up to the states. there's a reason 39 states don't want to do this. and they're -- in their considered opinion. we ought to respect that decision. we ought to do it in the name of federalism in the name of the states having the right to do things a little differently in each state if they want to, in the name of safety, in the name of infrastructure, and in the name of fairness. so i would -- i would thank senator feinstein for joining with me on this bipartisan amendment and i would urge my colleagues when the time comes when the brief debate on the floor has occurred on this issue to vote yes in favor of the feinstein-wicker amendment. thank you, mr. president and i yield the floor to my friend.

the presiding officer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president i rise to introduce the quality act of 2015, comprehensive civil rights legislation for our lgbt community. there are few concepts as fundamentally american as equality. we were founded on this principle with these simple words -- we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. for more than two centuries we have been working to fulfill that vision of equality. we've taken direct action as a nation so our laws align with

these ideals. we have challenged unjust rules and chosen to advance basic civil rights. martin luther king put forth the vision that the arc of the universe is moral and it bends toward justice and he knew that in the 1950's and 1960's americans were hard at work making that moral arc of the universe bend toward justice and that's the work that we continue here in the u.s. senate here on capitol hill, here in the house just 100 yards away. step by step, stride by stride the barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty full measure of opportunity the full measure of equality have broken down. at the same time, we recognize

that there's much more to be done to secure the reality for each and every american. in cities and towns across our nation many of our citizens do not receive equal treatment. not because of anything they have done, but because of who they are lesbian gay bisexual transgender who they love, and who they are. yes, we've made progress in advancing rights for the lgbt community. we passed the matthew shepherd hate prevention act after i came to the senate in 2009. we repealed "don't ask, don't tell" that prevented all americans from serving openly in the u.s. military service we reordinary violence against women act or vawa.

we passed the affordable care act so that one could be denied health care because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. and we have seen landmark victories in the supreme court first in the edith windsor case where it was ruled unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate and last month when the court reaffirmed that -- quote -- "love is love" and ensured that marriage equality would come to all 50 states. that is a significant number of steps a significant number of strides on the path towards full equality. and it happened in a relatively short period of time. but we are far from where we need to be. full equality for every american as long as people are afraid to

put their spouse's photo on their desk at work, as long as they are worried about being evicted from their apartment if they don't pretend to be just roommates, we've got a lot of work to do. the harsh reality remains that in far too many states there are still no laws explicitly prohibiting discrimination against lgbt americans and nearly two-thirds of all lgbt community report that they have faced discrimination in their lives. in pennsylvania, a transgender woman school board denied service just for being who she is and it would be perfectly legal. in michigan a newly married couple could be denied the chance to buy their first chance just because they're both women and that would be perfectly legal. in north carolina, a gay man can be fired from his job today for just being gay and that would be perfectly legal.

only 22 states and the district of columbia have passed legislation that prevents workers from being fired because they are gay. only 19 of those states and the district of columbia include language protecting against gender identity bias. the time has come to right this wrong. the time has come for us as a nation to be bolder and better and ensuring full rights and full equality for the lgbt community. not only is it within our power, it's something america must work to lead, and the most powerful form of leadership is the example we set. in 1962, bobby kennedy said -- quote -- "nations around the world look to us for leadership not merely by strength of arms but by the

strength of our convictions. we not only want but we need the free exercise of rights by every american. our commitment to the vision of equality and fairness, that is a significant part of america's soul. it makes us strong. it makes us who we are as a people and we should settle for nothing less. these fundamental principles serve as a guiding force behind the comprehensive legislation the equality act of 2015, that we are introducing today here in the u.s. senate and the u.s. house of representatives. i want to thank my lead cosponsors here in the senate, cory booker and tammy baldwin who have done enormous good work in setting the stage for today's introduction. i want to thank four staff members who worked very hard on

this on my team, including my chief of staff michael zaymore and my legislative assistant adrian snead and my legislative correspondent, elizabeth eckleberg. they worked day and night to make this moment arrive. and we've had support such critical support and involvement from numerous outside groups, i have a list here that i will submit for the record of dozens of groups endorsing this legislation but i particularly want to draw attention to several that played a leading role and i'll apologize to others that were also very involved. but the human rights campaign played a central role in organizing today's introduction.

the american civil liberties union, the national council of la raza, the national lgbtq action fund, the national women's law center, and so many, so many others. the equality act will create uniform federal standards to protect all lgbt americans from discrimination in housing in workplaces in schools in public accommodations, in financial transactions. it is a vision of equality deeply rooted in the 1964 civil rights act. it is setting the same foundation to end discrimination for lgbt community that was set for ethnicity and set for gender and set for race. that is the foundation for the vision of eliminating discrimination in area after area and it's time that we place

lgbt nondiscrimination on that same foundation and that's what we are doing today comprehensively taking on discrimination. the bill also addresses gaps in legal protections against sex discrimination, ensuring women are treated equally in all aspects of their lives. the equal employment opportunity commission and a steadily increasing number of courts have recognized that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are properly understood as sex discrimination in light of multiple controlling sex discrimination cases. the eeoc has done this through several decisions most notably macey versus holder in 2012 which shelled that and baldwin versus fox recently which held that sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination. and the bill that we are introducing today is equality

act codifies these understandings making sure that sexual orientation identity are understood as sex discrimination. the bill adds the term sexual ororientation to the term characteristics throughout the code. this should not mean that they are not correctly understood as sex discrimination. these additions are made so covered entities so people can clearly she these protections exist and employers and businesses and institutions are often not aware of the decisions by the eeoc and the courts holding that sexual orientation or gender identity are protected. this bill represents a paradigm shift in two ways. first, our civil rights community has worked incredibly hard to defend the principles established in the 1964 civil rights act and today we are

asking for their engagement. do not sumly defendto not simply defend this act. we have asked to take on pieces of this legislation. whether it be federal benefits for same-sex partners, but today we're saying we need a vision of comprehensive nondiscrimination. that is the expression of full opportunity. you cannot access full opportunity if the if the door is closed in financial transactions or jury transactions. you can still be turned away from a restaurant because of who you love or who you are. discrimination has no place in our nation's laws.

if it is wrong in marriage, as the court has held, as numerous states have established it's wrong also in employment. if it's wrong in employment, it is wrong in housing. if it is wrong in housing, it is wrong, too in education. overwhelmingly americans believe that discrimination is wrong. overwhelmingly, they believe that it's already illegal. and they believe it has no place if our society no place being condoned by our laws. even though the quality act addresses multiple dimensions of discrimination it really is quite simple. it says that people deserve to live free from fear, free from violence and free from discrimination regardless of who they are or whom they love. writing these protections in protections into

law will brings another stride forward in our nation's long march toward inclusion and equality. it will extend the full promise of america to every american, and i will keep fighting until this bill is on the president's desk. i will not be satisfied until everyone in the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community is guaranteed the freedom they deserve the whole sense of opportunity provided through participation in american society a full measure of equality: equal citizen. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in this fight and i thank the 40 senators who stood up today to be original cosponsors of the equality act of 2015. let's make our democracy more inclusive and our freedom more

perfect by bringing our laws and our actions in line with the founding principle that all are created equal. thank you mr. president. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: thank you mr. president. i call up the roberts anticipate roberts -- the roberts anticipateroberts amendment for consideration. the presiding officer: the senate is not a motion to proceed. amendments are not in order. mr. roberts: mr. president when that is in order and i call up the roberts amendment for consideration, i will thank my colleagues alex an ander burr cot on, risch sasse and

tillis for joining me on this amendment. and today we ask our fellow colleagues to stand with us to protect the u.s. economy from $3.2 billion in retaliatory tariffs being applied to our exports to canada and mexico every year -- every year. a recent ruling from the world trade organization found for the fourth and final time that our country of origin labeling program for meat -- or what the acronym says is "cool" -- that this labeling program violates our trade agreements with our two closest trading partners. mr. president, this debate isn't about the merits of a particular labeling program or our opinions about how our beef or pork or chicken should be sold.

no this debate is about a simple fact, and facts are stubborn things. whether you support "cool" or whether you oppose "cool," the fact is, retaliation is coming, unless the senate acts to stop this program that the w.t.o. has found to be discriminatory. over the years this body has attempted many times to craft a workable "cool" program for all stakeholders while still living up to our international trade obligations. congress through directives in the 2002 farm bill and the 2008 farm bill, required the establishment of "cool" for meat. through regulations issued in 2009 and revised in 2013, the department of agriculture made several attempts to implement a workable and w.t.o.-compliant

"cool" program. however, as i mentioned earlier again and again the w.t.o. ruled in favor of canada and mexico. on four occasions mr. president -- four -- our trade regulator ruled that the u.s. policy did not live up to our international trade obligations and disadvantaged our best trade partners canada and mexico. now, some have suggested that we should salvage this labeling program by once again making more changes. however, simply changing certain aspects of the program will not prevent the $ $3.2 billion in retaliation from damaging our economy. now, mr. president you don't have to take my word for it. my colleagues, you don't have to take my word for it. here is a statement issued today from the canadian government

which will determine whether retaliation on u.s. products will take effect in the near future. "the only acceptable outcome remains for the united states to repeal 'cool' or face $3 billion in annual, annual, retaliation." now, mr. president, i have worked with many of my colleagues over the years and over the last few weeks to craft a solution that meets the needs of all stakeholders. however, after all of our work, it is clear that to protect our economy, to ensure canada and mexico drop their pursuit of retaliation on u.s. exports we must first take up the house-passed bill repealing "cool." a bipartisan bill that received 300 votes in the house of representatives. the damages that canada and mexico are seeking are immense.

over $3.2 billion in sanctions on u.s. products is probable if we do not repeal "cool," and these are not just agriculture productsproducts in the crosshairs. products including beef and pork and cherries and ethanol -- repeat and ethanol -- wine, orange juice jewelry even mattresses furniture parts for heating appliances are just some of the targets of the canadian retaliation. mexico has yet to finalize their list. we expect it to be just as damaging. california alone has $4 billion in exports to canada at risk. florida, illinois, iowa, michigan minnesota, new jersey, new york, pennsylvania, texas washington and wisconsin each

have roughly $1 billion in exports from their state at risk from canadian retaliation alone. and i remind my colleagues that again today canada released a statement in response to legislation authored by others that reaffirmed their position. and i quote -- this is the statement: "the u.s. senate must follow the lead of the house of representatives and put forward legislation that repeals 'cool' once and for all." now, i must emphasize to my colleagues that retaliation is fast-approaching and the responsibility sits squarely on our shoulders to avoid it. regardless of what farm groups, the department of agriculture or the ustr say or regardless of what some members would like, canada and mexico -- and only

canada and mexico -- have the ability to halt retaliation. so this takes me back to the beginning of my statement. it doesn't matter if you support "cool" or if you oppose "cool." you cannot ignore the fact that re-failation is im-- --retaliation is immeant andee must avoid it. repeal is necessary to protect the u.s. economy from damaging sanctions and our amendment will accomplish just that. mr. president, i thank you. i urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. roberts: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the statement from ministers

risch and fast be inserted in the record at this point on country-of-origin labeling. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing no objection it shall be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you. mr. president, i rise in strong support of the drive act. i want to commend chairman inhofe and ranking member boxer for their bipartisan work on this bill that passed out of the environment and public works committee with a unanimous vote including mine. mrs. capito: a long term solution like the drive act will provide the certainty we need. passing a six year bill would be a great achievement for this congress especially in the context of our recent history and i'm hopeful that we will seize this opportunity. several years ago as a member of

the house transportation committee, i strongly supported the last long-term highway bill that helped support major roads in west virginia and around the country. the 2005 highway bill was extended ten separate times -- ten times -- between 2009 and 2012. during that period states were only assured federal funding for a period of weeks months, laking lasting improvements of our highway infrastructure difficult. and it shows. as we saw between 2009 and 2012, several short-term extensions result in fewer and more costly fixes. in 2012, we passed map-21 to reauthorize the highway program for two years. i served as a conferee on that legislation. map-21 was a strong bipartisan achievement that included a number of important reforms to streamline project delivery and help states complete their projects more efficiently and economically. but ultimately map-21 was a

two-year bill. since map-21, we've had more of the same. short-term extension after short-term extension. the recent history shows just how significant this opportunity we have is. we have before us a bipartisan fiscally responsible bill that will provide the certainty our states need to improve the nation's highway system for several years. i am encouraged by the bipartisan vote that we saw last night to move to debate, and i hope that my colleagues will continue to work together to drive that drive act into law. westwest virginia relies heavily as most people around the country on roads and bridges and highways to fuel our economy. to access hard-to-reach places in our states, to get to and from work and to transport goods and services. west virginians understand the need for a long-term highway bill nearly one-third of our state's major roads are

currently in poor conditions. and the federal highway administration has listed 960 west virginia bridges as structurally deficient. we have quite a few bridges in our state because of our beautiful mountains. the drive act will increase funding for maintaining and repairing these bridges. the bill prioritized maintenance of our major roads helping to address the current state of disrepair of our highways and across this country. this is a statistic that was quite frankly, i was rather jarred by the number. each west virginia motorist pays an average of $575 a year in extra maintenance costs due to the poor road conditions. this drive act will help our states address maintenance repair creating safer and less costly trips for our drivers. but the biggest thing is the certainty that comes from a long-term highway bill. it's important for not only the maintenance aspect but it is most important to advance new projects. large highway projects are

expensive multiyear endeavors. states can't plan based on the future based on funding commitments for a week or month and whether the issue is improving congestion or moving freight across the country the drive act will help the most important projects move forward. in west virginia, u.s. route -- excuse me -- u.s. route 35 in put new hampshire and mason -- in putnam and mason county is an important project. it's been two-lane for a very long time. it was one of the most dangerous roads that interstate truck traffic shared. thanks in part to that 2005 bill i talked about the majority of route 35 is now a four-lane highway and our state efforts to complete the remaining 14 miles are well underway. but the drive act will aid efforts to get that project across the finish line. it will also help us build

quarter h coming through the middle of the state central and eastern west virginia, an important part of the appalachian highway system. when this is complete it will link counties in central west virginia and with the interstate ann 81 corridor and providing safety and providing equal development for our communities. whether it is coalfields express way or other high priority projects across our states, states need that certainty that is going to come from a dedicated federal investment to move forward. and that's what a long-term highway bill does while creating jobs for our construction workers. according to the west virginia contractors association construction and employment in my state fell by 11.3% between november of 2013 and november of 2014. that's in one year. passing a highway bill that supports investment in our roads and bridges will put these men and women back to work. reauthorizing our highway

program for six years would be reason enough, in my opinion to strongly support the drive act. but i want to highlight another part of this bill that's important to my state. it reauthorizes the appalachian regional commission through 2021. and west virginia is the only state whose boundaries fall fully entirely within the commission's boundaries. earlier this year the commission marked its 50th anniversary of leading efforts to fight poverty and improve the quality of life in the appalachian region. and over that period in the appalachian region, poverty has been cut in half with the percent of residents over 25 with college degrees has nearly tripled. but there's much more work to be done. the drive act authorizes a broadband deployment initiative through the a.r.c. to help increase access to high-speed internet a problem in rural america, in support of distance learning telemedicine and business development.

reauthorizing this a.r.c. and bringing broadband to small economically depressed communities will help bring jobs to west virginia. the a.r.c. provides important support for health care, education and infrastructure programs and i am pleased that the drive act will allow the commission to continue its efforts for the next six years. now is the time to move our transportation system forward meet the needs of our growing population ensure safety for travelers and promote growth in areas that struggle economically. the senate has the opportunity to make a real and positive difference for all americans by passing the drive act. and i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation. thank you. a senator: mr. president sm. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. portman -- mr. portman: i want

to talk about ways of paying for it and that's by using funds what's been called the hardest hit funds. over the years i have worked in my state of ohio and around the country to help deal with this issue of abandoned homes. we're all concerned about communities that have blighted properties because they tend to be magnets for crime for drugs for other illegal activity. and it turns out one of the best ways to increase home values in some of the blighted neighborhoods around our country and in my home state of ohio is to actually take these abandoned homes, tear them down and have that property be used for other purposes, whether it's new development, whether it's a comiewrnt garden or -- community garden or raising the property to ensure that homes in the neighborhood are not affected negatively by those home values going down. there is a lot of information out there about this now because many states have gotten active in doing it. it appears that it's working.

in other words home values are increasing sometimes dramatically by taking down these blighted properties. i think perhaps inadvertently members of this body who are looking at ways to pay for the highway trust fund extension decided that the hardest-hit funds was the place to look. and there's no question there's been a g.a.o. report about some aspects of this fund, how it's been used, whether there might be needs for reform, maybe significant reform. but this one area of dealing with blighted properties is one we need to be very careful on. main streets across our country are looking to us right now in the united states senate to ensure that we don't overreach and by trying to find funding for infrastructure and in effect create more problems in those neighborhoods. in my home state of ohio, we have nearly 80,000 dangerous abandoned homes. one of the best things, again you can do to address public safety in tumbling home values in these neighborhoods is to demolish these structures. they cost neighbors up to 80% of

their value, some of the data we have from cities in my home state of ohio. we've also seen the first responders sometimes are at risk when these homes are subject to arson, other crimes. sadly, we've lost a firefighter in one of these homes back home in ohio because of an arson. i remember touring some of these abandoned homes in toledo, ohio, where i got to witness one of the homes being torn down. i've done the same thing in warner ohio, i've done the same thing in other communities around our state. i've done the same thing in toledo with the mayor. and as we were talking to neighbors, i asked the neighbor who was right next to one of the homes being torn down, how do you feel about this? and of course she said what other neighbors have told me me in other opportunities i've had to go in these communities and talk about abandoned homes. she said it would be better because there's less blight, less crime. we have a concern because this abandoned home is being used by

drug dealers. but she also said, you know, rob, i live right next to this home. there is only a few feet that separated these two homes. she said i've got three kids at home and every night when i went to bed i was worried about what might be happen that an arson might light this home on fire as has been done throughout the city of toledo in other abandoned homes and my kids would be at risk. this is something that is working, and i'm concerned again that if we do not take this into account as we look at how to pay for this infrastructure bill that we will in fact make the situation worse rather than better. land banks is one way we're getting at this in my home state of ohio and around the country in some of the hardest-hit states manufacturing states like ohio, like michigan, they've gotten to work attacking this issue. and the resources again that they need to demolish these properties in order to help struggling neighborhoods recover come in part from these hardesten hit funds. in ohio, we have 24 land banks.

i think there are six more in formation. by the end of the year, we expect to have at least 30 county land banks in ohio. after visiting some of these neighborhoods that are impacted by these homes and walking the streets with local officials in 2013 i authored a bill called the neighborhood safety act. it was a cuban i don't know bill to a -- it was a companion bill to ohio members in congress including dave joyce marcy kaptur and marcia fudge. and our legislation again called for these hardest hits funds to be used for demolition purposes. after we pushed for this and pushed aggressively, this important change was made. it provided nearly $66 million to my state of ohio to deal with these thousands of abandoned homes we talked about. i know the state of michigan also received a significant part of these hardest hit funds for these purposes as did other states.

again, i'm concerned about this potential pay-for in the legislation that could take away some of these funds that are absolutely critical for doing this important work. i've been in at the pump with land banks -- in touch with land banks in ohio to talk about it, the ohio financing agency to determine what the best path forward is to protect these funds. we're working right now with the committee leadership to see if we can modify the language in the underlying bill, and i know it's something also of concern to senator stabenow because i spoke to her earlier about it today as well as my colleague from ohio, senator brown. i don't know what we're going to do going forward here. we may need to offer an amendment to change the language. i'm hopeful we can have this be part of a managers amendment. dealing with these abandoned and blighted homes is a public safety concern and it's a huge concern for local officials local officials in my home state who i've talked to, been on the streets with, but also across our country. we've got to protect these funds for these communities that so desperately need them.

i want to particularly thank a friend back home, jim rekokas. he's done excellent work in highlighting this issue in ohio and help bring people together. i hope we will be able to resolve this issue again in a managers' amendment. if not i do intend to offer an amendment and i hope that amendment can be supported on a bipartisan basis to ensure we're not perhaps inadvertently taking away this tool that we are using every day to make our neighborhoods safer and improve home values for the people we represent. the final point i want to make is that the legislation also includes very important wording it reforms our permitting system. for years people have been talking about the fact that america is a place where it's hard to build something. in fact, it's gotten to the point where one international survey that's widely respected has said that america has fallen to number 41 in the world in terms of the ease of doing business as it relates to

green-lighting a project. think of a commercial project or a road or a bridge or think of an energy project whether it is solar, wind, oil or gas. what we're finding out is that it is so hard to build something in america that some of niece funds are going -- some of these funds are going somewhere else. sometimes in foreign capitals, we see a lot of cranes and a lot of activity. part of that is because these funds are not coming to this country because it takes so long to build something to get the permits and there's so much uncertainty that capital is not patient enough. there's also more legal liability here than in so many other countries. so being number 41 in the world has led to us having fewer good-paying construction jobs here in this country. as a result of this concern over the last three years i have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to draft commonsense legislation to speed up the permitting process while still ensuring that we go through a regulatory process

that includes an environmental review and other reviews. this legislation streamlines the process, requires one federal agency to be accountable -- which is not the case now deals with this case now where on an energy pronl, for instance, you may have -- on an energy project, for instance, you may have as many as 35 different permits, just to get it going. and with regard to the statute of limitations instead of having it run six years -- six years after the final environmental review -- we limit that to two years, which is plenty of time to bring this lawsuit that some have found because of the six-year statute of limitations makes it very difficult to find investors. so this is an important part of the legislation that we're dealing with. it is part of the highway trust fund. it is part of this infrastructure bill, to not only provide for funding for our highways and our bridges and our roads but also ensure that we can move forward with more of these projects more quickly and use the money more efficiently.

this has been supported broadly across the aisle. it reported out of our committee, governmental affairs earlier this year with a strong bipartisan vote. i believe it was 12-1. it's one that's supported by the chamber of commerce, but it's also supported by the afl-cio building trades council. they feel strongly about it for all the right reasons. they wnts to bring back some -- they want to bring back some jobs. and a lot of construction jobs that were lost during the crisis are yet to come back. so i want to commend the authors of the lying legislation for -- of the underlying legislation for including my bill. i hope it stays in the bill. it is the right thing to do to get projects going and it is the right thing to do to create more jobs. at a time when all of us continue to be disappointed by the recovery, one of the weakest recoveries we've ever seen in the history of our country. i thank you for letting me speak about a concern, the hardest-hit

funds do an excellent job in our communities with regard to abandoned homes. we have to be careful that we don't pull the rug out of these. and, two, i want to commend again those who have included in this legislation our permitting bill. senator clean air mis-caskill and i from missouri have worked on it for years. it makes sense in order to get america back to work, building things again. it will help in terms of the highway funding making sure that funding goes further. but it also will help in terms of all sorts of other construction projects, energy projects commercial buildings other infrastructure. with that, mr. president i yield the floor to my colleague. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to speak up -- for up to ten minutes in

-- as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you mr. president. i rise today to talk about the department of labor's proposal to provide overtime pay to more americans, a step that could affect as many as 90,000 middle-class workers in minnesota and nearly 5 million around the country. right now if someone makes more than $455 a week -- or about $24,000 a year -- that's a good chance that -- there's a very good chance they don't qualify for overtime pay and that's below the current poverty line for a family of four. the newly proposed regulations would raise that level to $970 a week or about $50,000 annually, and that means the salaried worker earning less than that amount will be able to benefit from overtimethe duties that he or

she performs. this change would benefit an enormous number of americans whose wages have remained virtually unchanged while the costs of education, child care, and retirement have risen steadily over the past decade. last month we saw the 64th straight month of private-sector job growth since the great depression. our economy overall is getting stronger but too much of that prosperity is going to people at the top. middle-class families and those aspiring to be in the middle class simply are not reaping the benefits. in fact, america's wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is at its highest level -- the gap -- since 1983, and the gap between the highest and lowest earners is at its greatest since before

the great depression. this kind of inequality is not just bad for those workers it's bad for our economy as a whole which is strongest when we have a thriving middle class. mr. president, overtime protections were first passed as part of the fair labor standards act of 1938. in the midst of the great depression when the economy was far worse off than it is now. it was passed as a way to protect workers from abusive employers and lay the groundwork to rebuild the middle class. and while overtime protections have been a staple of the american economy they no longer reach many of the workers that they were intended to help. now, just look at the trends, mr. president. in 1975, overtime covered -- i'm sorry, in 1975, overtime covered

62% of full-time salaried workers, including a majority of people with college degrees. today only 8% of workers are eligible for overtime, which is an especiallily alarming statistic since hourly wages for the average worker have remained flat in real dollars since 1979. that's why in january of this year i joined several of my colleagues in pushing president obama to update these outdated overtime rules. we asked the president a how more working people to qualify for overtime and to index those earnings that threshold to keep up with inflation so that future generations of american workers can reap the benefits of their hard work. i'm glad the administration agreed. these proposed rules will help put more money in the pockets of those who work longer hours.

it'll provide an incentive to employers to hire more workers or increase the hours of part-time workers and help strengthen the economy. these rules will allow workers to spend their newfound earnings and spur further economic growth. they'll help grow our shrinking middle class, which is the backbone of our economy and help create a pathway for those who want to become a part of the middle class. it is vital that we support this proposal to guarantee overtime pay to millions of more americans. thank you mr. president. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i ask to speak in morning business for up to ten minutes. l. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you. today i filed along with a bipartisan group of cosponsors the voluntary country-of-origin labeling and trade enhancement act of 2015. i'd like to thank the cosponsors

on the legislation the lead cosponsor on the democrat side is senator debbie stabenow, ranking member on the senate ag committee. also joining us in this bipartisan group is senator john thune, south dakota, another member of the ag committee senator amy klobuchar senator chuck grassley, senator hidely heitkamp senator mike enzi, and senator sherrod brown all members, with the exception of senator enzi, all members of our ag committee. what we're trying to do is come up with a solution to the country-of-origin labeling issue. this is an issue that's been in w.t.o. court for sometime. it involves the united states, canada and mexico, our very good trading partners. what we're working to do is to find a solution that addresses the w.t.o. issues as far as

country-or-origin labeling in a way that makes sure that we are w.t.o.-compliant so that there are no duties or tariffs that can be levied against any of our ag exports or any other exports. but, at the same time, for those who want to use country- country-of-origin labeling on a voluntary basis they're able to do so. that would preserve what's known as the grade-a label, which is simply means born, raised, and slaughtered or processed in the united states. so for beef, pork, chicken if it's born, raised and processed in the united states you can still use that grade-a label. but it's a voluntary program. it's not a mandatory program. and we do that purposely so that we meet w.t.o. requirements. and i've spoken with the u.s. trade representative's office

about that issue which i'll go into in just a minute. but what we've done is we've simply taken the house legislation sponsored by the ag chairman in the house representative mike connoway, and we've taken that bill which passed the house and essentially we take the same bill, same language as far as repealing mandatory cool. so we repeal mandatory cool, which puts us in compliance with what the w.t.o. is asking for. and then we simply add some language that allows for a voluntary program. so that for processors marketers, producers that want to participate in a voluntary program, they can. if they believe that consumers want to know, then they have that opportunity to provide their product with the grade-a label on a voluntary basis. and that's just reasonable

because, you know what? that's what canada does. canada has a voluntary program. it's called their product of canada label. so all we're doing is what canada does. we repeal the mandatory program and we put in place a voluntary program just like our good friends and neighbors in canada. and that's why when i spoke with the u.s.t.r., u.s. trade representative, about this issue, essentially what they've said is whether you repeal mandatory cool by -- by itself or you repeal mandatory cool and have a voluntary program essentially we're in the same position vis-a-vis meeting the w.t.o. requirements. so this is really an effort to build bipartisan support for a solution to the cool issue which has been a challengingish issue. this is something we worked on in the farm bill.

i was one of the conferees on the conference committee. cool and other issues were some of the last -- dairy, for example -- but these were some of the last issues we were able to resolve in finally getting an agreement on a farm bill. and so this, again is an effort in a practical way to bring people together on both sides of the issue solve the problem make sure that we're w.t.o. compliant and that on a voluntary basis there is option for people to label as they want to do and to create enough bipartisan support in this body so that we can deal with the issue now so that we can resolve the issue now pass this legislation get into conference with the house and have a resolution before the end of this month and before the august recess so that this issue is taken care of. and i look forward to working with everybody involved on both sides of the aisle with our esteemed chairman of the ag

committee, senator roberts appreciate all the time we've spent working together on this issue. but i look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle both on the ag committee and everyone else, to craft a solution advance it through this body get into conference with the house. i've already spoken with chairman connoway, as i say the ag chairman in the house. we have a good relationship, had a good dialogue about as soon as we get together to resolve this, the better and we look forward to that. so again i ask my colleagues to join with us, our bipartisan group, in a bipartisan way. let's get this done and make sure that we not only have addressed the issue with the world trade organization court so there are no duties but also make sure we've put forward a solution that works for the american consumer and for the american ag industry that on a voluntary basis gives them the opportunity to provide

country-of-origin labeling as well as solving the w.t.o. challenge. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the -- the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from the great state of connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. as i watch this great body -- the presiding officer: senator we are in a quorum call right now. mr. blumenthal: i apologize mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: mr. president as i watch this great deliberative body move toward a transportation bill i sometimes feel as though i'm watching an impending train wreck or a car crash r. because on the issue of safety -- or a car crash. because on the issue of safety, this bill is unfortunately missed opportunity. if we authorize this

transportation measure which is vitally important to the future of our nation and will help drive economic growth and create jobs, we are missing the opportunity to make our roads and rails safer more reliable and more resilient for our economy and quality of life. we are missing an opportunity in effect to save lives. anyone who has opened the morning newspaper and read about a derailment, whether in bridgesport or in the bronx, new york or philadelphia, causing injuries deaths, loss of both life and property, you can ask understandably why can't they do something?

anybody who discovers a used car bought by a friend or relative or one's self rife with recalls and the need for repairs can justifiably ask why can't they do something? and anybody who has a near-miss on the highway with an 80,000-pound truck going 75 miles an hour because there is a tired truck driver under pressure from an owner or because there are two 33-length rigs can justifiably ask why haven't they done something? and the answer is because the senate is missing an opportunity now, this year, on this bill. i spent a lot of time driving connecticut's roads and seeing

firsthand how all of these vital forms of transportation -- railroad bridges ports and airports -- are in need of investment. the latest example and evidence is from a report released today. it's called the tripp report. in new haven finding 45% of roads there are in poor condition and the cost to drivers are $707 a year in repairs. that's real money. those roads are really in bad condition. 45% of them in the new haven area alone. and the tripp report ought to be a powerful reminder of the need for robust and enduring investment. i wrote to the writers and

drafters of the bill before us asking for a good bill that makes the kind of investment we need to respond to the needs that are reflected in the tripp report. which is in the range of billions of dollars a year. but this measure provides to connecticut only about $500 million a year, a pittance compared to what the need is in connecticut, according to the american society for civil engineers and the federal highway administration. keeping roads and rail reliable and safe means investment. creating jobs means investment. driving the economy forward means investment. all of those goals can be served by a robust and adequate investment.

i urged that the bill cover the full six years. instead, this bill really is a mirage of what is necessary. the bill before us fails to provide a long-term and robust plan to meet priorities for our nation's transportation infrastructure. major construction projects, like building the i-84 route 18 highway change in waterbury known as the mixmaster and replacing the aetna of viaduct portions of i-84 in for hartford, will take years to complete. this bill provides only the illusion of a long-term authorization. backed only by three years of dedicated funding for highways and no -- let me repeat, no -- dedicated funding for the critical infrastructure investments in our nation's commuter railroads.

as the american people discover what's in this bill they're going to say again why can't they do something? why can't they do something better than this train wreck and car collision of a bill? i voted against the motion to proceed because of its failure to provide a path forward. this bill's failure to provide a reliable funding source for the commuter rail systems that millions of americans depend on every day and its failure to address our country's ongoing crisis in transportation safety. we've seen the evidence of safety failure in a variety of tragic instances. philadelphia westchester county where a collision at a

gate crossing in westchester county killed six people. a derailment in the bronx that killed four in a train on the wrong tracks, hitting and killing a worker. positive train control would help prevent these kinds of tragedies. it's a technology similar to g.p.s. not much more complicated. it monitors track conditions and speeds of trains and helps trains slow or stop before there is a collision or derailment. it's not a new or novel or original untested technology. it's something that has been around for years. this bill fails to bring our railroads into the latest 20th century technology, not to mention the 21st century technology that positive train control offers. the northeast corridor is in urgent need of at least $570

million per year to enable a decent and adequate state of repair to give railroads a realistic chance of implementing lifesaving positive train control technology and to improve safety at rail grade crossing. that's money that can't be created by a mirage or an illusion in a bill like this one. the national infrastructure safety and investment grants program was designed to provide this level of support. if congress were to dedicate the necessary funding from the highway trust fund, it could be done. but congress is ignoring this fundamental need. on our roads american bus and truck drivers perform an essential service. they work hard at it, but their industry also has

well-documented safety issues. unfortunately this legislation creates additional hurdles for the federal motor carrier safety administration to promulgate rules and address critical safety issues rather than making the roads safer it actually enables more danger. the bill before us allows 18-year olds to sit behind the wheel of an 80,000 pound truck going 75 miles an hour with no requirement to get rest, to drive 75 miles an hour not only within the state but across state line. it allows giant twin 33's, new to our roads to drive across state lines putting drivers at risk and further degrading our highway system. and the bill eviscerates federal rules on how much rest truck drivers must take. that rest is essential to

safety. i sought to strike and modify these damaging provisions in committee, and i urged my colleagues to support essential safety reforms but unfortunately, those calls went unhed -- unheeded. over the last few years the commerce committee has had a tragic front row seat, a unique insight to the tragedies that pile up when safety is ignored. our national safety regulations all too commonly look the other way when auto companies, for example, conceal information to protect profits over human life. i appreciate the work of senator boxer who stripped most of the worst and most offensive provisions out of the title governing the national highway

traffic safety administration. that title no longer limits grants for prevention of drunk driving, for example. it still contains, unfortunately, unacceptable loopholes. due to the g.m. ignition cover up and the takata air bag crisis, there are currently an unprecedented 64 million cars on the road today under safety recall. let me repeat that number. 64 million cars on the road today under recall. that's 25% of the total 250 million cars in america. and to say this number is unprecedented fails to do it justice. along with a number of of my colleagues particularly senator markey i've advocated numerous policy changes to ensure accountability for these problems and make them less likely in the future. not just punish but protect.

and i'd like to focus on two that are particularly urgent. first, many of the cars that have been recalled are ten or more years old and in the hands of second or third owners. there needs to be a provision that says to used car dealers they have an obligation when a car is under recall to notify the new owner and in fact to repair the car. second as we learned in the case of g.m., federal prosecutors simply lack legal tools to file criminal charges against companies for knowingly concealing information about defects that can kill. deliberate cover-up and concealment of deadly defects should be punishable criminally, as it in other industries where the stakes are similar.

we know that employees at g.m. were aware of dangerous safety defects but chose to remain silent or in fact mislead authorities, reading to hundreds of injuries and deaths. this measure and the drive act do nothing to hold manufacturers or their corporate officers criminally responsible when they knowingly fail to disclose those risks. and even after the defects are discovered nhtsa lacks the teeth to ensure that wrongdoing is not repeated. their civil penalty authority for safety violations is currently capped at $35 million. the drive act leaves these fines at just a pittance compared to the revenue of g.m., less than the cost of doing business. safety fines need to be

meaningful rather than a pittance less than the cost of doing business. congress must remove this cap and ensure that safety penalties provide a meaningful deterrent to wrongdoing, even at $70 million, it is a pittance compared to g.m. which made $156 billion in 2014. americans deserve better than another six years of these crashes, bridges collapse supposed accidents which are preventable and that they need protection to stop. i hope that my colleagues will join with me to implement reforms now and take strong steps to build and maintain a

transportation system worthy of the greatest, strongest country in the history of the world for our economy, we can create jobs. for our quality of life, we can ensure quality and convenience. for our safety, we can prevent crashing. we can do better with a transportation company, with a transportation system that keeps people safe. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: i ask to speak for up to 15 minutes -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. the presiding officer: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask to speak up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president i rise today to talk about a very important topic for our country the future of our kids and the future of our kids' kids. this morning i was in a foreign relations hearing about iran. it's pretty obvious the administration has decided once again that our democratic values and procedures are too high of a

hurdle to clear. instead of keeping his promise to the american people and following the pledge it made to congress a few months ago to give everyone time to review the terms of this deal, the administration has instead undercut all of us again. this administration has effectively ignored the 98 senators -- myself included -- and 400 representatives who voted for the iran nuclear agreement review act earlier this year. by advancing this vote at the u.n. security council this administration has violated the very balance of power between our three branches of government. i'm outraged that this administration continues to circumvent congress at every turn from regulations to mandates to foreign policy. this is an absolute failure of the administration to do what's best for the american people, our security, and indeed the security of the world. the precept for this deal with iran simply doesn't make sense.

this deal started off by creeing the right to enriched to iran immediately reversing decades of proliferation policy. secretary kerry said in 2013 that -- quote -- "we do not recognize their right to enrich. this deal reverses six united nations security council resolutions and turns a pariah proliferator into a legitimate nuclear state. this agreement allows iran to leapfrog over the 18 countries who have peaceful nuclear programs but no enrichment and to be treated with countries like argentina germany holland iran -- i'm sorry -- japan, and brazil. we have peaceful energy programs and domestic enrichment, but who do not have a nuclear weapon. these five nations are upstanding members of the international community and this deal takes iran, the

largest state sponsor of terrorism and a violator of human rights as well as an international pariah, and treats iran's nuclear program identical to japan's. secretary kerry said at a hearing the foreign relations committee in march that -- quote -- "our negotiation is calculated to make sure that iran can never have a nuclear weapon. but president obama has said in the year 2013, 2014 or 2015 the breakout times will have shah rumpg almost to -- shrunk to zero. as i've said all along, i cannot support any deal that allows iran to become a nuclear weapons state. not now not in ten years not ever. what's more, this deal provides iran with billions of dollars of sanctions relief up front before the iaea completes its

assessment on whether or not iran's nuclear program is indeed peaceful. it took the iaea 19 years to make this determination for south africa's program and this deal starts lifting u.n. and e.u. sanctions this year, the arms embargo in five years and the ballistic missile ban in eight short years. this deal will provide iran with windfall of sanctions relief of up to over $100 billion funds that president obama's national security advisor susan rice recently conceded will go to terrorism, the iranian military, the houthis. president obama said this deal is not built on trust. it is built on verification, but this bill doesn't require anytime, anywhere inspections of all nuclear and military sites. instead, it empowers iran to create lengthy delays when iaea inspectors request access to

suspicious nuclear sites that are indeed not declared by iran. from what i understand, the iaea will have two teams traveling the country the size of texas. and let's not forget that iran vefd -- developed the for dow facility and it operated for years despite having iaea teams on the ground. and if we do find iran to be in violation of this deal, our enforcement mechanism has no teeth. snap-back sanctions in fact are a fantasy. paragraph 37 of the iran deal states that iran will cease per forge all of its commit -- performing all of its commitments to the deal in the event of a full or partial snap-back. iran will walk away if we try to hold it to the very deal it just signed off on. with this all-or-nothing nature of a snapback, will anyone try to punish iran's cheating. history tells us that when iran

does cheat it does so incrementally, in small steps so no single action in and of itself can be punished. but when you look at it over time together their treating is egregious. will any nation be willing to stake sinking the entire deal over minor cheating? even if sanctions are indeed snapped back iran sanctions relief is front loaded. they will be able to so quickly pad their economy to make themselves more resistant to future sanctions. most dangerously this deal is predicated on the idea that the regime will change its dangerous behavior. when we've only seen proof that we'll see more of the same, sponsorship of rogue regimes and terrorism worldwide. so i'm curious given what we know now about this deal how the united states not only voted for this deal at the united nations security council but actually sponsored it.

secretary kerry claims that should congress disapprove of this deal we would be in noncompliance with all of the other countries in the world. he claims there will be no nation standing with us in our sanctions or opposition to iran. well i say we let the nations of the world decide for themselves. let's give the world the option. we've stood alone before. do you want to do business with iran or with the united states? we've stood alone many times in our history when it meant doing the right thing. the american people and the fine people of georgia who are calling and writing to my office every day are uncomfortable with this nuclear deal for iran and they're up comfortable with our future under its provisions. so i say to this administration that you cannot circumvent the american people in this nuclear deal. congress will have our say. we worked hard for this 60-day review period and i will do my part to muster the 67 votes required to disapprove of a deal that leaves iran as a nuclear

threshold state in little more than a decade. this 60-day oversight period is the result of a bipartisan effort mr. president in the house and the senate protecting the balance of the three branches of government. now we must act together to protect our country and our world from a very bad actor like iran to prevent it from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state. mr. president, i rise also in the time remaining to speak very briefly of a current issue that we're going to vote on possibly this weekend. that's the highway trust fund. georgia sent me to washington to help solve our fiscal crisis, not make it worse. as a member of the senate budget committee, i'm working every day to find smarter ways to prioritize our spending. that way we can support critical functions of the federal government like funding our highway system. make no mistake i support funding are infrastructure but we must do it responsibly.

transportation is a top priority as it supports a robust economy and is one of the responsibilities of the federal government is charged with in executing under the constitution. as we continue to debate the highway bill in the senate, i'm committed to finding the right funding and enough funding for our critical infrastructure needs. as proposed the highway bill authorizes spending for the next six years yet only funds these programs for the next three years. passing responsibility over to next congress to find additional funding mechanisms for the remaining three years is unacceptable. it's what got us in this debt crisis in the first place. some of my colleagues have suggested this is simply the way the senate has acted in the past. yeah i got that. again, it's what got us here. it may be true. it doesn't make it right. i wasn't sent to washington to accept this status quo. a serious long-term solution needs to be fully funded, mr. president.

not filled with half empty promises that can't be kept or could add to our national debt. i'm working to find a responsible way forward. in order to provide georgia and other states with more certainty through a longer term solution instead of settling for just another short-term fix. today i'm introducing an amendment to simply match the authorization period with the available funding. sounds basic sounds simple. it's what i have to do in my home budget. it's what most americans have to do. they don't have the money they don't spend it. this amendment ensures there is no authorization beyond the money to spend for them in the future. i urge my colleagues to join me in breaking washington of its chronic overspending problem and urge my colleagues to support a fiscally responsible highway bill that matches the authorization with the funding mechanisms so we can continue to

fund our infrastructure projects without compromising our conservative budget principles. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota.

mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted and that i be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: the united the united states senate has an opportunity to pass a multiyear transportation bill to ensure projects move forward without disruption. as part of that bipartisan bill the drive act we also have an opportunity to pass necessary policy changes that enhance safety and make our transportation system work better. part of the drive act includes important work on transportation policy we've undertaken at the senate commerce, science and transportation committee and we will lose an opportunity to pass bipartisan reforms if we don't approve this critical legislation. the last time that we passed a multiyear transportation bill into law was 2012. however, since 2009 we have passed 33 short-term extensions to avoid a funding gap that would stop much-needed transportation projects.

highway and transportation frag projects in urban areas important to our constituents and our economy if we continue to do short-term extensions, again, 33, literally 33 short-term extensions since 2009 -- that is a terrible way to run a highway program. it doesn't allow state departments of transportation to plan it doesn't allow those who were involved in construction the contractors who build our roads and bridges, an opportunity to plan it creates all kinds of uncertainty out there. we need the certainty that comes with a long-term highway program instead of having these 33 short-term extensions. and so this is a unique opportunity that we have to actually put in place policy that would guide us at least for the next three years and hopefully beyond. our transportation system is one of the government's most visible assets and our constituents who sent us here notice when there's a problem with it. but federal infrastructure

investments that senator inhofe and senator boxer take a lead on in the committee and environment and public works and transit projects which the banking committee is responsible for aren't the only critical parts of our transportation system. policy decisions advance safety initiatives and we have rules governing how when and where we build critical projects as well as oversight of various regulations at the u.s. department of transportation regarding trucking, freight rail passenger rail and automobile safety requirements. these areas are the exclusive jurisdiction of the senate commerce committee. i have the honor of chairing the commerce science and transportation committee and was pleased to see my friend from florida, senator nelson who is the ranking member of our committee return last night following his surgery last week to help advance consideration of the drive act. let's talk about some of the policies that i've worked on with deletion on both sides of the aisle that won't become law if we fail to move forward with

this bill. keep in mind senators wicker and booker are the authors of the rail safety bill that the commerce committee passed by voice vote last month and there bill is included in this legislation. let's also recognize that commuter rail systems including new jersey transit virginia railway express have stated they will not meet federal guidelines deadlines for implementing positive train control technology. this legislation currently before the senate would authorize grants and prioritize loan applications to help commuter railroads deploy this new technology to address safety issues and get positive train control up and running as soon as possible. the bill also includes numerous additional rail safety requirements including the implementation of necessary automatic train control modifications and crew communication improvements to improve operations when positive train control and while positive train control is being implemented. the national transportation

safety board recommended requiring inward facing cameras on owl passenger railroads to create more accountability. this bill requires all passenger railroads to install such equipment in their locomotives. in fact, i have a letter here from the national transportation safety board the chairman, christopher hart, in which he says i applaud the recent passage of the passenger rail safety bill. i was pleased to see the inclusion of our recommendations regarding inward and outward facing audio and image recorders. thank you for your ongoing support of the ntsb. that is from the national transportation safety board chairman mr. christopher hart. and so having these necessary improvements will make our passenger rail systems much safer as they travel across the country. the bill also streamlines the permitting process for improvements to existing railroad track and infrastructure and improves

multimodal planning and permitting. the secretary of transportation will have new authority to speed up projects and reduce paperwork burdens. outside of improving rail safety we include a proposal offered as an amendment during committee markup by senator mccaskill, to ban rental car companies from renting vehicles needing recall repair work. we included provisions to increase consumer awareness of recalls and advance highway safety efforts in all the states. following a harsh inspector general report criticizing the regulators this bill requires the the full implementation of reforms outlined in that report. once these reforms are implemented the agency's funding authorization will substantially increase to meet the grow america request for america safety efforts. these are important safety provisions in this bill. they make our roads and our

transportation system safer and they deserve our support. at the committee level some provisions of our title were the subject of constructive discussions that helped us improve this bill before it made its way to the floor. here are a few things we did to broaden support for this. senator manchin raised concern about provisions provisions for a new train braking requirement that will be required under law by 2021 and 2023. i worked with senator manchin and we came to an agreement that if new real-world tests show the requirement isn't effective it can't proceed. if it is effective, there will be no delay in its implementation and there will be no need for new rule making. we worked with mothers against drug driving on another important issue to combat drunk driving, when we heard that they had concerns with our 24/7 sob so

broity--sobriety language. a pilot program -- our pill proposed that woo allow licensed truck drivers between the ages of 18-21 to cross short distances across borders of their states, now only requires the approval of participating states but also the approval of the secretary of transportation. at the commerce committee we have worked on a bipartisan basis to change, drop, or add provisions since we marked up the bill toern the support of colleagues -- to earn the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. now, there are still some differences. i expect amendments where this amendment will have the opportunity to decide important issues that we debated throughout the committee process. one such issue which i have heard a variety of opinions about concerns the current $35 million cap on fines that the department of transportation can

assess on manufacturers for auto safety violations. this bill would double the cap to $70 million provided that the department first finishes a still undone rule-making process on penalty assessment factors that was required in our last highway bill. now, i've heard arguments that this cap on fines for auto safety failures should be raised even more or even set at an unlimited amount. but we are doubling this cap to $70 million and conditioning an additional increased authorization for vehicle safety on implementing needed reforms. mr. president, this bill enhances safety. if we do not pass this bill, auto safety regulators don't get more funding as called for by secretary foxx following the record 64 million automobile recalls. penalties for industry auto safety violations won't go up if

this bill doesn't pass. commuter railroads don't get the new assistance to help implement positive train control or other safety improvements that the ntsb amtrak, the f.r.a. and others have called for. none of that stuff happens if this bill doesn't pass. rengtal car companies -- rein tail car companies -- rental car companies don't face a ban. not passing the safety reforms in the drive act would be an incredible missed opportunity for addressing a host of key safety improvements now some believe in this building it would be easier if we just passed another short-term extension. they're right. it would be much easier. but keeping highway and related transportation infrastructure projects funded for few more months doesn't address safety and regulatory issues that we

cannot afford to keep ignoring. five months from now if tax reform leaves us with new options, we can always decide to infuse additional funding into the bill before the senate. but delaying action on transportation for five months could also compound our difficulties. remember, there have already been 33 short-term extensions passed by congress since 2009. a silent part of every argument for a short-term extension is, let's not address safety and other critical transportation needs. the right decision for the american people is to seize the opportunity and to pass a bipartisan multiyear transportation bill without delay. and, mr. president i'd like to share with you just some of the letters of support that we've received from various organizations who have looked at the body of work that's included in these particular provision that i've meptioned. this is from the governors'

highway safety association. it says, the governors highway safety association congratulates the u.s. senate commerce committee on releasing s. 132. -- 1732. this bill provides related stability to reduce the number of crashes jirks and fatalities on america's roads. this is from the american public transportation association. it says "on behalf of the american public transportation association, or 1,500 member agencies and the millions of americans who depend on public transportation i write to commend the committee's hard work to advance comprehensive rail legislation that attempts to address safety, funding needs, amtrak enhancements, improved project delivery and other important rail policy issues. we fully support the inclusion of a rail title within a broad surface transportation package considered in the senate."

that from the president and the c.e.o. of the american public transportation association. this is from the national association of railroad passengers. they write "we're writing to endorse the inclusion of the railroad reform, enhancement and efficiency act into the comprehensive transportation and consumer protection act of 2015. the move to include passenger rail authorizing language in a broader highway transit bill is an important step in recognizing the critical role that inner city trains play in a national transportation system." this letter is from the states for passenger rail co-listing. "on behalf of the state's passenger rail coalition i write in support of the actions taken by the commerce committee to introduce sections of the highway bill. i'm particularly pleased that the railroad reform enhancement and efficiency act as approved by the commerce committee was included as a title of the bill. close quote. these are scwus a few of the examples -- these are just a few

of the examples of letters that we've received. the final one i'll meption is from transportation for america. there, again they say that, they appreciate the fact that we are authorizing passenger rail programs with the transportation safety, and freight provisions under the jurisdiction of the commerce committee through 2021, and that this proposal moves the federal transportation program in the right direction in addressing the nation's freight needs. the point i want to make, mr. president, is there have been some of our colleagues down here who have been finding fault with various provisions in the bill and obviously there are going to be a lot of people who aren't going to support this in the end anyway, but we ought to at least be talking about the facts. we ought to be talking about what in the bill. we ought to be talking about the important reforms that were made in this legislation that address safety issues, safetytion our highways safety on our railway system improvements and reforms

in our passenger rail systems come the commuter railroads that we have traveling across this country. there are a number of needed safety improvements and reforms that will be lost if we fail to act. and the letters that i mentioned are just a few examples of the organizations who rely upon those forms of transportation, who recognize this is an opportunity that we should not miss. and so i hope we will take advantage of the opportunity not do another short-term extension, which would be the 34th now since 2009, and not put in place the types of changes, reforms improvements that are needed in our transportation system across this country. if we fail to act now the window people think would pass a short-term extension another 34th short-term extension we'll be looking at this again sometime later this year and we'll be right back where we are right now. and so we shouldn't miss this opportunity. we should take advantage of it

and try and as best we can as we move this across the senate floor and debate some of these issues if there are ideas about improving it, making it better, making it stronger, i think that's what this debate here is all about. but i just with a nts to make sure that as -- but i just want to make sure that as we talk about these issues, we're accurately characterizes reflecting what's in the bill. an on both sides of the aisle both democrats and republicans members who are interested in these issues -- there are a number of committees that have jurisdiction over transportation issues -- the environment and public works committee has had the lead on write i.g. the bill, the finance committee on which i also serve is largely responsible for trying to come up with the pay-fors the way that we're going to fund this and the bank committee deals with many of the transit provisions in the bill. so there are multiple jurisdictional issues involved here. all of those committees have been active. all the members on those committees have been being a tivment i can certainly say that

on our committee on the commerce neat,commerce committee we had great participation from both republicans and democrats on the committee. lots of good input which didn't end when we reported the bill out but continued on through the weekend and into this week. we continue to look at ways that we can make this bill stronger. but i have to say all the things that are included in here all the things that i mentioned, along with all the other components, the feeps of this bill that have been worked on by other committees are important changes and probably, most important in all is that we get something that puts in place a multiyear bill that creates the kind of conditions that are conducive to jobs, to economic growth. we all know how important transportation infrastructure is to our economy. i come from part of the country where we rely heavily -- we drive long distances have a lot of geography that we have to cover. our economy because we're agricultural based relies very

heavily on getting our products to the marketplace. so we've got to have good roads and bridges we've got to have a railroad system that works and we believe that many of the things that are done in this bill contribute to that, enhance and make stronger and better and more efficient our transportation system, and that is good for jobs, that is good for the economy in this country and that's why it's so important, mr. president that we move forward. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that katherine white, federal trade commission detailee and lieutenant commander donald be granted floor privileges throughout debate on the highway bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president after last night's cloture vote, we are one step closer to

providing a long-term solution to the shortfalls in the highway trust fund. soon we will begin debate on legislation that will provide more clarity and certainty to our states and the highway builders throughout the country. he recallearlier this week, i was pleased to learn that our distinguished majority leader and the ranking member of the environment and public works committee were able to reach a bipartisan agreement to authorize and fund the long-term highway extension. i want to commend both of them and everyone who was involved in putting this bill together for their hard work and willingness to put partisanship aside in order to help the american people. now, the rest of us need to follow their example. i want to express my support for this bipartisan highway bill and urge all of my senate colleagues to do the same. the legislation that we'll soon be debating would authorize expenditures from the highway trust fund for six years and

provide three years of funding. it would do so without adding a dime to the deficit and without raising taxes. over the last few months we've all heard from the naysayers who claim that such a feat was impossible. that there was no path forward to provide long-term highway funding without a massive tax increase. and i'm pleased to see that our colleagues have provided us with such a path. all we have to do is be willing to walk down that path. this bipartisan bill provides us with an historic opportunity when it comes to highway funding it would provide the longest extension of highway funding we've seen in over a decade. i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle including some who will likely come out against this bill, like to point tout -- point to the 2012 map-21 legislation as a

paragon for how congress should consider and pass a highway bill. of course map-21 extended highway funding for only two years. this legislation we're debating this week will go for a significantly longer period of time. in short mr. president passage a significant victory for good government. and, of course, it would provide a great example of what is possible when members of both parties work together. of course, we've seen a number of these types of examples in the senate this year. for example earlier this year we passed legislation to permanently repeal and replace the medicare sustainable growth rate system a problem that had plagued congress and our health care system for years. shortly thereafter, we passed a bipartisan bill to combat human trafficking. and, of course, after that, members from both parties and both chambers came together to renew trade promotion authority and update our trade laws for the 21st centuryment --

century. the senate is working again mr. president, and i don't think it's going to stop any time soon. i think the highway bill will be the next item we add to the long list of bipartisan victories we've achieved in the senate under the current leadership. we just need to keep moving this bill forward. of course this bill isn't perfect either. anyone who is desperate to find a reason to vote against this legislation could likely scour through the text and find some frivolous reason. the pay-fors in the bill, as least as far as i'm concerned don't all represent ideal policy choices, but we shouldn't hold a good bill hostage while we search for perfection. indeed, as i've said a number of times here on the floor in recent months i've been here in the senate for 39 years and in that time, i don't remember voting on very many bills that i thought were perfect. this is a good bill, mr. president. it's not meant to be a partisan wish-list or a political messaging vehicle.

it provides a serious and workable solution to a legitimate problem and it was designed to get support from members of both parties. once again i want to commend my colleagues for their work on getting us this close to a solution on highways. now, as we all know, the house has taken a different path with regard to highway funding. they sent over a six-month patch with the intention of using that time to work on a solution that would both fix our problems in our tax code and provide for long-term highway funding. the idea of linking highways to tax reform has a lot of support here in washington. like i said, that is the path the house has opted to go and i know that leaders in the obama administration have a similar vision. i want to make one thing clear clear -- i support tax reform. i have been and will continue to be the most outspoken member of the senate in favor of robust bipartisan tax reform. and i agree with many of my

colleagues that linking that effort to the highway funding could make a lot of sense. luckily, the senate's highway bill will allow us to continue to pursue that path. keep in mind, mr. president that under this bill we will have three years additional authorized highway expenditures to pay for when all is said and done. this means that whenever we can agree on a tax reform package whether it's six months from now or later it will still be possible and likely just as sensible to tie the two efforts together. my colleagues also need to keep in mind that while this legislation addresses the immediate need for highway funding, the fundamental issues that fuel the need for tax reform will remain in place. we'll still face an increasing number of corporate inversions and foreign takeovers. our tax rates will still be too high. and our tax code will still be altogether too complicated and burdensome. in other words if congress passes this bipartisan long-term

highway bill, we will still be under enormous pressure to fix our nation's broken tax code and to provide relief to struggling job creators and taxpayers throughout the country. no one should question that mr. president. once again i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan highway package. it provides a realistic path forward to a solution that all of us want to see. traditionally, members of both parties have been able to come together to deal with our nation's infrastructure. for the sake of our citizens who need better roads and highways our builders, engineers and job creators who want to grow and expand and our workers who need good jobs, i hope we can do so again with this important legislation. now, having said that and having found good in what both the house and the senate are trying to do, i think it's important to point out that delaying this for six months is not going to work. i can see the same -- the same

roadblocks thrown up every step of the way and then you get to the end of that particular time and the leverage is going to be on those who really want to stall this fight to begin with. so i'm concerned about doing that especially when we have what really is a very good highway bill here in the senate and it could solve at least this problem for -- these problems for awhile and we can still work on tax reform in the process. i have no illusions. i've been around here for a long time and i know how difficult tax reform is going to be and i also know that it takes presidential leadership which -- which i hope will be there when the time comes. but we have no guarantee that it's going to be there. i can remember many months ago i said to the president if you want tax reform, send us a well-thought-out bill and we'll see what we can do to put it through. i'm still waiting and i can say that to put all our apples in

that particular basket may not be the smartest thing we could do especially since we're going to be in an election year next year that could make it very, very difficult by the end of this year to really do what we all know we should do. this bill answers that problem. it gets rid of one very important big problem and that's our highway funding. it's no secret that we on the finance committee provided -- they didn't think we could do this but we provided really around $82 billion that we found in the code. we did not expect all $82 billion to be used but they were there and it would have given us approximately a six-year highway bill. that is not going to happen now but we -- to have a three-year highway bill out of some of the things that we were able to come up with, even though some of them are difficult and controversial it's nothing

short of a miracle. and i think we've got to get this done. we need to show the house that the senate is moving ahead and we also need to cooperate with our friends in the house when it comes to tax reform and hope that we can bring both houses together and do tax reform before the end of the year. it would be wonderful if we could. i don't have any illusions about it however. and i think we ought to do what we should do what we have to do and what needs to be done at this particular time. with that, mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold? there's another senator on the floor. mr. hatch: i'll be happy to withhold. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president i appreciate the remarks of my friend from utah and before he leaves the floor, senator hatch

i just want to say that we've worked very hard to put this bill together. it's been difficult. and, you know, if i was writing it, i would have written it differently. if you were writing it alone you would have written it differently. but we worked together long enough to know that we have to meet each other halfway. mr. hatch: if the senator would yield, i want to personally thank her. mrs. boxer: oh, that's nice, thank you. mr. hatch: because this has not been easy to do and she has taken some unjust criticism here for trying to do the undoable here in the united states senate. and i want to tell her it's been a privilege to work with her up to now and i want to make sure that together and with the help of others we get this bill through for the benefit of this country and the been ifity of our highways -- benefit of our highways. and i know how hard you and the distinguished senator from oklahoma have worked on the -- on the -- you know, the highway bill. i just want to say i have

tremendous respect for you and appreciate your efforts in this regard and want to just say kudos to you. keep going we've got to get this done. mrs. boxer: senator hatch, thank you so much. and i want to say you set the pace for cooperation when you worked with the great senator kennedy. and people looked at you and said, this is impossible. but you were able to find the common ground and do it. you and i watched that. and senator inhofe and i have tried to find the sweet spot where we could come together and work together. and i just want you to know that that teamwork i watched between you and senator kennedy from time to time on very important issues it made an impression on me and certainly on the senate and on the whole country. mr. hatch: well, if the senator would yield again? mrs. boxer: of course. mr. hatch: i remember when we finally got together.

it was way back in 1980, 1981. mrs. boxer: that's right. mr. hatch: and from that point on we found ways of coming together and getting things con that are monumental and landmark pieces of legislation. and there's no reason why we can't do that today. let me just mention that on the finance committee, we have put out of the committee some i think almost 40 bills that are bipartisan. not just one democrat or one republican but bipartisan in nature. not the least of is -- is the highway bill -- funding rather. and i've just got to say that we're -- we're doing what we should do here. i think people feel good about it. i've had people come up and say it's wonderful we're having amendments again and we're working together and we're getting things done. and i -- and i attribute some of that to the distinguished senator from california and the work that she's doing here in the united states senate. i personally appreciate working with you. let's get this done and i'll do everything in my power to help

get it done. thanks so much. mrs. boxer: yes. and senator hatch, you know, we're going to have some tough votes coming up and some people aren't going to like this amendment or that amendment. and all i want to say is let's keep our eye on what the prize is. and before you leave the floor i just want to share with you a photo. last week on the california-arizona border a bridge collapsed. now, this bridge had been rated structurally -- do you remember the term? obsolete. structurally obsolete. and because so much traffic was going between california and arizona, so much more traffic than was anticipated. we are so fortunate there were no deaths involved. but this, to me, is the reason why we're doing what we're doing we just can't sit back and, you know wait for some great

wonderful future promise to come down from the sky and say we've solved the funding problems. we want to find that solution. it's not at hand. so what the senator did, which was so important and working with all members of the finance committee and across party lines with leadership and everybody else is to put together sources of funding that he felt the senate could live with. as it turned out, there were a couple of things were a bridge too far -- talking of bridges -- for a couple of members and we're fixing those. we are fixing those. and it's good. but none of these pay-fors are delightful. they're all hard. but this is what we're trying to turn around. so i say to my colleagues on both sides -- and i've said it to my own caucus over and over again -- nobody is going to love every page of this bill. because it's the nature of legislating. if we each could write our own

bill we'd love every page. we would be thrilled. we would, you know, blow kisses at every page. but we don't write it ourselves. we have to step back and we have to allow the process to work. and yesterday that process worked. it was tough but we got more than 60 votes to begin work on a long-term surface transportation bill and that bill is going to give certainty to our states. three years of certain funding six-year authorization with the hopes that in the coming months we can figure out a good way to look at international tax reform and other ways to pay for the final three years. but let me be clear -- it's been more than 10 years -- am i right, david? -- that we've had more than a two-year extension. so this is a three-year bill and it makes great improvements in the environment and public works

title. and we -- we really did compromise senator inhofe and i, and he and i really worked well together on this -- in this area. so this cloture vote was so key it was so important to business and labor and all the people who know they don't want this to happen to them in their state in their commute. how many more bridges have to fail before we recognize that we can't be patching up this highway trust fund little by little? it's just not working. i often say this, and i hope it doesn't bore people because i've said it a lot, if you wanted to buy a house and you found a house and you went to a really good banker, and he or she looked at you and said i've got great news for you mr. or mrs. america. we have checked your credit

rating and your credit rating is great and we're going to give you a mortgage. and you say this is wonderful news. and then they say but it's only for six months or five months or one year. you're not going to buy that house. that's what we've been doing to our states and local entities. they can't build anything new. they can't make investments that are important because they don't have a guarantee that the funding will be there. now the beautiful thing about our funding system is it's federal, state and local and there's even sometimes some private money that comes in. so the federal government is the spark. i don't know, mr. president what your ratio is in louisiana as far as whether it's 50-50 or 60-40. maybe you can check it. in my state it's about 50-50. we have 50% local-state dollars

to 50% federal dollars. some of our states rely on the federal government for 90% of their transportation dollars. one state 100%. so this is not a question of having the states do this by themselves. they really can't do it by themselves. and pras president eisenhower -- it was president eisenhower, a republican president so many years ago who said if we're going to be a strong country and we're going to protect our national security, we've got to be able to move people and move goods. and he took a tour across this great nation, and he came up with the notion of a highway trust fund and a national transportation infrastructure drive. well the e.p.w. committee which i am the ranking member of and senator inhofe chairs, we provide about 70% of the spending in this transportation bill. and we came together in a 20-0

vote and voted in favor of the drive act. this is going to support millions millions of jobs. not hundreds, not thousands but millions of jobs across our great nation. and it will provide economic security because if we don't do this and we wind up with a patch, believe me, believe me when i tell you our states will shut down their programs because they just can't move forward. it's imperative that we act now. i agree with senator hatch. because we have come so far. and if we don't do this, we're looking at another extension. somebody told me it was the 34th extension. 34th extension that's not right. we need to do our work and the committees have done their work. i was happy to hear that senator brown now says that the transit funding is good.

it is very good, as well as the highway funding. so i just want people to keep in mind the picture of this bridge, this bridge. you know what it means? that when there are goods moving through from arizona to california or california to arizona, the cars and trucks have to go 400 miles out of their way. 400 miles out of their way. the cost of that, the cost of that to our nation's business the difficulty of that to those who drive the trucks and the vans, i will say this link is closed indefinitely. mr. president, that is a terrible thing to say. they don't have a plan to fix this because it is so complex. and we need that funding so that

they can -- we have emergency funding in this bill, $100 million per year to look at situations like this and come in and help. how many more bridges have to collapse before we do our job? we cannot be economically competitive when truckers delivering goods have to drive 400 miles out of the way to get goods from one state to another. here's the fact: 61,300 bridges are structurally deficient in america. 50% of our roads are in less than good condition. we have no excuses. we need to move forward. i want to show you the list of supporters of our work and just implore those members those 38

or so members who voted "no" to go to this bill, i ask you to take a look at these groups and tell me in your heart of hearts how you can say no to them. these are hardworking people. they are republicans, they're democrats, they're independents, they're people of every political stripe. the american highway users alliance the american public transportation association the american road and transportation builders society of civil engineers, trucking association equipment distributors, general contractors, equipment manufacturers, metropolitan planning organizations asphalt pavement association. i have four of these charts, mr. president. these are the people that want us to vote "yes." national association of counties. i started off as a county supervisor. they know the bridges and the roads are in disrepair. the national association of manufacturers, the national association of truck stop

operates the national governors association, the league of cities the ready-mix concrete people sandstone and gravel people the independent drivers the portland cement association the retail leaders association. here's another one the last one: the u.s. chamber of commerce. now, i ask you when do we see the u.s. chamber of commerce, the international union of operating engineers the labors international union of north america, united brotherhood of carpenters, when do we see all these on the same side? the answer: when we write a highway bill. america is coming together around our efforts. we should be unanimous even though there are parts of the bill that i don't like and you don't like. colleagues, we cannot have a perfect bill. it's an imperfect bill in an imperfect world. but unless we wrote every word ourselves, we would never be thrilled with every provision.

and i'll finish up. the triple-a, remember those people we dahl when we break -- people we call when we break down? the triple a says pass a bill. they are trierd -- tired of coming out to start up cars because they got caught in a sink hole. the u.s. conference of mayors. the united brotherhood -- i said that. the american association of state highway and transportation officials, the mothers against drunk driving. and i want to say at first the mothers against drunk driving opposed this bill. now they support it. and the american council of engineering companies. so i've showed you the list. this is just partial of people who are begging us -- begging us -- to pass this bill. and you know, democrats stood here and we called or not republicans to please come up with a bill, and they did. and there were reasons to say we didn't love it. and we sat down and we worked

hard. and i have to say senator mcconnell and his staff my staff and senator inhofe's staff, senator durbin and his staff, we've been working hard. we're still working to get more votes. we need this to happen. today my plea is that the clock is ticking. we have eight days, colleagues, eight days before the highway trust fund goes bust. guess what? we can solve this problem get a strong bill that increasing funding in the first year by 6%. after that, a couple of percent a year for three years and it scores well. it doesn't add a penny to the deficit. i'm so glad we're moving forward. but, you know, we need more support. so here's my last plea to everybody who might possibly be

listening. maybe my relatives. but in addition to that, anyone who might be listening, there are going to be amendments that i don't like, that you don't like could we try to keep our eye on the prize? this is the prize. we don't want this happening in anyplace in this country. it brings devastation. and, therefore, we have a good bill before us. is it perfect? no. are the pay-fors perfect? no. are we continuing to improve it? yes. can we always do more later? yes. let's say yes together, republicans, democrats. let's deliver this for the american people. i thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: thank you mr. president. as i do on many thursdays i rise again today to share about the lives of the men from my state, north dakota, who died during the vietnam war. i've been talking about the 189 men who didn't make it home, but that's not a complete accounting of the people we lost as a result of vietnam. many of our vietnam veterans continue to feel the effects of their service long after they return home. some develop medical conditions that, quite frankly are hard to explain. i've worked with a number of these men many who became my friend and one who is very special to me. a veteran by the name of bill broer, who is a former director of the north dakota bureau of criminal investigation. bill started his work in law enforcement as a security policeman in the u.s. air force. and during the vietnam war bill was stationed at a base that supported aircraft that used

agent orange in their campaigns. bill died in 2002 at the age of 53 from non-hodgkin's lymphoma. in 1989, bill was appointed director of the bureau of criminal investigation and was an outstanding law enforcement official. he was awarded the attorney general's meritorious service award in 1991 and the north dakota police officers highest award, the loney hill award in 1996. bill worked hard for north dakota law enforcement both at his desk, in our office and during his free time. he started a bowling tournament to bring people together involved in law enforcement across our state so they could get to know each other and begin to work together. and it was an environment that took them away from their official duties. that tournament is now in its 30th year. bill also was instrumental in creating the peace officer memorial that stands on the capital grounds today

recognizing that those who serve in our law enforcement also take that risk every day that so many of our service men do in protection of our people. but i want to say something more than that about bill. i'm quite certain i probably would not be attorney general i couldn't have been attorney general without bill's help, and i certainly don't believe i would have been a united states senator without the lessons that i've learned from bill broer. he was a great friend and a trusted advisor to me. and quite honestly, i don't know anyone in law enforcement who didn't love him and his staff was devastated when bill was taken ill and we were devastated when we lost bill way too early. i know not as devastated as his wonderful wife and his two great daughters who i remember when he used to rush home so he could be in a basketball game of course in his suit and tie and always

cheering them on. his only fault probably was being an atlanta braves fan. another friend of mine, john schneider died in 2001 from a brain tumor he also was a vietnam era veteran and true friend and public servant of the highest caliber. john served in the peace corps in afghanistan in the 1960's and was tops in his language class learning pashtal. he worked with farmers to introduce more productive wheat varieties to the region. while in law school john was drafted. he entered the marine corps in 1970 and was deployed to bases at japan and the philippines during the vietnam war. john finished his law studies after he was discharged and joined a firm in fargo. he was elected to the north dakota house of representatives in 1982 and was known for miss brilliant command of the legislative process. he was appointed u.s. attorney for north dakota in 1993. in fact, served in that capacity

because i begged him to join me. so he served as our u.s. attorney during those same years that i served as attorney general, and we spent a lot of time together, especially in indian country working on the law enforcement issues of the day. john was devoted to his wife lois and their son jasper and rocky. he loved cooking cooking with way too much salt for them and visiting with them for endless hours, even taking longer routes it to school so he and his sons could talk. he organized the schneider baseball games tennis matches and competitions. his sons have a love of baseball because of john. he loved to sing, knew thousands of songs had a introduce voice and wrote and produced the original family christmas play for 15 years. john was thoughtful, kind and he loved life and he loved north dakota and its people. now i have the privilege of sharing about the lives and deaths of other north dakotans, those men who did not come home from the war.

james jimmy levings. james was commonly called jimmy and i was from newtown born october 18 1948. he served in the army's 503rd infantry 173rd airborne brigade. jimmy was 19 years old when he was killed may 23, 1968. his father james conlan jr. served our country in the korean war and his grandfather martin levings served in europe in world war i. jimmy grew up close to his grandparents aunts uncles and cousins. they said jimmy thought the world of hunting hiking and riding horses. his family appreciates the letters he mailed them when he was serving in vietnam. they remember the pictures he mailed them and how proud he looked to be serving his country. jimmy's cousin, rex mayer said jimmy enjoyed staying with his family when they were young because jimmy was like an older

brother who played with him and took him to the movies at the nearby theater. rhythmed is jimmy was 17 when epulissed in the army a and volunteered to return to vietnam for a second tour. rex remembers seeing jimmy home on leave between his tours and that jimmy had a lift look about him, that he was changed by what he experienced in vietnam. jimmy was shot and killed in vietnam when he approached his base perimeter and was accidentally mistaken for a hostile force. he is buried in snow bird chapel cemetery and is on the mandan, hitsa and erica war memorial. ward walter. ward was born october 13, 1917. prior to serving in vietnam ward had lived in mckenzie county and in minot. he served in the army's 720th military police battalion. ward was 50 years old when he

died on november 29 1967. ward spent most of his adult life working in law enforcement and serving in the army. based on ward's time in the army and experiences in four country, his fellow soldiers became like family to him. his camaraderie and guidance earned him the nickname of pop. one month after arriving in vietnam his team was tasked with setting up an ambush. once in their ambush position, a u.s. army jeep spotted movement thinking ward's team members were oppose 30ing forces the jeep opens fired shooting ward in the chest and killing him. to commemorate ward, members of the battalion named the movie theater at their post in vietnam the sergeant ward pop memorial theater. the army recognized ward's service by issuing him the bronze star medal for valor the purple heart and the good

conduct medal. leon lochthowe. he was from minot born march 23, 19 that 45. he served in the marine corps' mike company third marine division. leon died on september 22, 1967. he was 22 years old. leon was the oldest of four children born to don and donna lochthowe. donna said growing up on the family farm, leon was a free spirit and enjoyed riding his dirt bike and off-road races. he married betty burke and they had a son ricky and a daughter kimberly. he and his wife were driving north of minot and hit by a drunk driver. lee and both children were killed. after his wife and kids' death leon's draft status was that of

a single man. he enures listed in the marines. his fellow marine, gerald loretta credits leon with serving saving his life by pulling him to safety after his he was wounded so badly he wouldn't move. other marines have written about leon's heroism during his service. on november 22 1968 -- 1967, leon received a letter from his mother stating that his parents were in california with his brother gary who was critically ill with spinal meningitis. gary had recently enlisted in the marines and was in the first days of basic training when he was hospitalized. that same afternoon rockets and artillery began shelling the area leon was defending. shrapnel struck him in the chest and he was killed instantly. leon's parents left california where their son -- while their son gary was in a coma to return to minot to receive leon's body and hold a funeral. just hours after arriving home,

donna learned that her father had died in his home. the day after his funeral they held leon's funeral. during leon's funeral reception, the family learned that their son gary had just died in california. this is a family that had held three funerals for the men they loved in just one week. robert bobby storey. bobby was from grand forks and was born july 22 1946. he served in the army's reserve 17th aviation group first aviation brigade as a helicopter pilot. bobby was 22 years old when he died on november 21 1968. he was the oldest of four children. his father henry served to this the air force and the family moved to different bases while the kids were young. bobby's sister debbie said bobby was kind and had a smile that could lied light up the room. she remembers in high school he

played quarterback for the high school football team and was nicknamed bunny because of how fast he could run. bobby's friends came to their house often which meant a house full of boys and a refrigerator stocked with milk. bobby attended college at the university of north dakota. he joined the sigma nu fraternity and he and his fraternity brothers enlisted in the army. he became a warrantover helicopter pilot and about a move after arriving in vietnam his helicopter was shot down and bobby was killed. after his death, bobby's father also want to vietnam serving our country in 1970 and 1971. after bobby's death both bobby's brothers chose to wear the number 22 on their sports jersey just like bobby had in high school. and in memory of bobby his youngest brother named their son robert. deland dennis zubke. deland was from grassy butte.

he was born october 28, 1951. he served in the army's 15th are a timry recommending meant commitment. -- regiment. he was when he was went missling. he was one of five children. one of deland's fellow soldiers wrote a remembrance describing how deland volunteered to take ralph's place on a dangerous mission the day deland was last seen. his actions that day under intense enemy and friendly fire made deland a hero. in ralph's ye it's he had are have been awarded a silver star. deland had arrived in vietnam about two months earlier. in 1978, the army changed deland's status from missing in action to died while missing. deland has never been found. david kline.

david was born july 31 1948, and was from hurdsfield. he was in the army's first cavalry division. he died july 2, 1967. he was 18 years old. david's sister fay remembered that dave was liked by everyone. he was the envy of many because he owned a pink and white 1957 chevy convertible. he played basketball for the high school team and liked playing his guitar for fun. dancing in the streets by martha and the vandelles was one of his favorite tsongas songs. he was senior class president and hoped to teach history someday. his younger brother curtis just 11 months young so close folks around town told they they were like convince twins. fay said when they were young they always participated in memorial day events, placing flags next to the headstones of our country's veterans.

fay recalled clearly that one time david noted someday i will have a flag just like that. and she remembers the words he said to her his little sister the last time he left for vietnam. don't grow up too fast. robert bob fullmer. bob was from grand forks. he was born april 2 1948. he served in the army's 25th infantry division. bob died on june 6, 1969. he was 21 years old. bob had two brothers, bud and bill. they both served our country bud in the navy and bill in the army reserves. bill said that bob was very social and always enjoyed having friends over. when bob was killed in vietnam his parents donated his death gratuityty to the grand forks central high school to be used as a scholarship for students with average grades who wished to attend the university of

north dakota. bob's high school friend barb kolbe wrote a poem about bob shortly after he died and it was published in 1987 in the first issue of a magazine entitled "reflections on memories of war. why didn't you say goodbye that january day when that plane took you so far away? maybe you knew before you left that you were going to die. so your heart just wouldn't let you come and say goodbye. please try and understand, i can't come to where you lie i guess i feel like you did then i just can't say goodbye." after learning that bob's mother had read her poem, barb visited his mother on memorial day. after their visit barb wrote a letter to the editor describing how she and bob's mother reminisced about bob's life and the people have contacted his mother since his death describing the ways that they have touched his mother's heart.

talking with bob's mother and seeing her laughter strength and warmth made barb realize 17 years later that her poem was not finished. she wrote this ending to her poem and dedicated it to bob and his mother. 17 years have come and gone again it's the month of may i went back home and met your mom on this, memorial day she talked of you as a child and son i told her stories of our youth and as we shared our memories and loss she taught me a simple truth she showed me that your memory is alive so you'll never really die she made me laugh she made me cry she helped me to say goodbye these are just some of the stories that i'm privileged to share, really hopefully with the rest of the country as we continue this 50-year

remembrance of the vietnam war and the people who took part. and i think it is so critical and so important especially in this time when we call on people who make sacrifices that so many of the young people here who would be the grandchildren of many many of the people who served appreciate and understand the extent of the sacrifice and the disruption of family but the love of country that's an inherent part of each one of these stories. thank you so much mr. chairman. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that following my very brief remarks senator sullivan be allowed to speak next. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president i want to bring attention to the serious wildfires going on in montana as i speak. there are currently two large active fires burning in montana including 4,000 the acres called the reynolds creek fire as well

as the cabin gulch fire near townshend. our fire cruise are putting themselves -- crews are putting themselves in harm's way to protect our communities. our lower than average snowpack less than average rains, it's created a situation we have very low water levels in our streams and rivers and the conditions are ripe for wildfire. they are also driven by high winds and dry fuels. so far this year we are experiencing the second worst fire season in terms of impacted areas in a decade. in and the situation could only get more serious in the coming weeks and months. our communities our watersheds habitat access to recreation all of these critical montana treasures are at risk to wildfire. so please join me in praying for

the safety of our firefighters and please thank them for a job and a service well done to the state of montana. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to begin my remarks this afternoon by commending my colleague from north dakota for her weekly tributes to our vietnam veterans.

i've watched her do that week after week. it's very moving, it speaks volumes to her character as well as the character of the veterans from north dakota. i just thought that was something i wanted to comment on. but, mr. president, i wanted to speak this afternoon about one of the most important issues facing the united states senate today, for weeks maybe months maybe even years. and that's the debate we're having over the iran nuclear agreement. many of my colleagues have already spoken very ill subsequently very passionately about agreement. i want to give one example my colleague from maine senator king was on the floor the other day when i was presiding and imploring us to fully debate the issue. he stated, "the truth a merges from the fire of an argument on an issue of this importance." and i couldn't agree morement weeshtd debate this issue. we should fully vet this issue. we should bring all the voices

of the people we represent into this body to debate this issue. so mr. president where to begin? there is so much here, so many issues. we've seen some of them, centrifuges, enrichment, inspections, sanctions anytime anywhere inspections. we have to examine all of that. but i thought it was important today to step back, to take a look at some of the big issues issues, three in particular that i think are important as we start this debate. first, the role of the american people and this body and the congress with regard to this agreement. second the basic underlying premise of this agreement the driving force that in many ways is behind this agreement. and, third the main goal, as

has been agreed to by the president, by members of this body on what we should be trying to achieve wraer to with regard to this agreement. so first the role of the american people and this body. mr. president, there is confusion. it's been perpetuated by this administration that those of us who are asking questions, who are skeptical of the agreement are being somehow partisan. the president said that republicans, no matter the deal, will disagree with him will not vote with him. and in some ways he seems to be making this about his personal agenda. but with all due respect to the president, the iran nuclear agreement is much bigger than president obama much bigger. the president will be gone in 18 months. the american people will have to live with the consequences of

this agreement for decades. that's why it's so important that the congress debate and approve or disapprove this agreement. and yet had the obama administration had its way, we would not -- we would not be doing that today what we are doing right now: debating this agreement. in fact, throughout this process, from the very beginning, they have been dismissive of the role of the american people through their representatives in congress to weigh in, to bring clarity to bring wisdom to what this agreement is all about. just a few months ago mr. president, the president said that he did not want the congress to be involved at all. we started debating an act on this floor to provide this body with an opportunity to review and approve. he said he would veto it.

no involvement from the american people. the administration only backed off when a bipartisan group of senators democrats and republicans, stood firm a veto-proof majority, and said, no the american people need to be read into this agreement. so that was when we passed the iran nuclear review act. i personally would have preferred that this be viewed as a treaty by the administration but we are reviewing it now under that law. and then the president and secretary kerry have taken the deal to the u.n. security council, again before congress and the american people even started to debate the issue. the russians, chinese -- were voting on this agreement before we had the opportunity to do so. members of this body, democrats and republicans implored the secretary, don't do this; it's

an affront to the american people. they didn't listen. and final i will the president is saying, even before we debate, if we're not in agreement with him he's going to veto whatever we do in this body. mr. president, this is not how the federal government is supposed to conduct foreign policy. throughout the history of this great body, weighing in and voting on international agreements international treaties of this magnitude has been the senate's most important job, the heart and soul of what we do in this body. sadly, two former members of this body -- the president and the secretary of state -- have actively fought against our involvement. but alexander hamilton knew better. in "the federalist" papers he spoke about the critical role of the senate in foreign affairs. he warns against the president

having sole authority over issues of such delicate and momentous kind. he argued vigorously for the senate to have a say on critical foreign policy and national security issues. and our history and the constitution reflect this. that's where we come in, and that's why we're debating this. so in examining the agreement mr. president, i think it's important to understand and look at the bigger picture. what's the driving force? what's the underlying premise? what's the philosophy that's motivating this agreement? it's not hard to discern. from the beginning of the obama administration the president and his team have been focused on transforming our relationship with iran. to bring it into the community of respected nations

transforming the middle east. the president has talked about this a number of times. he highlighted this in a speech to the united nations in 2013. and it's here again in the text of this agreement. the text of the agreement states "the p-5 plus 1 expresses its desire to build a new relationship with iran." that's in the agreement. this is a bold and ambitious goal no doubt but it's also dangerously naive. interestingly, there's no reciprocal statement in the agreement by iran about iran wanting to have a "new relationship" with the united states or the west. we want it. they don't seem to want it. in fact, with its leaders regularly still chanting "death to america," "death to israel,"

even after the signing of this agreement, it seems very clear that iran does not want a new relationship. and this is the biggest flaw of the agreement. it amounts to a high-stakes bet the highest of stakes: the security of the united states that iran will change its behavior. and what i fear the most is that if they don't change and there's no sign that they're going to, by its own terms this agreement within ten years will enable iran to have a much stronger economy, a significant ballistic missile capability, be on the verge of a nuclear bomb, and still be the world's largest sponsor of state terrorism. this is a huge risk for the security of our country and our allies in the middle east. but it doesn't have to be this

way. this agreement could have mitigated these risks. we do this all the time in diplomacy. we tell countries that we negotiate with, you improve your behavior you get rewarded -- incrementally, step by step; step by difficult step. for example during the debate we had on the iran nuclear review agreement i offered an amendment that was simple, but it was based on this issue: sanctions would be lifted on iran once iran came off the list of countries that sponsor state terrorism. simple. improvingimprove your behavior, you get rewarded. but this agreement does not do that. instead, when you look at the structure of this agreement it allows iran to get almost all of

the benefits up front. almost half of this agreement is about our obligations to lift sanctions, in very, very minute detail. our obligations to lift sanctions on iran. -- within the next several months. think about that, mr. president. we had the leverage. countries that negotiated this are the most powerful in the world. we had iran on the ropes with strong american-led sanctions. we had the leverage, and we lost it with this agreement on the hope -- on the hope -- that iran will change its behavior. and so far it's clear that their leaders did not get the memo on the change of behavior or an the new relationship -- or on the new relationship. iran is still destabilizing the

middle east, holding americans hostage, threatening israel, supporting terrorist groups like hezbollah and others throughout the world. in fact, iran, which is a nation that has had imperial ambitions throughout the middle east for centuries, could very well accelerate the activityies -- its destabilizing activityies as a result of the power and prestige that this agreement provides them. now, mr. president supporters of this agreement including the president, are arguing that, look the united states, we've done this before. we've negotiated with our enemies. -- to a positive end. president reagan did it with the soviet union. he got a constructive deal. but this is a flawed analogy both strategically and tactically. when we negotiateed with the

soviet union, it was the world's two superpowers. it was the world's two superpowers that were armed with nuclear weapons similar military strength, thousands of nuclear weapons. here we are bringing a nuclear pariah into the club of nuclear powers. this is very different. and tactically team obama has never demonstrated the desire to walk away from this deal. this wasn't the case with president reagan. he famously walked away from the soviets in reykjavik iceland over a verification issue on the i.m.f. agreement. this meeting is over, president reagan said to george shuttle his secretary of state, when he thought we were giving away too much. let's go, george. we're leaving said the

president. and he did. they left. a year later mikhail gorbachev came back to the table and agreed to on-site inspections of his nuclear facilities. america and the u.s.s.r. signed the tax treaty. contrast that to the experience we've heard about in the last few months of these negotiations on the issue of conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey, testified in front of the armed services committee very recently. he said, "under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking." the number-one military advisor to the president of the united states. but we did. within seven days of that

statement, we did. the embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles is going to be lifted as part of this agreement. when the russians and chinese pushed this position at the very end of these negotiations, secretary kerry should have listened to general dempsey's military advice and should have done what secretary schultz did. he should have walked. he should have walked to get a better deal. finally, i want to conclude by underscoring what everybody from the president to members of this body have agreed should be the principal negotiation objective of this agreement. that has always been to keep iran from developing a nuclear weapon and from -- and to dismantle its nuclear capability. in fact, this body has weighed

in. last year, october -- or, march of 2014, a letter written by 81 united states senators to the president of the united states about these negotiations. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to submit this as part of the record. the presiding officer: without consent -- without objection. mr. sullivan: the letter had a number of benchmarks for the negotiators. one stated "sanctions must continue until iran abandons its efforts to build a nuclear weapon." the letter then goes on to cite another critical basic goal of the agreement. it states, "we believe any agreement must dismantle iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever -- ever --

having a uranium or plutonium path to a nuclear bomb. 81 senators last year stated that. let me are he pete that -- let me repeat that, mr. president. we believe any agreement must dismantle iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a uranium or plutonium path to a nuclear bomb. i agree with the 81 senators, 40 democrats, 40 democrats one independent, who signed that letter. 72 of those senators are still members of this body. but they need to ask themselves, are they sure that this goal has been achieved? i've read this entire agreement mr. president. i believe this goal has not been achieved and that should deeply concern all members of the united states senate.

mr. president, let me conclude by quoting someone i normally do not quote on the floor of the united states senate iranian supreme leader ayatollah khamenei who just this past saturday stated the following -- quote -- "even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant united states will not change." and then he led the crowd he was before into chanting, "death to america." that, mr. president, is the country that we are hoping and risking our future on that will change. that we will have a -- quote -- "new relationship with," as the agreement states. to the american people we will

continue to debate this critical issue. in the words of my colleague from maine we will bring fire to the debate and the truth will emerge. unfortunately here's one truth that i find self-evident. iran is not changing any time soon. that's because this agreement didn't force it to. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president if you ask most people in america what is the most heavily subsidized industry in america which industry which sector of our economy receives the highest level of federal subsidy in america i guess they'd get it wrong. because it turns out the sector that gets the highest degree of

federal subsidy are for-profit colleges and universities. for-profit colleges and universities. i'd like to say a word or two about the current status of the largest of these for-profit colleges and universities and the tactics that they are using to become even fatter at the expense of american taxpayers. i want to read you a quote about the for-profit college industry. quote -- "they are not educators and they're looking to manipulate this model to make money. there's nothing wrong with making money but i think anyone making money in an educational activity has a higher standard of accountability." some might think that this was a quote from some speech i gave here. they'd be wrong. this was a quote from john murphy cofounder of the university of phoenix during a recent interview he gave to

"desert news national." the article rightly observes the university of phoenix is the grand-daddy of the for-profit industry. but the enterprise has experienced a dramatic shift in priorities since it became a publicly traded company according to mr. murphy, one of the cofounders. the reason for the change, according to murphy is a combination of the new corporate entity for-profit university of phoenix, chasing stock prices with the temptation an open spigot of federal funds. mr. murphy calls the federal student loan money -- quote -- "the juice" of the for-profit college industry. and for its part, the university of phoenix is swimming in the juice. they received 84% of their revenue from federal title 4 funding in 2012-2013. how much?

$3.5 billion. according to law for-profit colleges are prohibited -- we don't want them to become too dependent on the federal government so we prohibit them from receiving any more than 90% of their revenue from title 4 federal funding. 90%. when i think of the outrage that i hear from those in washington who track federal money i can't believe they're overlooking this industry. a major loophole, however allows the university of phoenix to not include veterans' givment i. bill benefits or department of defense tuition assistance programs in their federal rev institution calculation. so i've joined with senator tom carper of delaware and others to fix this to close this loophole, to hold the for-profit colleges to no more than 90% of their revenue coming directly from the federal government.

a recent article by aaron glance published by the center for investigative reporting provides a trouble look in the for-profit college recruitment of america's veterans and members of our military. the article details how the university of phoenix has become a major sponsor of military events. in one instance, they paid $25,000 to sponsor a concert for military members and their families. the company gave away galaxy computer tablets and wrapped the stage in a giant university of phoenix banner. in other instances the center for investigative reporting found the university of phoenix sponsored resume workshops which essentially amounted to recruitment drives for their university. according to the article, the company sponsored hundreds of events on military bases rock concerts, super bowl parties father-daughter dances, easter egg hunts chocolate festivals fashion shows even brunch with

santa. university of phoenix paid $250,000 a quarter of a million dollars, to sponsor events over the last three years at fort campbell kentucky. now, private sponsorship of military events is not unusual but it's got to raise some eyebrows when the company whose profits depend on recruiting service members are paying for these programs. let's face it that's what these events were -- recruitment events for the company. in the name of corporate sponsorship, the university of phoenix could gain direct access to military bases with a nod and a wink to service members "come to phoenix we care about the military." boy, has it paid off for phoenix in what mr. murphy called "the juice" of federal funds. the university of phoenix is the fourth largest recipient of department of defense tuition assistance funds which helps service members continue their education.

in fy 2014, the university of phoenix received more than $20 million in these benefits. but hold on tight. here is where the juice gets deep. when it comes to veterans, g.i. bill funding the university of phoenix is the top recipient in america of these funds $272 million. in return the company offers service members and veterans degrees of questionable value below-average graduation rates and, get this a student loan default rate 40% -- almost 40% higher than the national average. that's what we're offering to members of our military and veterans through the university of phoenix and their programs. now, i don't think this type of behavior by the university of phoenix is what the president had in mind when he signed executive order 13607 intended to prevent for-profit colleges from gaining preferential access to our military.

i've written to secretary of defense ash carter about this outrage. if it's a matter of university of phoenix not following d.o.d. rules, i want the department to take action. if the university of phoenix' actions outlined in this report are within the rules the rules need to be changed. i want to say a word about another story by the center for investigative reporting last week. this is almost incredible. and it's difficult for me -- i can't -- recount the details of the story i'm about to relate. and you'll understand why in a moment. according to the center for investigative reporting nearly 2,000 unaccredited institutions have received more than $260 million in g.i. bill benefits between 2009 and 2014. some of them are for-profit all are totally unaccredited.

when someone serves in our military, we offer them g.i. bill benefits, once-in-a-lifetime benefits for the betterment of themselves and their family. once they've used the benefits, they're gone. one example of one of these unaccredited institutions that is receiving these benefits for our military, g.i. bill benefits is a sexual therapy school in san francisco. the name of it is the institute for advanced study of human sexuality. unaccredited. the activities that are described in the article about this school i cannot say on the floor of the senate. the institute openly brags this unaccredited institute receiving g.i. bill benefits, openly brags about its massive collection of pornography. and we sent this institution g.i. bill funding? that is outrageous.

seven other senators joined me in writing to secretary mcdonald of the v.a. last week asking him to investigate and explain. i also expect to speak with him by next week and hope to hear the v.a.'s taking action. the g.i. bill is too important for our veterans to have these benefits ever questioned because of a scandal like this. stories like these abuses by the for-profit college industry and these unaccredited so-called schools appear more frequently in newspapers and other immediate outlets america this issue has never received so much attention. unfortunately here in the halls of congress, you can still hear the crickets when it comes to this issue. i hope this changes. if we're serious about really caring about our military and their families and our veterans if we're serious about caring about taxpayers' dollars if we're honest about this industry that's fleecing the american taxpayers and members of our military this congress should

act on a bipartisan basis. but some of these schools have friends in high places. every time i have tried to call them out someone has stepped in to their defense usually in a private manner so the public doesn't know. the day of reckoning is coming on these schools these for-profit schools. the stock market's catching up with them. stockholders are catching up with them. students and their families are catching up with the fact that they're a waste of time and money. now we've got to make sure that the taxpayers have their day and their attention directed toward this outrageous exploitation. i see one of my colleagues on the floor here and i'm going to yield the floor but i ask consent that an additional statement be placed in the record following the one which i just delivered. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you mr. president.

the dangers our troops face extend beyond war zones unfortunately to within our nation's borders and it's time our policies reflect their risk no matter where they are stationed. just like the attack at little rock army recruiting station and the tragedy at fort hood the recent senseless shootings in chattanooga happened when our troops were unarmed. leaving them with no way to defend themselves, i fully support the actions of arkansas governor asa hutchison to do what is h necessary to protect the arkansas national guard by allowing members to be armed at army installations and guard installations. however, he only has authority over the arkansas national guard while governors of other states have issued similar directives. i urge the secretary of defense ashton carter and president obama to order protective measures at department of

defense installations. the vicious attack at chattanooga changed the lives of gunnery thomas sullivan, lance corporal squire wells sergeant holmquist, david white and randall smith. the attack hit especially close to home to arkansas where staff sergeant david white grew up. while he no longer called arkansas home, the state has always had a fond place in david white's heart. he often visited his family and taught his children how to call the hogs. as a 1998 graduate of russellville high school, staff sergeant wyatt was in athletics and played in the school band. he earned the eagle scout the highest rank of boy scouts. his classmates and teachers recall david as a young man who

was a natural leader with a lot of enthusiasm and a unique sense of humor. a career in the military was a natural fit from staff sergeant wyatt who came from a long line of military service. he enlisted in the marines following the events of 9/11. during his 11 years in the military staff sergeant wyatt served in locations all over the world. he was well aware of the dangers of wearing our nation's uniform having served in deployments in iraq and afghanistan. his mom debra bowen told the russellville courier that her son was proud to be a marine and called his fellow marines brothers. no one could predict the violence that targeted his life while working to protect and defend our nation with his band of brothers. but with the nature of the current threats we face and with increased calls from groups like isis to attack u.s. service members at home, it is vital

that we reevaluate our security practices for all our military installations and fix any vulnerabilities that put our personnel at risk. on thursday, july 16, 2015, staff sergeant david wyatt paid the ultimate sacrifice for his selfless service to our nation. mr. president, staff sergeant david wyatt is a true american hero. i ask my colleagues to keep his wife laurie, daughter rebecca son heath and the rest of his family and friends in their thoughts and prayers. on behalf of a grateful nation, i humbly offer my appreciation and gratitude for his selfless service and sacrifice. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president today the senate has begun work on legislation that would provide our states and communities across this great land the resources and reliability they need by soundly investing in our transportation infrastructure. after a full stumble start and where our friends across the aisle decided to block our ability to proceed they've reconsidered thankfully and i'm glad to see them now join us to move forward on this sensible bipartisan bill. to me, the most important part of this bill is that it doesn't kick the can down the road, at least not in the way we've done for more than 30 different times. we've had more than 30 short-term transportation patches, which is a terrible way to do business, and frankly should be embarrassing to us

that we haven't been able to come up with a better solution. and while a three-year transportation bill is no panacea, it represents progress and it avoids a lot of unpredictability and wait-and-see problems that our states have had when it comes to planning longer-term projects. so fortunately this multiyear bill restores some sanity by providing resources over a consistent and dependable period of time. it's actually a six-year bill. we've come up with a bipartisan group of pay-fors to take us three years out but then hopefully we'll continue to work on trying to find an appropriate way to pay for the last three years without adding to the deficit and debt as happened in the past. so this bill is really forward-looking. and i mean this legislation provides the foundation for more commerce more efficient travel, and more public safety by

enhancing our transportation networks and in so doing provides for a more stable economic climate for the next generation as our states plan the needs of a continuing growing population. i'm thankful in texas that with strong economic growth and a lot of people moving there voting with their feet, as i like to say, from other parts of the country, we know the value of good infrastructure. and when the highway fights in washington d.c. froze to a standstill texas stepped up to the plate and refused to wait. one example of that action, i mentioned earlier this week, came last fall when texans voted last november to overwhelmingly approve a measure that would provide an additional $1.7 billion to upgrade and maintain our vast transportation infrastructure. this came from a surplus in our rainy day fund. that proposal was approved with more than 80% of the vote, and

in so doing texans clearly prioritized improved infrastructure and understood that by making our roads more efficient, we can decrease the 44 hours of car time that texans spend stuck in traffic annually. but the vote also showed that texans realize that our state is poised to grow significantly and in fact our economy which grew 5.2% last year compared to 2.2% nationwide, one reason our economy is growing is because people are coming to texas to pursue their dreams. and we're going to need better roadways to absorb the estimated 18 million vehicles expected to be added to our roads by the year 2040. this bill will help texas manage the influx of people and vehicles so that we will have the transportation infrastructure to support the millions of new people who will call texas home in the not too distant future.

texas has long known that good transportation infrastructure is part of what's made us are the economic powerhouse that we are today. i think, for example of farm to market roads which opened more than 70 years ago with the idea that our farmers and ranchers needed reliable transportation network to get their livestock and crops to town. so basically our farm-to-market roads gave our rural areas more access to the towns and cities who purchase those goods. this helped texas agriculture a substantial part of our economy and made it even more competitive by providing a reliable method to transport our grown and raised goods to market first around the local community, then around the state and now around the country. and of course i was pleased along with a lot of folks in the ag sector in texas that we pass trade promotion authority with the promise of opening more

markets around the world. many generations benefited from the investment we made in infrastructure to help them get efficiently from point a to point b. and just like the farm-to-market roads provided a more reliable transportation network throughout rural texas this legislation includes vital resources that will upgrade rural routes and freight corridors in addition to improving the overall safety and efficiency of nearly 20,000 miles of major roadway in texas. so while its not perfect as the presiding officer knows this bill represents some progress, and i wish i could say we've solved our transportation problems in perpetuity but i don't think that's possible. but doing it for three years beats the dickens out of another short-term patch as i mentioned a moment ago. and kicking this can down the road does nothing to support the next chapter of population and economic growth. as we continue to discuss and

review this legislation i'm going to continue to encourage our colleagues to consider just how much our entire country needs a strengthened transportation network to build the infrastructure projects that will hopefully help that 2.2% growth which we experienced in 2014 nationwide go upward and upward because that's going to create more jobs and more opportunity. so i think we've also seen that under new leadership starting this last january we've been able to make incremental progress in a number of areas on a bipartisan basis. and, frankly given the response i heard from many of my constituents last year when they complained to me about the dysfunction here in washington d.c. even though, again they're not necessarily saying that we've done -- we've met the mark but they are seeing that we are trying to work hard on a bipartisan basis to meet their needs. and i think this bill represents that kind of progress. mr. president, i yield the

floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: as chairman of the veterans' affairs committee in the united states senate i'm proud to be joined by other members of the committee for a colloquy and a report to the american people on the progress we're making to hold the v.a. accountable for our veterans and for the it wants. as all will remember, phoenix arizona had a terrible tragedy at the v.a. hospital in phoenix last year. because of the missed appointments erased records consults that were removed veterans waiting for services never got them and in three cases they died. that was malfeasance in office and brought a scandal to the v.a. in january when our committee took hold we decided to go to the justice department and the inspector general and say go into the v.a., investigate these incidents taking place and if we find criminal wrongdoing or civil wrongdoing we should prosecute these people to make sure it doesn't happen again. i'm never happy when anybody is

indicted but i was satisfied that last friday the first indictment came down from the justice department against a v.a. employee unfortunately at my state in georgia at the v.a. hospital in augusta for 50 counts of falsifying medical records the results of which benefited the employee and hurting veterans. that's not going to be the last indictment. we're going to see to it that people are held accountable for their actions and when they do what is right morally and what is right legally. we owe nothing less and we owe nothing more to our veterans than that type of treatment. yesterday the v.a. committee met in the senate and we approved two bills on our effort to bring about greater accountability. one was the rubio-johnson bill which allows the firing and the holding of accountability of v.a. employees for malfeasance and misconduct in office for cause, as many people know the v.a. oftentimes in disciplining people moves them to another job at the same pay but they can't move them out of the system, so

the accountability system never takes place. there is no sense of accountability and veterans are not well served. thanks to the rubio-johnson bill people who for cause are terminated will have a brief hearing and a chance to justify their case. and if their case is not justified they will be removed from the veterans administration agency and they will be fired. that's the type of accountability every american who is employed in their job at home has. we think it's the same accountability every veteran ought to have at the v.a. we passed the cassidy-ayotte bill a bill that was really proud of because senator cassidy and senator ayotte said the following. it's not right for somebody who's not doing their job to get a bonus. as many people know, bonuses were paid in the v.a. last year to employees that were reprimand ed for bad behavior. you cannot take away a benefit retroactively and this bill does not do that but it says to the v.a. prospectively rewards cannot be earned and bonuses not earned for those not conducting

their job in the way they should. these are the type of accountability measures the people of the united states expect. as chairman of the committee i always want to brag about the good things our vast employees do and they do a lot of good things. for every one scandal you hear about there are hundreds of thousands of benefits veterans are receiving because of good, loyal employees. but the best employees in the world are brought down a nach -- notch when those not good are continued to stay on the job or get bonuses when they're not performing. i'm proud of the bills which say to the american people we're going to have accountability, we're going to pay bonuses for good behavior, not for bad behavior. and if somebody doesn't do their job, they'll be held accountable and they'll lose their job if they're fired for cause and that cause is justified. that's what the american people expect of the senate. that's what they expect of our committee and i'm proud to report to the senate today that started. i'm proud to yield to the senator from louisiana senator cassidy, a physician, a doctor and one who understands health services and brought accountability issues to the senate yesterday. senator cassidy.

mrs. mccaskill: thank you mr. president. -- mr. cassidy: thank you mr. chairman. thank you mr. president. this year the v.a. -- this week the v.a. committee passed out of committee senate bill 627 which establishes -- i'm i'm sorry, mr. president. this week the v.a. committee passed out s. 627 which allows the secretary to deny bonuses to employees who have violated policy or law. it ensures information on reprimands will be kept in the employee's permanent record. our samples deserve this bill. when the v.a. scandal erupted in phoenix last year the secretary rescinded the award given to the career senior executive who ran this phoenix v.a. health care hospital. a bonus at the department said it was awarded because of administrative error. the employee appealed and a

federal judge directed the v.a. to repay the bonus despite the fact that the employee had improperly accepted more than $13,000 in gifts from a lobbyist and failed to report them and manipulated data to conceal excessive wait times for veterans seeking health care. the judge determined, however that the v.a. did not have the authority to rescind her bonus. this is why many veterans do not trust the v.a. here's an administrator who again, took $13,000 in gifts from a lobbyist, did not report them manipulated data, and nonetheless gets a bonus. and this is, by the way while veterans were allegedly dying prematurely because of the care given or not given at this facility. if we want to improve the v.a. system, we need to focus on the quality of the work force and work force morale is seriously affected by those who abuse their authority and nonetheless receive bonuses.

or do not have information on reprimands retained in their permanent record meaning it is that much harder to disdismiss employees who are not good. how does this incentivize workers to do a better job if we reward those who do not do good jobs? this is a commonsense solution that the american people will view as a signal that congress is serious about improving veterans' health care. in addition senate bill 1082, the department of veterans' affairs accountability racked by senators rubio and johnson will give the secretary more flexibility to remove corrupt or poor performing employees not just top officials. the bill would expand the authority of the 2014 veterans' access choice and accountability act to the entire work force of the v.a. which has made it easier to remove senior executives for wrongdoing. this bill would also extend the

probationary period for new employees. the veteran once told me his perception was that the v.a. system was run for the benefit of employees and not for the benefit of the veteran who is a patient. this is incredibly unfair to the dedicated v.a. employees but, on the other hand, giving bonuses to those such as this phoenix v.a. supervisor makes it understandable why he has this perception. the legislation i've spoken of today helps restore accountability to the v.a. system so all will know that the v.a. is run first foremost and always for the veterans seen there as patients. thank you mr. president. i yield to my colleague senator rounds. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you mr. president. i rise today also to speak with regards to the work of the veterans committee.

the senate veterans' affairs committee yesterday came to pass some very critical legislation. ingreat to see the chairman and the ranking member and how they work together side by side, republican and democratic colleagues working together to improve the lives of our veterans and truly to begin the process of reforming a broken v.a. system. more than a year ago the v.a. wait list scandal was made public. one of the biggest reasons the problem grew so large was the lack of accountability within the v.a. yesterday with bipartisan support, we reportedded out five bills among those were two bills focused on bringing accountability to the v.a. i'd like to just talk about that process and about what i learned as a freshman senator stepping in and watching how after listening to all the stories

about how the senate was dysfunctional and things weren't working right and republicans would not work with democrats and democrats would not work with republicans i watched as the chairman, chairman isakson and ranking member blumenthal, worked their way through these bills and unanimously passed them out of committee. i also watched as some members offered amendments and the chairman suggested strongly that perhaps they should withdraw them because we didn't have what we call pay-fors with them, there might have been an expense, we didn't have the report saying whether it would add cost to a v.a. system which was already short on funds and in those particular areas. rather than simply having votes and having acrimony, what those members said was would you work with us to see that our goals would be accomplished? and i watched as our chairman, along with ranking member blumenthal committed to work to get the job done to make things better for veterans.

it was not acrimonious, it was a matter of members of this committee working side by side committing to help each other make the v.a. perform better than what they have in the past. that's the type of work that we need in the united states senate it's what our people want us to do, it's what veterans want to have happen. i'm here to say this can be done and it can be done correctly and i will also tell you in talking with members of that committee afterwards there was a real interest, republicans and democrats side by side saying look there were some good ideas offered in that committee and that they would make good amendments to the bill but we had to know what the costs were and the commitment on both sides of the aisle was to find a way to work together. i commend the chairman, i commend the ranking member for their work, the way that they worked through some very serious issues. you know, the first one of those bills that we wanted to talk about was 1082, s. 108 ,

the department of veterans' affairs accountability act introduced by juniors marco rubio and john johnson. john -- ron johnson. senator johnson will be here to speak for himself. it would allow the removal or demotion of employees based on performance or misconduct. it gives the employee ample time to repeal the removal or demotion and extended the probationary period to make sure that the high-ups are doing their job correctly. the second one s. 627, the ayotte-can cassidy accountability bill, this bill would force employees who manipulate wait lists for veterans to repay their bonus. seems like only common sense. the common sense we have in south dakota we'd like to have. i know as the chairman -- the president's home state in nebraska that kind of common sense says is if you're doing

something wrong you shouldn't get paid a bonus and allowed to continue on. this behavior of any v.a. employee should not be tolerated let alone rewarded. i am happy to see that this passed the committee and sent a message to the hardworking employees of the v.a. administration that their hard work is not going to be tainted by individuals who are not doing their job correctly. let me share i just have to share this story. some things you think you wouldn't see and yet in south dakota i have a good friend who is 83 years old he's a veteran. all he wanted to do was to get a new set of glasses. he has diabetes. and he wanted to get it through the v.a. he had gone to his own opt tom frist terrorist because in our part we don't have contracts in the central part of south dakota through the v.a. for opt top terrorists so he had separately paid for the work of the

optometrist. this optometrist only wanted the v.a. to take care of the cost of the glasses. they expected him to travel over 150 miles to get to a v.a. facility to go get glasses. we sure don't want him driving. yet that's what the expectation was to come out. this is the kind of stuff which makes people irritated with a system that should be helping veterans. our office got involved with it, in fact, i offered to meet with the v.a. in surgeries south dakota to find out what the problem was and why they wouldn't deliver this. my staff suggested they would stop by if they couldn't take care of the problem. they indicated they would get the problem taken care of but later suggested we don't know why this guy should get glasses more than every two years. their contract wouldn't allow for it. that's not the type of attitude we want among v.a. officials not the way we should be treating our veterans. this is the reason we want accountability within the v.a.

system. he we found republicans and democrats side by side saying we're going to fix it. we got a long way to go. we've got a man at the head of the v.a. right now who truly wants to fix it. he walked into the middle of a swamp and he's up to his butt in alligators and we want to do everything we can to give him the tools to get the job done right. hopefully next week we start fixing a budget problem they've got by allowing them the flexibility to take the resources that are their there within the department and move them into locations where they are more appropriate. that's what this is all about use be a little bit of common sense in washington, d.c. to fix a problem for veterans that have gone on way too long. today i wanted to say thank you to our veterans, to those men and women that wear the uniform of the united states of america. we can't say enough about what they've made for the rest of us here but we can continue to tell them thank you time and time again and to send a message that

we are not going to allow them to go without the services that they are entitled to, the services that we want to render to them in appropriate fashion and that we'll work until we get it done and get it done correctly. with that, mr. president i would yield the floor. thank you. mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i rise to also join my colleagues in support of a couple bills that are supporting the finest among us. i certainly want to underscore the thanks the senator from south dakota expressed to the men and women of our military, people who we owe a huge debt of gratitude for defending this nation and nighting for our freedoms. i really want to thank the good senator from georgia the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee for a very expeditious fashion taking up some very good pieces of

legislation that will hold those individuals that are caring for the finest among us in our health care -- veterans' health care centers accountability. let me make a couple points about the vast majority of men and women working those health care centers. they are dedicated individuals and they're doing a great job. providing health care to the men and women of our armed services. upon becoming united states senator for wisconsin i started visiting the v.a. medical facilities within our state and also minneapolis a center that also services veterans from wisconsin. i also found didn't surprise me at all i found those dedicated individuals and they're providing excellent health care and the veterans i spoke to in the halls and throughout the state were very satisfied with the health care they were getting. they were more than satisfied. they would heap praise upon their care providers. now, the way wait times were

pretty long, the parking lots pretty full but underscored what i saw the vast majority of those men and women the nurses the doctors the administrators in our v.a. health facilities are dedicated to the task and are doing the job for our veterans. but the fact of the matter is they're not all doing a good job. and it's not a perfect system, not by a longshot. and i give the press corps a great deal of credit for breaking stories first in arizona, those long wait times, actually resulting in the deaths of some veterans, and then in early january i first became aware because of a news report of a real problem in the tomo, wisconsin health care facility. the way to provide it is to provide a time line in a field hearing between my committee the senate committee on

veterans' affairs and the veterans committee in the house, raising the issue in the community. an excellent hearing several of the members who had died in the center, the ability to tell their stories to make an impression and get the attention of the administrators of the v.a. to start correcting the problems. but in my opening statement i laid out a timeline i'd like to repeat here. in april of 2003, dr. david hollywood ahappen was disciplined by the iowa board of medicine for having inappropriate relations with a psychiatric patient. according to the executive director of the board of helped the sanctions should have been a serious concern for future employers. april 2003. april, 2004, dr. hoolihan was hired as a psychiatrist at the v.a. center. in 2005, he became chief of staff of the toma medical

center. in 2007, craig farington a veteran who sought treatment for medication management, died from a lethal mixture of drawings. autopsy rules showed he had seven drugs in his system. in april 2009, it was known and documented that many of dr. houlihan's patients called him the "candy man." and they were concerned that veterans were "prescribed large quantities of narcotics." in june of 2009, the doctor was fired from toma for failing to fulfill prescriptions that she believed to be safe. later spoke with the drug enforcement administration about dr. houlihan. in july 2009, dr. chris kirkpatrick was fired from toma. dr. kirkpatrick had raised concerns to his union about

overmedication at toma. tragically later that day and the day of his termination dr. kirkpatrick committed suicide. in august of 2011, the v.a. office of inspector general received an anonymous complaint about overprescription retaliation by dr. houlihan at toma. in march of 2012, a second annan must complaint was filed with the i.g. against dr. houlihan. the o.i.g. examined 32 separate examinations during its two and a half year-long inspections. in march of last year, 2014, the inspectoroffice inspection administratively closed the case without maying it public. on august 30 of 2014, jason simkofsky died as a result of a mixed drug toxicity. he was a pisht dr. houlihan.

had he over a doctors different medications in his system. in september of 2014, ryan began lodging whistle-blower complaints on quality of care at toma. in january 2015, there was an article posted about overprescription at toma of the article revealed that veterans and employees referred to the tomav. medical center as candy land. on january 12, candice brought her father to the toma urgent care center with stroke-like symptoms. he waited over two hours for ateption. that day the facility's c.t. scanner was down for preventive mandate nance. he passed away two days later. on february 6 2015, the office of inspector general finally posted its toma health care inspection report on its web

site. mr. president, i called up candice, the daughter of dr. bayier shortly after i heard of the tragic defnlg her father. i will never forget what she told me. she said, ron had i known the problems at the toma v.a. medical center, i never would have taken my father to the facility and my father would be alive today. i believe that to be a true statement. accountability is something that is crucial in any organization. i ran a manufacturing plant for 31 years. i can't tell you how corrosive it is to an organization if individuals within that organization are not doing their job, not pulling their full weight undermining the shared goals of the organization.

it's corrosive. onjohn imr. johnson: i was surprised when i offered a piece of legislation, and the chairman of the v.a. committee allowed me to present that to the committee the ensuring veterans safety accountability act. the v.a. representatives at the that hearing -- at that hearing were opposed to holding medical professionals accountable. fortunately the chairman, the senator from georgia agreed with me that the only way we're going to reform the system, the only way that we can make sure that we honor the promises through our v.a. health care centers to the finest among us, the men and women of our military is by holding individuals accountable, which is exactly what the bill that was reported out sponsored by the senator from florida -- and i truly want to thank him for his leadership on this issue and i'm happy to gin him as a

lead -- to join him as a lead sponsor of that bill. the department of veterans affairs accountability act of 2015 will hold every employee within the v.a. accountable. and that is just crucial. so again, i want to thank our veterans, i want to thank the senator from florida the senator from georgia and i urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. let's get it passed. let's start holding those few bad apples -- and i true believe that. i think it's just a few people that need to be held accountable accountable. a little postscript to my time line and i think one of the reasons this piece of legislation is so important is even with that record dating back to 2040 --04 and by the way our investigation shows that there are employees of the toma

v.a. that were referring to it even back then as "candyland." it is just crucial that we hold those people accountable. but, to date, nobody after multiple deaths caused by the overprescription of opiates after the death of thomas bayer a veteran who basically died of neglect, no one has been held accountable by being fired by being terminated. and, again, this is not from my perspective if there is any joy in terminating an employee. that type of accountability is absolutely necessary. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. gardner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about the west coast port slowdown and comments that were made by the administration as it relates to that slowdown, along with legislation that i have introduced called the ports act llings thatlegislation that i hope to pursue during the transportation debate that we are going to commence upon over the next several days, and also as it relates to that west coast port slowdown the economic impact that that slowdown had on our

economy. on june 30 of last year, the labor contract that covered nearly 20,000 workers at 29 west coast ports expired. port management and the ilwu began negotiations back in -- a year before. but in september of 2014, those talks ground to a standstill. instead of remaining at the table and trying to find a solution both parties negotiating in good faith decided to begin jockeying for leverage. the long shoresmen's ports purposely slowed down their work and drastically decreased productivity while still taking down a full day's pay. in the real world workers cannot do their work, not have the productivity they are expected to and still get everything they want. but in the back world of labor union politics at the ports

that's business as usual. and business has been good at the ports. according to employer data, a full-time longshoresman earns about $130,000 a year, full-time employment. while foremen earn about $2010,000 a year. that's a pretty good paycheck. the contract raises these wages even higher. workers pay nothing for health coverage that includes no premiums and $1 prescriptions. providing this health care costs employers about $35,000 per employee per year. they're also eligible for a maximum pension of over $80,000 per year upon retirement. so $130,000 salary, $210,000 if you're foreman $ $35,000 worth of health benefits, $80,000 weather of peption -- worth of pension upon retirement. for the rest of us what happened this year when the slowdown

occurred the effects weren't limited just to the port owners. when the longshoremen decided to slow down their work, international trade ground to a halt. devastating impacts in states far beyond the west coast. and around the nation as a whole. nine excruciating months after the labor contract expired the parties finally reached a deal, but not before costing u.s. businesses and consumers billions upon billions of dollars and ruining the credibility of our exporters abroad. when it comes to the administration though, the response was pretty alarming as well. labor secretary perez was recently asked about this economic disaster of the west coast port slowdown in long beach. his response, "the collective bargaining process worked." as a result of the west coast

port slowdown, the administration's response was "the collective bargaining process worked." the labor secretary made these comments while visiting los angeles, long beach, the two busiest ports in the kufnlt let's-- in thecountry. let's take a look at what the collective bargaining process did in those two ports. here is a map showing ships anchored offshore this week. this is recent data. these are ships anchored off the shore of l.a.-long beach this past week. this is what it looks like when the ports are operating and functioning normally. you'll notice there is a lot of blue a lot of blue ocean and not many ships anchored offshore. ships can quickly distribute imports from around the world. there's no disruption to our country's economy. but here's what l.a. and long beach -- the ports of l.a. and long beach looked like during the slowdown, during the crisis.

dozens upon dozens of ships anchored and idled waiting for ships in port to be unloaded. you can see all the ships that are backed up compared to the previous chart. the journal of commerce reported that there were 32 ships anchored off the ports of l.a. and long beach at one point during the slowdown. there's been a lot of discussion about the need for a long-term surface transportation bill that invests in 21st century infrastructure. but just take a look at what kind of dysfunction that antiquated labor law can cause. this is an airlineial shot. you can see this off the wing of an airplane, all the ships backed up waiting for these ships to be unloaded. goods for our economy the goods that make our economy run. congestion like this is a nightmare for american farmers businesses consumers. farm exporters were charged exorbitant fees for warehouse space to store their agricultural goods as they rotted and spoiled. meat companies faced port charges in excess of $30 million

per week. so while people were earning $130,000 a year, not doing their work unloading ships american farmers, poultry meat producers were charged $30 million per week. businesses further up the supply chain were also affected. one large u.s.-based corporation paid $100 million. those are just the direct costs. moron businesses also lost-- business -- american businesses also lost correct as foreign buyers turned to other nations for more stable supplies. "the wall street journal" recently reported that the west coast port delay forced downsizing in the is in the u.s. ledger industry. this is a $3 billion industry that had to lay off workers. because of the dispute the of the

west coast ports. the administration thinks that the process worked just as it was supposed to work. efficient trade through u.s. ports is critical to maintaining and growing economic opportunity in states across this country. according to the american association of port authorities u.s. ports support 23 million jobs and the value of related economic activity accounts for 26% of our national g.d.p. 26% of our national g.d.p. comes from our port system. contract negotiations and related labor disputes at our ports clog up these vital arteries and cause problems throughout our national supply chain. according to the federal reserve, if you need further proof of whether or not this impacted our economy that picture that we just saw of all the ships stacked up at l.a. and the ports in california according to the federal reserve economists, the disruptions on the west coast were great enough to affect the entire economic output of the country. this chart shows the quarterly change in national g.d.p.

once negotiations stalled you'll notice that g.d.p. started to decline. so here we are in the third quarter of 2014, remember, we started talking about september of 2014 where the slowdowns really started by the time we hit the last quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015, you can see the labor dispute contributing to the decline in our national g.d.p. our economy shrank as a result of the port slowdown. in the first quarter of this year when the slowdowns were in full swing the economy actually shrank by .2%. you can see it. from the third quarter the last quarter, to the first quarter of this year. 26% of our g.d.p. depends on these ports. the fed economists also found that disruptions disproportionately affected exporters sending american-made goods abroad for sale overseas. importers didn't have access to imported raw materials and build their product. this caused supply chains to

back up and eventually reduce output. the collective bargaining at the port that the fed told us, it crippled american businesses, but only in the backward worlds of labor union politics could this economic disaster be considered everything is working just fine. only in a union-dominated industry could this catastrophe be considered a success. and that's why i have introduced the ports act. our legislation would discourage disruptions at u.s. ports and incentivize speedy resolutions of disputes by strengthening and expanding the well-known taft heartily process. -- taft-hartley process. over 100 agriculture manufacturing, and retail association support the ports act because they had fed up with the status quo. they disagree with the administration, who thinks that shrinking our economy is just working -- everything working just fine. there are some who oppose the ports act. that's the labor unions. in fact, earlier this month the

afl-cio put out a statement saying that legislation like the ports act was not needed. now, you can see what's happened without the ports act. it's economic decline people being laid off farmers using millions of dollars products rotting in warehouses because of the backups. in just five years though, in five years from now the labor contracts at both the east coast and the west coast will expire. can you imagine what would happen if we had labor disputes occurring on the west coast and the east coast at the same time? people who were willing to threaten that 26% of our national g.d.p. over a dispute when the administration says everything's working just fine. it's critical that we have the necessary tools in place to prevent another debilitating crisis. and if we learned anything from this past dispute it's that labor secretary perez is wrong. the current process does not work. and the afl-cio is wrong. legislation like the ports act

is desperately needed. i urge my colleagues in the senate to join me in supporting this important legislation. let's not pinch our economy in an economic vice from the east and the west. let's find economic opportunity to grow our nation together. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, for the information of all senators regular order would have produced a vote on the motion to proceed at 2:00 a.m. tonight. for the information of all senators, that vote will actually occur at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. so there will be no further votes tonight.

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president senator murkowski and i released a bipartisan energy bill and we hope to mark up that bill next week. but critical to that energy bill is the modernization of the strategic petroleum reserve. ms. cantwell: 40 years ago we created a strategic petroleum reserve to prevent economic distress caused by oil disruption. people remember exactly what happened with the oil -- arab oil embargo in 1973 and the law that created the spro and the environmental policy -- the energy policy conservation act was enacted in 1975 specifically to help protect the u.s. economy from energy disruptions. the core policy reason for having the reserve really hasn't changed nor should it. the strategic petroleum reserve is an important asset to our energy security and we need it as much today as we did then. and sometimes you could say

maybe even more now that we have so much volatility. and clearly we have seen dramatic changes in our energy policy and landscape. that is, instead of importing a lot of oil, we have become a bigger producer here in the united states and our oil infrastructure and refining capacity has reduced our ability to make sure that spro is available in case of an emergency. in fact, the department of energy did a test sale in 2014 and identified a series of challenges associated with the way the spro distribution works today. that's why i think it's so important. these very supplies that make us more secure in one respect are also stressing our national infrastructure and may actually lessen our ability to respond in an emergency. and so that's why it is so important to modernize the spro to use the resources we have there to make sure that we make investments. some may have seen the

quadrennial energy review just recently produced and released. its key findings, i'm now reading from the report, "show that multiple factors affect u.s. energy security. these include u.s. oil demand the level of oil imports the adequate response to emergencies, fuel inventory fuel situation capacity energy system resilience and flexibility and transparency and competitiveness in the marketplace." the report goes on to say "the united states is the largest producer of petroleum and natural gas and combined with clean energy technologies and improved efficiencies, u.s. energy security is stronger than it's been in over a half a century. but the report goes on to say "none the less, challenges remain in maximizing that energy security because the benefits of our resources have to be used in a way that enhance our competitiveness and minimize our environmental impacts." "the network of the oil distribution has changed

significantly." so the strategic petroleum reserve's ability to offset future energy supply disruption has been adversely impacted by domestic and global market development and so there is a need for an upgrade." i think that people can all agree that it needs an upgrade. so that's why we raise a question about a transportation bill on the floor that takes the money out of the strategic petroleum reserve not to upgrade that energy security need but to take it and put it into highways that will do nothing to secure us if there is an energy supply disruption? the report goes on to say "the capacity of the strategic petroleum reserve to protect the u.s. economy from severe economic harm in the event of a supply emergency or associated spikes has been diminished." it's been diminished. "changes in the u.s. energy production are stressing and transforming the way energy commodities are transported in the united states and some of these commodities," the report

goes on to say "such as coal and ethanol which have traditionally relied on rail and barge transport to move product these transportation modes, like rail and barge and trucks transport, are also shared by agriculture and other major commodities and that these are being joined by significant growth in the use of transport of oil and refined petroleum products." so what it does is it creates a limited infrastructure capacity among these commodities. and the report goes on to say that those costs are being increased in shipping and it's being passed on to the consumer. so literally by taking money out of the spro and not investing it in making the modernization to our modern infrastructure and security we're making money building a highway but making it more expensive for consumers to get products and to secure our economy. quote -- "the department of agriculture has indicated that

the disruption to agricultural shipments" -- that is like agricultural product that didn't can't get on the rails because we so much oil and natural gas and things, basically are causing a disruption so big that is bigger than the disruption to agriculture caused by katrina. okay. so our challenge now we have supply but the economic challenge of having other products displaced or having the cost to consumer go up is what is threatening us. even the ability to maintain adequate coal stockpiles at some electric power plants has been affected by rail congestion. that comes directly from the report. so why is that so important? because all these energy commodities are important to us the agricultural commodities are important to us so the quadrennial review calls for an update to the strategic

petroleum prereserve. it says the department of energy should make investments to the petroleum region preserve to optimize the spro's ability in an emergency. that's right from the report. it calls for creating a multimodal freight program to make the investments in freight and make sure there is federal action on shared transportation infrastructure that makes sure we can move our energy products. it says we have to work on our waterways as well because the waterways are critical to moving our energy products around. it goes on the report to say the federal facility that consists of 62 salt caverns and four geographic dispersed sites need upgradeling, a lot of this is happening in the south of our country, louisiana and texas and that we need to make sure that our economy does not see another disruption or price spike without our ability to update the spro and actually get the product out.

the report called on d.o.e. to make a $2 billion investment in the incremental descrition distribution of spro by making sure that we have a dedicated marine loading dock at a coastal gulf coast terminal fl so my guess again is probably in texas or louisiana. and that congress should update the spro to be more effective in is presenting -- in preventing serious economic hardships to the u.s. on energy supply and make that we optimize our infrastructure distribution. the report also calls for an additional $2.5 billion over ten years to make sure we are making she is connectors. so not only are we required to do this as a country to make sure that our country is safe and secure and take advantage of the product that we have, we are also a member of the international energy program and therks as members make sure that every country is doing what

it should do make huer that theresure thatthere is an increase in supply and that we can withstand a world event a natural event a hurricane, or just critical infrastructure destruction say by some cyber event or by an actual atafnlg so the spro is like a rainy day fund. it is like an account that makes that infrastructure work. and there are two things in particular i think we should think about when we are thinking about the drawdown of this product. that is not specifically tied to an emergency. first, we should make sure that investment is an upgrade to the spro's infrastructure and for its emergency capabilities. that is, if we're going to take money out of here, we should make sure that it goes to infrastructure and responding to emergencies, not just to the highway bill for highways. and we need to make sure that the spro's critical systems and equipment, which are nearing its life-end operational capacity, that in fact the $2 billion that is needed to repair that -- i'm

not even sure you can sell money out of the spro now under onto the marketplace because all the apparatuses and function abilities don't work correctly now. you may not be able to collect on it. so let's make sure we do our repairs. and second-degreely let's make sure the -- and secondly, let's make sure the receipts from the spro sale are use for the energy infrastructure investments we need. some of my completion would like to -- some of my colleagues would like to talk about how expensive in oil was when we bought it and now when we're selling it. but one way to make sure that taxpayers get their fair share is to make sure it is invested in the energy-secure infrastructure that our nation needs. now would not be the time to damage our nation's emergency preparedness by giving this

money away in a transportation deal that is only about highways. so i hope that my colleagues, if we're really serious about this effort if we are going to sell spro at any price and affect the american taxpayers i hope that we will follow the recommendations of the dment of -- department of energy's quadrennial energy review that found that many different areas of our energy infrastructure need investing and that we could make investments in reliability and security and that focusing on hardening our infrastructure, particularly our transportation systems, is going to be critical for how we move this product around in the future. and that we also have port connectors that are challenged by the movement of critical freight and critical freight corridors. we want our country to continue to be this self-reliant and to have the great products that we are exporting through our ports

but they, too need the infrastructure investment. the multiple commodities that are competing and can't even get on the tracks or through our port corridors without making further investment. so i believe that the secretary of energy needs the flexibility to manage the spro and the spro assets and i think if the energy secretary or the president of the united states thought it was such a great idea to sell money out of the spro for highways only, you would hear them saying so, and you don't. so i think we need to provide the secretary with the dependability to make she is decisions about our energy -- these decisions about our energy security. i hope that we can get this right before this bill is done here in the united states senate. otherwise we will not be doing ourselves any favor when it comes to energy or energy security. i thank the president. i yield the floor.

blume brume mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum kawing. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, going back to my colleagues who have appeared talking about issues of accountability in the department of veterans affairs, i want to say how grateful i am for the spirit of bipartisan collaboration that prevailed yesterday in our meeting very generously and responsibly the chairman of the that committee senator isakson my good friend and distinguished colleague from georgia, offered and committed

to continue the effort to improve the measures that we approved yesterday in our committee, with bipartisan support, to hold accountable the department of veterans affairs and all of its employees just as we do any other agency of government to make sure that we keep faith with our veterans and leave no veteran behind. our nation needs to make sure that we provide the robust resources and the prompt delivery of health care services and other measures to our veterans with the management -- honest efficient management that our veterans deserve. so many of us were repulsed and outraged by the revelations just a little more than a year ago about delays in health care

irresponsible and reprehensible and, indeed, criminal obstruction of justice in cooking the books that prevailed at health care facilities of the department of veterans affairs around the country and the ramifications were sweeping. there were, indeed, changes in management beginning at the very top with a new secretary. there were also measures approved by this congress in the last session the accessibility and choice act to make sure that no veteran suffering 30 days or more in delays in health care be denied a private provider if he or she chooses one or living more than 40 miles from any facility. and we are working on additional measures constructive and positive measures to make sure

that this nation fulfills its promise of prompt, world-class first-class health care to every veteran who needs it, regardless of what that need is the specialty or the illness and to make sure that we also cure the other deficiencies, such as the delays in disability claims homelessness joblessness the need for job training and skills among other veterans. part of our task is accountability to make sure that members of the department of veterans affairs are held accountable. and that's one reason why i insisted and urged from the very beginning of those revelation of wrongdoing and criminality in the department of veterans

affairs that there be a department of justice investigation. i called on the attorney general of the united states to investigate not the inspector general of the department of veterans affairs the attorney general of the united states because only the department of justice has the resources and expertise and direction and leadership to successfully pursue the wide-ranging criminality and wrongdoing that i thought was revealed. there has been now regrettably to all of us who hope that there is honesty and fair dealing in our government a criminal indictment. and the indications are that more should follow that there was and is reason for a

department of justice investigation that there is a need -- that there needs to be still reports and results of the i.g. investigation. i've called in hearing after hearing that we be given those reports and results of the ongoing inspector general investigation and we still are lacking in the full work product from that office. so there is clearly more work to be done on the wrongdoing that's been committed in the past and there is clearly more work to be done to prevent it in the future part of what needs to be done is to protect the whistle-blowers. indeed, those revelations of wrongdoing came in part from whistle-blowers who had the courage and fortitude to step forward and who were intimidated and ostracized and sometimes persecuted within the v.a.

they need protection and one part of what we need to do is to make sure they are protected. but there ought to be accountability going forward in disciplining employees within the v.a. when there is malfeasance or waste or fraud. that involves eliminating some of the red tape and the rigamarole in the past has hampered the v.a. secretary or other managers in making sure that there is accountability. and that is why i welcome the focus of our committee on assuring accountability and transparency. those changes in the law are necessary to enable the v.a. secretary and his team to make sure that there's not only the

fact of accurate and effective prompt discipline but also the appearance of it so that employees at the v.a. will know that there is a standard of conduct and it will be enforced. and it will be upheld in the courts when it is challenged. that's true not only of the v.a. but of every department of the united states government. there needs to be that perception and reality of enforcement, of codes of conduct and ethics. and there needs to be a recognition that it is in the interest not only of the american taxpayer but the employees of the united states government themselves. the majority of them are honest and hardworking. those nurses and counselors and therapists and doctors and administrators at the v.a. who are doing their job in fact,

working overtime, often without additional pay who are serving valiantly and responsibly their claims deserve that wrongdoers be called out and held accountable. and those are the vast majority of hardworking employees and we owe them thanks for what they do to serve our veterans. but the wrongdo youers need to be disciplined. and so the idea that they should receive bonuses? absolutely abhorrent. i welcome legislation that stops bonuses for employees who fail the most basic notions of effective and honest service. they deserve that those bonuses be stopped.

my colleague senator isakson has spoken about the bill that has been sponsored and was approved yesterday by senator ayotte and i want to make sure in the improvements that i'm going to offer to it and that my colleague, senator brown offered yesterday, that we actually make it more effective. that's the nature of this deliberative process that we try to improve on what we're doing to make enforcement more effective. i know as an enforcer as a former united states attorney and a federal and state official that enforcement is key to making the law work. and the same is true of s. 1082 sponsored by our colleague senator rubio that also with bipartisan support was approved

yesterday by our committee. i have offered a bill that will improve the measure that we improved -- that we approved yesterday in a number of very significant respects. first of all, there are serious questions about the constitutionality of provisions of the provision approved yesterday. and i think in fairness to all of the american taxpayers as well as this body, we should face whatever deficiencies there are constitutionally in the law before that law becomes unenforceable. the importance of making sure a law is constitutional goes to enforcement. a law that's unconstitutional,

that fails to provide efficient notice, a statement of causes a right to be heard an opportunity to achieve basic constitutional protection, that the united states supreme court has repeatedly said is necessary those deficiencies can make a law unenforceable. and as i said yesterday in our committee meeting, as a former attorney general -- and there are others in this body -- we know how difficult the task is to defend a law or defend state action that is based on a constitutionally and firm statute. a law that's unenforceable is worse than no law at all because it creates a false sense of security. an expectation that never can be fulfilled because a law that's

unenforceable will never be effective in preventing the wrong that it's designed to do. so i want to improve this law not to undercut any of its provisions, in fact, to make them more effective to make discipline as prompt and even harsh as this law does. but to make sure it's done in a way that can be upheld. and also to protect those whistle-blowers and to make sure that if there are firings and discipline that it's done on the merits that it's done on the basis of real cause and evidence not as part of a political witch hunt. we've been through the spoil system. this nation has lived through a time when, in effect, offices were bought and sold.

that certainly is nobody's intention here and i'm sure my colleagues and i can work together to move toward a measure that fulfills our common shared objective in making sure that merit and effective action is rewarded with bonuses and through other means and that wrongdoing is punished and deterred. there can be no enforcement unless the law is framed as well as possible, and there can be no determination unless -- deterrence unless there is enforcement, and that's what we want to do, prevent this kind of wrongdoing going forward. not just looking backward and pursuing and prosecuting the wrongdoers, which i hope will be done. there's more than ample evidence to support it. but also to prevent it going forward. i am tremendously heartened by

our committee chairman's commitment to work with me and others on that committee. he said to me very explicitly -- and it's on the record -- that he will, in fact, work with us and we will engage in collaboration. and so i think we're going to improve these measures. there may not be huge or sweeping changes in what we approved yesterday, but we all know that words can sometimes lead to courts concluding that there are defects in the law that were never intended by the framers. that's a consequence, an unintended result that we should avoid, if possible. it may seem like lawyer talk but it has ramifications in the courts. and that's the reason why we heard from the d.a.v. at our

june 24 hearing that it is -- and i'm quoting -- "vitally important to v.a.'s long-term future to create an environment in which the best and the brightest professionals choose v.a. over other federal or private employers." we need those best of the best in the v.a. not working in the private sector alone. fairness and due process in our workplace will encourage talented doctors lawyers nurses and other professionals to come to the v.a., which is where we need them for the strength of that system. and as the independent united states merit system protection board stated, there is a need to follow and respect constitutional due process. the partnership for public service said much the same thing

in its letter of july 21, 2015. i ask that that letter be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: and i ask my colleagues to join in this collaboration because i know how deeply you and i feel how we share that common goal not just in our committee. i ask that we work to incorporate the measure that i've introduced today with the cosponsorship of a number of my colleagues on the veterans' affairs committee the department of veterans affair equity accountability act. that measure was introduced today. the department of veterans affairs equitable accountability act will help us improve and

enhance the very good start and the supremely important objectives that motivate it. we all share them. through the measures that we approved yesterday in the veterans' affairs committee. i thank my colleagues for our work together, and i look forward to pursuing it. mr. president, thank you and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: