a couple of questions. same question asked several times: why raise the gas tax and diesel tax and fix the trust fund? this is $324. what is $324? that's how much the average driver in this country spends a year on repairs to their vehicles. w -- whether it's replacement of tires. we've done that. axles, tire rims, wheel rims. you name it. it adds up to anywhere -- we'll take the lower end, $324. we pay for it one way or the other. that's how much we spend on the average in vehicle repairs. again, the same question, why raise the gas tax, fix the trust fund? number 42 shows up here. that's because that's how many hours a year we spend sitting in traffic, on average. it's not my numbers. every year, texas a&m updates this number. they say in cities like washington, d.c. or philadelphia up the road from where senator

coons and i live, new york city, the road where some of our family members live or denver, l.a., it's 80 -- it's about 82 hours per year. 82 hours per year. that's how much we spend just sitting in traffic, putting out -- wasting gas, putting out emissions, harmful emissions. and this is the number of billions of gallons of gas that we waste just sitting in traffic every year. 2.9 billion gallons of gas. that's a lot. that's a lot. i don't know if this is the last poster that we have, but it's not a bad one to close on. all my -- much of my public life, as senator coons, my colleague, is waiting here for me to stop talking so he can speak. he knows, he has heard me talk any number of times and i have heard him say one of the major roles of government is to provide a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. we have many roles in government but a major role in government is to provide a nurturing

environment for job creation and job preservation. we don't create jobs. county executives, no matter how talented they are, presidents don't create jobs. but what we do is create a nurturing environment to help support job creation and job growth. what does that include? world-class work force. young people, not so young people coming out of our colleges and universities who can read and write. use math, technology, good work ethic. the public safety rule of law, affordable energy, affordable health care, access to foreign markets, and also the ability to move goods and products from place to place in this country and to export markets outside this country. our friends at mckinneysey have have -- mckinsey have a piece of their operation, a consulting firm. it's called mckinsey global

institute. they have done a little bit of thinking and calculating to see if we actually made robust investments, fully robust, not the limp along investments or not creeping from year to year, borrowing money from the general fund, but actually made robust investments, what would it do? what would it do? and among the things that it would do, we're talking about $150 billion to $180 billion annual investment from all sources, what would it do? in terms of employment in this country and in terms of g.d.p. in this country? here's what it would do. it would add those kinds of investments in our transportation system, it would raise g.d.p. by anywhere from 1.4% to 1.8% per year, per year. not one time. per year. in addition to that, about 1.8 million, almost two million jobs. about half those jobs would be men and women going to work building roads, highways, bridges, transit systems.

roughly the other half would -- we would have a more efficient economy. the economy would actually move products and goods much more effectively and much more efficiently and have a more efficient, more productive economy. so we say things very much to the folks from mckinsey global institute. if we were actually to do this, a lot of people would be put to work building our roads, highways, bridges, transit systems. they haven't been working much lately because we have underfunded transportation investment now for years at the federal level and the state and local level. if we fund it in a more appropriate way, more robust way. a lot of people have been on the sidelines, underemployed, put them to work, doing something with their lives again. and at the same time we would strengthen our economy. that's it, mr. president. i see my colleague has been waiting patiently for me to finish. and i -- you know, i'll close with these words. somebody said to me how do i feel, you know, the house seems to have come up with a little

more money, we're not sure about the pay-fors we're using. we don't understand it. somehow we found some magic money in the federal reserve. i hope it's legitimate. i hope there aren't any unintended consequences that we aren't aware of. we'll find out about that over the next several days, i hope. i'm not outraged by -- i was frankly outraged by what we passed here a month or so ago. so grossly underfunded, three years funding, not very thoughtful funding. and what we hear from the house is that it is more robust. i'm happy to take a look at that. what it is not, it is not a user fee approach. it basically doesn't say okay, those who use our roads, highways, bridges ought to pay for them. we stray from that. sort of a grab bag of place that is have nothing to do for money, nothing to do for transportation, and we're going to use that money, and it's only for a short while. we'll be back in the soup again in four or five years. i don't think -- i think we can do better than that. you can just color me disappointed, deeply

disappointed. we live to fight another day but it's too bad we didn't take advantage of this day and seize the day. thank you, mr. president. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, it is my desire to address the senate about a particular serious problem that faces us. i would ask that i may be granted seven minutes as if we were in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: i thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today regarding president obama's most recent attempt to close guantanamo bay naval base detention facilities and locate enemy combatants, i.e. terrorists, to the united

states. who are we talking about here when we say enemy combatants with regards to our national security and the problem that this may pose? we have some -- still have some high-level terrorists at gitmo. i'm reminded of the exchange of the five terrorists we read about some time ago in exchange for a young man in the armed services of the united states. these are -- these are high-level terrorists. cha lead sheikh mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, rahim al-nashiri. i was in the intelligence committee. we were concerned we didn't connect the dots with regard to our national security, our national safety. that certainly was the case. we have habali who was the ramsey bomber. we have ramsey, four

co-conspirators with 9/11. whalid binh natash. that's a mouthful, but nevertheless these are folks who are still determined to do great harm to the united states. i don't think they've changed their minds and i don't think the people who know that they're still there have changed their minds as well. the president's determined effort to close gitmo began his first days in office when he signed executive order 13492 requiring the close of gitmo within one year. fortunately, for the security of the united states, the congress stood up to this executive order and stopped it, and the president's attempt to close gitmo was also met by strong objection from all across the

country. even in his home state of illinois, that state turned its back on a plan to transfer detainees to a state-run prison, the thompson correctional facility. more importantly, mr. president, the united states congress lay down its first marker on prohibiting the president from transferring or releasing detainees to the united states through the supplemental appropriation bill or act passed in june of 2009. every year since then, seven years, the congress has maintained this prohibition. this year's national defense authorization act continues to enforce the will of the american people and the congress, yet just yesterday the president's press secretary announced blithely that he is not bound -- not the press secretary but the president -- by congress -- or i would include the american people. the president will do what he

wants to do by another executive order if he determines that that is the best approach. and susan rice, the national security advisor, has just been quoted as saying i can't say with certainty that we're 100% going to get there, but i can tell you we're going to die trying. that's a pretty bold statement. and what the president wants to do, i believe, and i understand it, but it doesn't equate with national security. i think he basically wants to fulfill his campaign progress and preserve his alleged legacy and simply close gitmo, not taking a hard look at what may take place. i have gone head to head with this administration on many issues, but none are as close to my strong belief to protect the united states, the people of kansas and all americans, and it does not make sense to locate terrorists at fort leavenworth,

kansas, which is the intellectual center of the army, and to pose a threat to that community given the fact that terrorists are actually located there. i have often said the first obligation of any member of congress is to protect our national security. allowing gitmo terrorists to set foot in the u.s. is in direct violation, in my view, of that commitment, and we should not stand for this president or any future president to threaten our security by executive order. fort leavenworth would almost a bull's-eye, as i've said. we have inside-out security. we do not have outside-in security. it would take a great deal of money to get that situation taken care of, and i don't think you could do that with regards to terrorists in the united states and what terrorists may do, nine different terrorist organizations and the threat level very high today to any area within the united states, be it colorado or be it kansas or be it south carolina.

mr. president, it is regrettable that i have to be here making this speech at all. in response to the administration and the news that suddenly appeared in the nation's press that there were people visiting colorado, people visiting fort leavenworth, people visiting in south carolina. in charleston. in september, in response to these press accounts and trying to get in touch with the department of defense or, for that matter, the white house, good luck on that, i placed a hold on the administration's nominee to serve as secretary of the army. i don't like doing this. i have no personal bias whatsoever with regards to this person politically or the ability to do the job. i did so with purpose and respect. i articulated this to the army. i articulated this to my good friend and colleague, john hugh, who is or was the current

secretary of the army, and the department of defense and the secretary of defense. and during my conversations, i was reminded that the administration could not implement any parts of the study without explicit authorization from congress. so if and when a study was produced or if there is a plan -- and we don't know if there is a plan but there may be a plan. that takes money, and the desire to act on it and the fact that the administration wants to act on the plan if we can ever see it, the administration would come before congress to ask for that authority and the money, and guess what, no money can be spent on that. so it seems to me that's already a violation. the administration's threat to act by executive order yesterday speaks to the exact opposite of the understanding that i had. congress has listened to the american people and done what is necessary to up hold the national security and prohibit this administration from behaving -- behaving at an -- in

an almost unleashed fashion. i know the president is resolute i -- you can only read the reports in the press. by his statements, he reminded us of that fact by signing 223 executive orders during his presidency, and it is not so much the number of the executive orders but the executive orders that are in direct -- in direct violation or in opposition to the intent of the congress. i just don't think that this should be determined by ignoring the congress and simply issuing an executive order. that's not the way to govern. and it just raises all this dust and opposition, and people like myself coming to the floor extremely worried about what this could bring. i think you've got to

understand, i remember this before 9/11 when i made a statement that the ocean is no longer protected. let me tell you, the threat level is very high. i used to be chairman of the intelligence committee. keeping up with that as best as i can as the threat of isis grows and stability in syria continues to erode, russia is advancing its agenda in the middle east, iran continues to turn its nuclear reactors. we cannot, we must not, mr. president, act politically. we must act instead conscientiously. the only conscientious way forward is to retain detention at guantanamo bay. to do otherwise would be a violation of u.s. law, not to mention the bull's eye on fort leafens worth, where we have the army command staff college, who brings in a lot of

foreign officers, who have a lot of strong feelings with regards to terrorists at gitmo that would be transferred there. that isn't wise, that doesn't make any sense. let me just say that there's another issue that the president has brought up -- or at least his secretary has -- and that is the issue of -- and we hear this from people who honestly believe that if we close gitmo, somehow it would take away the incentive for various terrorist groups to recruit other terrorists from this country and all across europe, all around the world. saying, oh, my godness we have terrorists at gitmo and when will the united states close that so that we're going to close ore our recrui our recrui. what is that all about? if we have terrorists located in the united states, it seems to me that the recruiting would simply be, all right, gitmo is

closed, but we have our brothers at fort levins worth, we have our brothers at colorado. and what do you think would happen with regards to what they would do in response to that, not only to recruit people but to act? and that again goes back to the welfare of all of our american people, not to mention colorado, kansas, and south carolina. it's a bad idea, really a bad idea. and i hope that -- i hope those of us in the congress will make -- will maintain our vigilance and make sure that no money in the national defense authorization act will be spent with regards to taking terrorists from gitmo and locating them in the united states. can't do it. wrong decision. bad decision. don't know why the president is

so damn stubborn about it. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today to shine a spotlight on apprenticeships, one of our nation's oldest forms of education and still one of the smartest invests we can make in education. this very week is national apprenticeship week, and i'm honored to be joined today by senator franken, who will also be making remarks on the value of apprenticeships. we often discuss the value of expanding early childhood education, strengthening our public schools and making college more affordable. indeed, these investments are critical. but let's not forget about what i call the other four-year degree. it's a degree that guarantees you a well-paying job and a

career path after graduation. it is a degree that gives you experience, that employers demand and teaches you skills that last a lifetime. it is a degree that provides a paycheck even while you're still in school, and it is a degree that leaves you debt-free. where's the catch? well, you might have to wake up early every day, you might have to work on nights, weekends, you'll definitely center to complete thousands of hours of hands-on, on-the-job training, and four, five or more years of work in your trade, and many apprenticeship programs, if you miss even a yo few days of work, that's it, you're done. on-the-job training doesn't sound like a typical college curriculum and it is not. it is aen apprenticeship. their programs that train workers in highly skilled occupations by providing instruction and on-the-job training. after apprentices complete their programs, they receive journeyman papers and are set up

for a job with the employer, the union, or the association that sponsored the program. these programs are long, challenging, and competitive, and an appropriate question at the outset is, do they work? well, ask woodrow. ask ed woodrum, an apprentice had in carpentry. he tells the story of scottie, a man destitute, living on the street, landed a position in wilmington. i was always supported and enjoyed seeing the impact of their work, both the materials and the impact on the lives of the young men and women they traifnlt the carpenters have a partnership at the challenge program. through that relationship, scottie began working with the carpenters. fast-forward to today, scatty is still a journeyman. he recently got engaged, owns a

car and is living in a townhouse. do these programs work? in scottie's case, it transformed his life. ask jim arvelius, the laborers apprenticeship program requires 4 240*u hours in the field and at least five core classes. most apprentices take over a dozen classes in that time. jim has seen his journeymen go on to leadership and management roles in construction as foremen or shop stewards or business agents. jim knows how important apprenticeships are, not only for the construction industry but for the lives and futures of the delawareans who are so deeply affected positively by their apprenticeship experience. as jim puts it, through these apprenticeships, "we offer them a career, not just a job." so do apprenticeship programs work? ask tony papelli, my friend who runs the plumbers and pipe fitters local 74, fresh out of college with a traditional

bachelor's degree himself, he went back to school as an apprentice. today he knows how valuable apprenticeship programs are, which is why local 74 trains fitters and plumbers, hvic service technicians, welders. the program is no cakewalk. once an applicant is accepted, they're committed to five years of night classes, on top of the 8,500 hours they'll spend in the field learning their trade before becoming a djourningyman. apprenticeship programs are competitive, too. take the program at i.b.c. in which dick drummond is one of the leaders and a trustie. the program is the largest in delaware today with 120 active apprentices. each year 313's apprenticeship program has 2,500 applicants competing for just one of 24 open spots. that's a 1% acceptance rate. the fitters, the electricians, carpenters are just some of the 1,100 delawareans actively working through apprenticeship

programs with lots of different businesses, unions, and organizations. last year my home state saw 119 apprenticapprentices compleesapr programs. so far 109 have gotten their papers this year. we want to see the numbers steadily rise. right now across the entire country, over 440,000 aspiring journeymen are work through programs knowing if they put in the time earchth and effort, thl earn a job. on average, the starting salary is $50,000, which is several thousand more than the average starting salary for a college graduate with a bachelor's degree and typically with no debt as an apprentice. the benefits of apprenticeship programs are sustainable. over the course of their career, american workers who've completed an apprenticeship program can expect to earn $300,000 more than their peers who don't go through a comparable program. if that isn't a ticket to the middle class, i don't know what

is. i want to commend today the 150,000 employers across this whole country who host apprentices, who partner with apprenticeship programs. they're investing in apprenticeships because they get $1 moi 50 in return for every $1 they invest. tony and the locals of 74 pay for their own program out of pocket. they take money that would otherwise go to a pay raise for their benefits and put it back into the program. electricians at local 313 put in over a one hours of work a year and for every hour they work, they put 55 cents back in the program. these are significant investments, smart investments, helping to fill a much-needed gap in the american workforce with high-quality, high-paying jobs and by helping train workers for skill trades and the vital manufacturing jobs of this century. strengthening america's 21st century workforce is essential to the competitiveness of our economy in the world today, and to the continued revitalization of our manufacturing sector.

they's why it ithat's why it's r core pillars, which includes a number of additional proposals to strengthen career development and on-the-job training programs. last year's reauthorization of the workforce innovation and opportunity act which was a real win for job training programs across the country included five different policy ideas, many of them bipartisan, which came from the manufacturing jobs for america initiative. and i'd like to see this momentum continue, by making a sustained commitment to expanding apprenticeship programs. the thousands of hours of on-the-job experience produce journey with a keen understanding of the cools and techniques they need to do their jobs. it makes them savings more skilled, more productive employees. employers know this, too. electrical contractors are hiring journeymen straight out of the program because they know they're well-trained and well-equipped. as pip says, he's training

apprentices to be better skilled than the last generation. "i don't think people realize what we do to train these young men and women to become journeymen in the field." pip is right. that's why my first stop i have a get off the 5:00 train i'm taking home tonight is a trade and apprenticeship open house at dell castle high school. i urge my colleagues to learn more about the apprenticeship programs in your states. talk to your constituents who have gone through these programs and i know you'll be impressed. mr. president, too often we define education too narrowly here. we talk about education as a ticket to the middle class, but we often don't include apprenticeship programs. that has to chaifnlgt apprenticeship programs work. ed woodrum with the carpenters sees it as simple math. he describes the programs as opportunity, plus resources, plus support, which equals changed lives. ed is right. that's why i'm so proud to join senator franken in cosponsoring senator murray's bipartisan resolution honoring the innog

rail national -- inaugural nationanational apprenticeship k this week. i'm also proud to join senator biden in their goal to double apprenticeship in five years. i want to recognize and thank the vice president for his effective and long leadership in reviewing our nation's job training programs and finding ways to meaningfully improve them. i commend the administration's efforts to expand access to registered apprenticeships and to make it easier for are aprentissships to turn their -- apprenticeships to turning their experience into college credit. there are few programs we know that are estimated to return $27 in economic activity for every dollar invested. budgets are tied today and we're all looking for cost-effective investments that yet jobs and that can help re-vitalize manufacturing. that's why apprenticeship programs deserve our continued support. before i yield the floor, mr. president, i simply wanted to thank my colleague, senator

franken, for his passionate, engaged, and sustained leadership on making sure that community colleges and apprenticeship programs work for the working men and women of this country and to help create new opportunities for manufacturing jobs that are high-skill, high-wage, and high-quality for folks all over this country. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, i'd like to return the kind words of my colleague from delaware for his leadership in this whole field of manufacturing and filling the skills gap that we see all over this country and getting young people, getting people midcareer trained up to do jobs that manufacturers and that people in the i.t. industry and other industries need to fill.

i rise today, mr. president, to recognize the first -- the very first week of november as the very first ever national apprenticeship week. i want to talk a little bit about the benefits of apprenticeship training programs, about what i hear in my state of minnesota, and about my bill, the community college to career fund act, which would expand apprenticeship training programs through partnerships between employers and community and technical colleges. when i travel around my state and i'm sure the presiding officer hears this in louisiana as well, i hear over and over again that employers are desperate to hire good people with the right skills. and for jobs that pay well. today there are over 6,500 open

manufacturing jobs in my state and in other sectors such as i.t., health care, mechanics for the aerospace industry for airplanes. these sectors in our economy are experiencing similar problems. they can't find workers with the necessary training and the right skills to fit jobs that are there. these are there, these jobs. this is what's called the skills gap, and i am sure my friend, the junior senator from louisiana, sees it in his state as well. the skills gap. one minnesota employer, kimberly aragoney of haber sham machine put it this way -- and i quote

-- "for my company specifically it no longer is a capacity issue because of equipment but one with people. we are limited in what we can produce and ship out the door. imagine what this very ripple effect is causing my state and our country as a whole." unquote. and she is right. by the way, i visited abe rman machine, and it's a very, very, very good precision machine tooling company that's a family-owned business, and they have jobs. they want to fill, but people aren't being trained up fast enough. now, there are many registered apprenticeship programs nationwide in more than 1,000 occupations that prepare workers with the skills they need for tomorrow's jobs. yet, they don't get the support they need. i have a bill that would address

that and provide that support. my bill, the community college to career fund act, will encourage apprenticeship training programs by supporting public-private partnerships between community and technical colleges and businesses. these partnerships create job training programs that provide direct hiring opportunities for students and they give businesses the trained workforce that they desperately need at little or no cost to the student programs like the ones supported by my bill will help employers fill available jobs. they will help students get those jobs and graduate with very little or no college debt, and they help our economy stay competitive globally. this is a win-win-win.

mr. president, labor secretary tom perez has described apprenticeship programs as college without the debt or earn while you learn. and in minnesota, we have lots of great examples of such programs. i want to talk a little bit about one of them. eric a jax is the co-owner of e.j. ajax metal forming solutions in minnesota. this is the third generation of ajaxes. it was ajax and son but the son is too old to be called a son anymore. but eric's third generation. they make 70% of north america's appliance hinges. 70%. his company has over 70 employees, one for every percent

of our appliance hinges. half of whom -- half of his employees were trained, hired and had their college tuitions fully paid through his earn while you learn registered apprenticeship program. now to do this, eric partnered with local community and technical colleges to find and train students, including veterans, women, first-generation americans and ex-offenders. i went to his factory floor, and he introduced me to an ex-offender who had been working there at e.j. a jax for six years and he just bought his first home. because of a training program that he had taken that had been made available through the

community technical college. and these are -- now all of these categories i'm talking about -- and i met first-generation americans there who have great middle-class jobs and got their training, got degrees. a veteran who has his bachelor's degree now paid for by eric, by the company. and these are full-time, high-paying, solid middle-class jobs. because eric fully covered college tuition for his employees, some of his veteran employees were able to transfer their g.i. bill benefits to their spouses and their children to help pay for them to go to college. this is a great answer to our college affordability, our

vexing college affordability programs we all talk about. eric ajax proves apprenticeship training programs work. they increase job opportunities, and they generate higher-paying jobs. and they help our global -- our competitiveness globally. mr. president, did you know that individuals who completed registered apprenticeship programs can earn -- or do earn, do earn on average a starting salary of $50,000 a year and $300,000 more over their careers than their peers who did not participate in registered apprenticeship programs? in fact, apprenticeships can be the start of a pathway to business leadership positions.

take martin senn. he's swiss. martin is the c.e.o. of the zurich group, a swiss company with offices around the world. i think it was -- the last i checked, it was like one of the foreign tune 500 companies -- actually in the fortune 200 companies in 2012. i don't know exactly where it is now. he's c.e.o. of a huge company. and like many swiss executives, he's a believer in apprenticeship programs. when he was asked why swiss executives choose to implement apprenticeship programs in the united states, he said -- and i quote -- "i started my career as an apprentice and know firsthand

how powerful such a program can be in inspiring young people to achieve their full potential. from apprentice to c.e.o. i would like to see more of these kind of success stories involving u.s. companies right here at home. now not all apprentices are going to be c.e.o.'s, but apprenticeship program, the training programs are providing a proven path for workers to enter the middle class and for business owners to develop a high-skilled workforce to fill today's available jobs. so as we recognize the first-ever national apprentice week, i invite my colleagues to take a close look at my community college to career fund act. let's expand the apprentice training model so we can better

serve the needs of our students seeking good-paying jobs and for our businesses looking for qualified employees. thank you, mr. president, and i would yield the floor. oh, no. as a matter of fact, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

ms. heitkamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. heitkamp: mr. president, finally we see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not a train. it is in fact the eventual and necessary passage of the ex-im reauthorization bill. as you know, last week the ex-im bill passed the house by a vote that was 72% in favor. we have been told for months and months here as we debate the ex-im bank that this bill as a stand-alone could not possibly, could not possibly pass the house as a stand-alone bill. remarkably, when that myth was put to the test, we found out that not just 51%, but 72% of the house supports

reauthorization of the ex-im bill. last night we faced another challenge for the ex-im bill which was in fact a series of amendments on the ex-im portion of the transportation bill. and once again we exceeded expectations by having super majorities on almost, in fact all of these amendments suffering defeat at a very wide margin. and so now what we know is that we have a bill which has, continues to have broad-based support and continues to represent the necessary steps that need to be taken to reauthorize and reopen the ex-im bank. so let's just recount history here. the export-import bank has been closed for over three months. preventing needed support for small business across the country. many of those small businesses, guess where they are? they're in states like north

dakota. a lot of people, and my colleague who has just come on the floor from washington state, i think everybody understands the significance and importance of exports to a state that is on the pacific rim and understands that that story, but i don't think anyone really thinks about the ex-im bank in conjunction with places like north dakota. so i want to take a few minutes today to talk about small business, talk about the people who have been dramatically affected by the closure of the ex-im bank and why it's so important that we understand and appreciate and not have a history, long-term history here that does not move the ex-im bank forward. so let's start out by talking about the 5,800 small businesses around the country that depend on the export-import bank to finance is export deals and how

many of them right now have no support as we have languished, as this issue has languished in the united states senate. i think we all know that small business makes up a large percentage of that economic opportunity in the united states. that's true in north dakota, true probably to a greater extent because 95% of all employers in north dakota qualify as small businesses. for many of these businesses, if they don't have help exporting their products, that help which the export-import bank provides, they can't grow. with more than 95% of all consumers in the world living outside the united states, if businesses in the united states do not export, if they are not competitive, we will lose economically. several of my colleagues who have been on the floor talking about manufacturing and talking about economic opportunity, at the end of the day this is about

small business. but it's also about the jobs that small business create. so we've seen company like g.e. and boeing which use, interestingly enough, 16 suppliers in north dakota are depend onent on the work that g. and boeing does. as you look at g.e. and boeing and their necessary reaction to the failure of this congress to appropriately and timely reauthorize the ex-im bank, they have looked -- had to look for other ways to encourage their business growth. and that encouragement has not been many this country. they have had to look overseas. and so it is critically important that we understand the idea of a supply chain. you know, everybody says, well, this is -- this is a bank for big business, this is a bank for these people. and that's just pure nonsense. in every one of those deals

that's done for one of these major manufacturing, inside that deal are literally thousands of small businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs created in those small businesses as they support the supply chain. so i want to talk about a number of the export-import users in my state and brag a little bit about the work that they do, because they're on the cutting edge a lot of their technologies and so the first business i want to talk about is aveny technology. it's a 20-year-old family-owned company based in fargo that sells farm manufacturing equipment to companies around the world. they began in august of 1977. they sold their first business to case international and then built amity in the winter of 1996. now, what i love to tell about this story these brothers, one of which i went to college with, these brothers come from the

family that actually created th. and so they have been entrepreneurs, they have been inventors and they have been innovators and they have driven a lot of jobs in north dakota. amity is a big user of the ex-im bank. it is the largest distributor of sugar beet equipment working with some of the world's largest farm equipment companies across the world. 6 but with agriculture markets slowing down, business is harder to come by and so it is particularly important that they have all the tools in their arsenal. and without the help of the export-import bank, the company, which employs 70 north dakotans, could quickly look out on at least 10% of their business and face tough questions about the future of their exports. the next business i want to talk about the w.w.c.o. belting in woppton. woppton is a small community in the southeastern corner of our

state. it is a 60-year-old family-owned runner supply company often used in farm equipment that's supplied to every major farm equipment company in the world. for 12 years the export-import bank has allowed wcco belting to continue to export opportunities it had previously been ignoring. the bank has supported over 850,000 -- $850,000 in exports from the belting company since 2007. the company employs 200 employees who generate more than 60% of their annual revenue from customers who are located outside of the united states. that would not be possible if it were not for the ex-im bank. that 60% of their business is driven by the opportunity that the ex-im bank gives them. i want to talk about j.m. grain. that's a small grain company in garrison. they are a young family-owned,

pea, lentil and chick pea distributing company that supplies their food and packaging to top food caps cross the world. and when you look at their numbers, 15 million, in fact 70% of the company's annual revenue for almost a decade has been backed by the ex-im bank. it has allowed g.m. grain to pursue export opportunities to top manufacturing and packaging food ingredient companies that demand buyers to provide financing for 90% to 1 -- 90 to 100 days. something they could not do on their own. and incidentally, could not find a private bank who would be willing to do it. without the export-import bank, g.m. grain would not have been able to pursue exports to such high-quality, high-selling companies because it would have to significantly cut its price or risk going under.

the company now has doubled or tripled the pay of its workers, retaining its work force throughout the oil boom, which has been awfully tough in north dakota, given high living costs, and has been able to higher top technological workers. it's incredible. it's an incredible story. but it's a story that would not be possible without the ex-im bank. it's responsible for $10 million of the company's annual $15 million in revenue. without the agency, without the export bank -- export-import bank, the company would risk losing sales to competitive exporting companies abroad, including companies from india, china and south america. last business i want to talk about is equipment wholesalers based in fargo, north dakota, and sioux falls, south dakota. they sell equipment like john deere tractors in the united states and abroad. equipment wholesalers told us that if the export-import bank

is not reauthorized, it will have a negative impact on the company's sales. how great is that? 35% to 40% impact on their -- their sales. can you imagine that? just because of the inactivity of here -- of congress, we have risked 35% to 40% of this company's business. the company acknowledges that it's already lost business to companies in germany that have access to germany's export-import agency. they say without the ex-im bank being reauthorized, equipment wholesalers will lose even more business. while our businesses are left at a disadvantage because the export-import bank expired, foreign -- foreign -- export-import banks, including those in india and china and 60 other places around the world, are hugely benefiting. in fact, they're wondering, what is going on in the united stat

states? but we're not going to let any grass grow under our feet as we run to daylight and take advantage of the inaction in washington, d.c. they're already stepping in and they're filling our place. if we do not reauthorize the export-import bank to support american businesses and manufacturers, china and india will step in. there's no doubt about it. they're already doing it. in fact, they have -- during the recent downturn in both of those economies, the first investment they made was putting billions more in their export credit agencies. you know why? because it made business sense. it made sense to their balance of trade. it made sense to their economy to support their manufacturers, especially in an environment where we weren't supporting ours. and so last week my bipartisan bill with senator kirk, which would reauthorize this agency, passed with the support of more than 70% of the house and just

yesterday, again, i'll repeat, the export-import bank reauthorization was attached to the house transportation bill. and despite efforts to once again derail the export-import bank from people who believe that they could kill it altogether, then those same people came trying to kill it with amendments, over two-thirds on most cases of house members voted against those export-import killing amendments. doesn't that tell us something. doesn't that tell us that the vast majority of people here are not ideologues? they look at the facts. they say, in what world would noyou not support exports? you know, we used to do this in state government when i was attorney general and when i served on the industrial commission, we would talk about north dakota's economy and we'd say, what are we going to -- what do we do to grow economies? we say, we have new wealth creation.

now, i'm not picking on retail businesses. retail businesses, unless we're inviting canadians, in which we do, to come down and spend money, they're not new wealth creation. it's those things that bring new dollars to our state. if you look at new wealth creation in this country and you look at what creates wealth in this country, guess what it is? it's exports, it's having a favorable balance of trade. it's making sure that we are a county that believes in reaching out to the -- to 95% of the consumers in this world saying we produce the best quality agricultural products, we produce the best quality manufactured products, we are the top supplier and the most trusted source of products in the world. but we need the tools to make those sales and the ex-im bank is a critical, critical tool. it is part of that structure of

trade infrastructure that we need to make this work. and i hope, i really, sincerely hope, because i don't know whether i'm going to be here when we go through this again, but i hope the lessons of the last three months have been learned. i hope that the lessons that we have been preaching for really since this spring, that we cannot let this bank expire and there will be dire consequences if we do. i hope that lesson's been learned and that the ex-im bank and the people at the ex-im bank, but more importantly that our american businesses that rely on the export bank, our jobs that rely on the export bank and our opportunities that the export-import bank are never forgotten, that they're never left behind. and so, you know, once again we have cleared yet another hurdle. the light is at the end of the tunnel. we believe that we are ready and willing and excited about the opportunity of once again

opening up the doors of the export-import bank and welcoming american business in and say once again, america is open for business to the rest of the world. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. to my friend from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you. mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from north dakota for coming to the floor again to talk about the export-import bank and today specifically outlining how this program of credit insurance helps finance the sales of u.s. products in overseas markets, particularly for small businesses. she and i obviously are stalwarts on what are economic opportunities in a global economy. we want to make things in the united states of america and we want to sell them to overseas markets. so we are here today to thank our house colleagues for standing up and defeating amendments last night to try to kill the export-import bank as a

part of a package on the transportation deal. we're proud of those senators who have supported this here in the united states senate, but we're especially proud of those house members who went to the extent of getting a discharge petition to demonstrate the 313 members of the house of representatives supported this policy. she and i are not giving up on trying to emphasize to people that we have waited way too long to get this done and now we should not wait one moment longer and we should make sure that this part of a transportation bill, while not necessarily our choice for how this gets done, finally gets over the finish line so that we can put our small businesses back to work. as my colleague said, small businesses, they're the key to her state's economy. well, they're really the key to the u.s. economy. they're 350% of all u.s. jobs are provided by small businesses. so that's why we've talked about this issue as it relates to

those job providers because everybody thinks -- i read with great interest even in an editorial today that i thought represented beltway mentality -- that is, oh, the private sector will do it. well, that's the reality here, the private sector's not doing it. and if you're in north dakota and washington state and you're grogan agricultural product, you show me the bank that's going to finance that sale. so i know maybe people don't think about agricultural products when they're writing these editorials but that's exactly what we have in mind because our state's produced so many -- our states produce so many agricultural products. so the fact is that small businesses need global custome customers. why? because if we're just going to grow product for the united states of america, we're not going to be growing much job opportunities. 95% of consumers live outside of the united states and we want to make sure we're selling to them. but when we're selling to a country in africa or we're selling to a country in asia and you go to that bank in north dakota or even in wall l in waln

washington and say hey, i want you to help me do a deal with this wire in a very small country, they want to know, well, what is the securitization. and the securitization of that issue is usually all of the capital of that company, which means they're not going to do the sale, or they're going to try to find a bank who's also going to not do it because they don't have the security to put behind that. that's why credit insurance was created to help those sales actually happen. and that is why this is such an important issue to small businesses and why it's important. so people think, well, okay, we get it. you're concerned about jobs. this is not just about the jobs that are in our state today, although we care immensely about that. this is about the way the senator from north dakota and i view the economy of the future.

we view it as an economy that is taking opportunity, that is happening with the growth of the middle class outside the united states and selling them u.s.-made and grown products. less than 3% of small businesses today are exporters. so how are we going to get them to be exporters? we want them to take risks. how are we going to get them to take risks if they can't get financing for their products? if 95% of the people live outside of the -- consumers live outside of the united states, that's where the rise in growth is happening. that's where the big opportunity is. and we want our small businesses to do something about it. and yet, we take away the one tool that has been there to help small businesses finance those? it was a big mistake. and my colleague talked about that. that's because there's been over 3,300 small business deals approved by the export bank in

2014. so that's a lot of economic opportunity. i've met many of those companies. they warm my heart and make me believe that the united states of america can win at any economic opportunity it sets its mind to. when i think about it, a yakima company that makes music stands, manhasset, they have been in the music business for 40 years. they are selling those music stands all over the united states of america. and they get up every morning and they go into that factory and they try to figure out how they're going to improve their processes, how they're going to improve access. but if you're saying to them every sale that you sell to some overseas market has to be backed with your own capital at manhasset, how long do you think it will take before someone comes in and competes with them and basically knocks them off and defeats them? it's not going to take long. what they have to do is constantly grow their market opportunity and stay ahead of technology investment, even in a music stand, the best techniques, the best practices.

get your reputation that you're the best product and advertise and continue to dominate in the marketplace. that's what selling and exporting is all about. and because we come from an export state, the two of us, washington state being a major exporter, north dakota being an exporter, we know this in our d.n.a. we have to compete. so we want our small businesses to compete, and that's why both our states have been big users of the export-import bank and we want these deals. so, the export-import bank has basically, in helping to support those small businesses, done $10 billion worth of exports from small businesses. isn't this what we want? isn't this what we want in the united states of america, to help small businesses grow and to do that, become exporters? they're winning. their products want to be purchased by overseas consumers. they want to be.

you're just saying when you don't support the export-import bank, i want to make it really, really, really, really hard or impossible for you to make that sale. because you're going to have to go find somebody to finance it. okay? and we all know that people would rather do a lot more financing of dark derivative markets than helping small businesses get their deals done. so we're so happy today that our colleagues in the house of representatives last night defeated ten amendments to kill the export-import bank and that it is now traveling over here as part of a transportation package that will go to conference and hopefully in the next two weeks we'll be able to rectify this issue and put our small businesses back to work. this is so important not just for who's using the export-import bank today but because my colleague and i know we have to grow our economy. we know we do great work and we produce great products. we need to make sure that in a

developing world we can access the opportunity to get there, get our foot in the door and make the sale. don't stop us from doing that. let's get this bank finally reauthorized and get our way to growing a stronger economy. i thank the president. i yield the floor. ms. heitkamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i just want to maybe make one final point along with my colleague from washington state. i find it interesting, i don't know how many times the senator from washington and i have been down on the floor telling the story of the ex-im bank, telling the story about what the problems have been since we have closed the bank for business, talking about what this means for small business, trying to reflect the amazement that we get from our small businesses on why is this happening when we

return money to the treasury, this doesn't cost anything. and i find it kind of curious that as many times as we have been down here, there has been no one down here arguing the counterpoint. there has been no one down here willing to ask us to yield for a question about why we believe what we believe about the ex-im bank. there is no one down here challenging what we're saying about the ex-im bank. i kind of find that interesting. and i think that it is a lesson maybe for the future that you know, let's not mess around with jobs. let's not mess around with people. you know, i think everybody thinks that they're picking on some kind of large corporation, but the reality is that those large corporations in many ways can wait this out or they can devise a business plan that gives them a work-around from the ex-im bank. or they can assemble their

materials someplace else other than the united states. but my small businesses, the ones i just outlined for you, they don't have that choice. and they don't have a big line of credit where they can just wait this out. they don't have the ability to wait. and, you know, it is one thing to say you're all about small business and helping small business. we hear it every time. it's the two great lines that are used here. we care about the middle class and we care about small business. but let me tell you as it relates to the ex-im bank, there has been no activity here that would actually prove the point that we care about small business. and so, just for the record, i want to say i do find it extraordinarily curious that we have gone unchallenged in this whole discussion. no one really wants to take us on because at the end of the day there's no argument on the other side. but yet we've closed this bank for over three months.

we've closed this bank and this opportunity to american manufacturers, to american small businesses, and to all of the great people who work there. and just know that i am so grateful for the work that my colleague from washington, she has been absolutely an incredible leader. i want to thank her for everything that she's done. the nation's expert on the export-import bank. but also a woman who has been in business most of her life and who understands the critical importance of the ex-im bank. and so let's not unlearn this lesson. let's make sure this never happens again and that we never disrupt americans' economic opportunity the way we have by shutting down the export-import bank for the last three or four months. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snowe from hawaii. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent that we vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: mr. president, i rise today to talk about one of the solutions to one of the driving forces behind global climate change, and that is deforestation. after fossil fuel consumption, deforestation is the single largest contributor to

human-induced climate change, but the exciting thing is that we have proven cost-effective solutions at hand that can go a long way in addressing this problem. forests in the united states and around the world provide important services to people, services that are not adequately or appropriately valued by the free market, creating a market failure. these services include many things that we all take for granted -- clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat and long-term carbon sinks that absorb and sequester carbon pollution for years. because these functions of a healthy ecoforest system don't have a dollar sign attached to them, they're often not incorporated in the decisions made by businesses and consumers and governments, but just because they don't have a price tag does not mean they are without value. in fact, the 2008 study pegged the cost of deforestation to the global economy at between

$2 trillion and $5 trillion per year. as the u.s. forest service put it -- quote -- when our forests are undervalued, they are increasingly susceptible to development pressures and conversion. recognizing forest ecosystems as natural assets with economic and social value can help to promote conservation and more responsible decisionmaking. i agree. adequately valuing forests and the services that they provide offer many benefits to local populations and to the climate. limiting deforestation and forest degradation will not only reduce global carbon pollution and slow the pace of climate change, it will also help to safeguard the livelihoods of the more than 1.6 billion people that the u.n. estimates depend on forest services. what's more, tropical forests are the source of over one quarter of all modern medicines, and forests impede the transsignificance of insect and

animal-born infectious diseases. so beyond the economic benefits, we know that keeping our forests intact can improve the livelihoods of billions of people while avoiding drastic increases in global temperatures. thankfully, there are good solutions available to address deforestation. we can start by properly enforcing the laws that are already on the books. i plan on working with my colleagues to ensure that we fully fund the agencies charged with enforcing the ban on illegally sourced timber and paper included in the 2008 amendments to the lacey act. when the leaders, environmental ministers, finance ministers and climate negotiators from all nations meet in paris later this month, i hope they will keep in mind the many advantages of reducing forest loss in rain forest nations and other developing countries, and i hope that my colleagues will recognize the crucial role that the united states can play in sharing our best practices and

helping to build capacity in those countries so that we'll all be better twardz of our natural environment. mr. president, a changing climate brings with it a unique set of challenges, but it's not too late to take the necessary steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and there is good news to be had. we have at our disposal a wide range of solutions for reining in our emissions of carbon pollution. addressing deforestation is one of the most effective and cost-effective ways to slow global warming while enhancing the lives and the livelihoods of the hundreds of millions of people -- excuse me, hundreds of millions of people that rely on forests and the services that they provide. mr. president, i'd like to talk to you about another aspect of climate change and another reason for hope. two weeks ago, the clean power plan was published in the federal register, meaning that

it is now the law of the land. this is the signature achievement of president obama's efforts to reduce carbon pollution. it will reduce carbon emissions from the power sector by 32% by the year 2030. the power sector is the source of some of the most cost-effective emissions reductions and the clean power plan is the most critical and vital step towards putting the united states on a path to a low-carbon economy. power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation, accounting for more than 30% of all u.s. carbon pollution. there are currently no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that can be emitted from power plants. i just want to repeat that. there is no limit under the law for the power plant to the amount of carbon pollution that can be put in the air. and this is despite having landmark legislation already on their books called the clean air

act, and the clean air act requires the federal government to regulate airborne pollutants. it doesn't require or allow the federal government to select from among a menu of airborne pollutants and decide which ones would be most cost-effective or most important to regulate. it says that the e.p.a. is charged with taking airborne pollutants and regulating them to place limits on them. it is a mistake that over the last 20 years even though we've recognized that carbon is an airborne pollutant that is not regulated under the clean air act. the clean power plan fixes this problem. it's an innovative and flexible solution that gives states the right to develop their individual plans, and this is also an important point. the first iteration of the clean power plan was a little more of a blunt instrument. it was geographically constrained. it was power plant constrained, and so therefore a lot of states, a lot of utility

companies came back and said look, there are going to be individual instances where it's going to be very difficult to reduce carbon pollution at a particular site because it's rural, because it's already been cappized, because we can't get the financing to reduce the carbon pollution at a particular site, but if you allow us to work what they call outside of the fence and you allow us state by state to reduce in the aggregate the amount of carbon pollution put in the air, then we can make this work and we can still have what they call good power quality, what is to say -- which is to say you don't want undulations in the power quality to the point where you have blackouts and brownouts. well, that was industry, that was regulators, that was public utilities commission, that was energy companies coming back and saying this is not workable. well, the e.p.a. came up with a scenario where we're still regulating carbon pollution under the clean air act but we're doing it in a way that is totally workable for every state and every energy portfolio in every region in every state.

it gives states the right to develop their own individual plans to cut carbon pollution from the energy sector. the clean power plan has sent a signal to the rest of the world that the united states is serious about preventing catastrophic changes to our climate. the american public knows that climate change is a problem and large majorities want us to act. a stanford poll found 83% of americans, including 61% of republicans, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in the future. 77% of americans say that the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change, and 67% of americans support e.p.a. action to curb carbon pollution. in other words, 67% of americans support the e.p.a. action that is being -- that is being undertaken right now.

they support the clean power plan. they may not know the details, but they understand the basic premise, which is that the clean air act is the law of the land, it was passed a long time ago with large bipartisan majorities , and the basic idea that the federal government has some simple responsibilities, and one of them is to keep us safe from air and water pollution is a bipartisan consensus not in this chamber, unfortunately, not in the other chamber, unfortunately, but across the country, everybody understands that carbon is a pollutant and we should try to reduce it over time as much as we possibly can. i think it's time that we acknowledge that the electricity industry is already changing. we're rapidly moving away from fossil fuels as a dominant source of electricity generation, and soon even low-priced natural gas may not be able to compete with wind and cellular -- solar energy. we should be celebrating these

advances and devoting ourselves to finding ways to accelerate this transition, not throwing up roadblocks. the truth is the clean power plan is merely accelerating market trends that are already under way. listen to this. through the first nine months of this year, over 60% of new u.s. capacity additions were renewable energy. more than 60% of the new power generation in the united states over the last nine months has been clean energy. that is the change that is happening. that is the clean energy revolution. look, in 1998 when i was in the state legislature and i was helping to work on net energy metering laws and solar tax credits and a renewable portfolio standard, this was aspirational. this was something we hoped we would eventually achieve. but 60% of new generation this year in the united states is clean energy. it's already happening. as wind and solar prices fall,

they are increasingly competitive with new fossil generation and more -- in more and more places around the country. and so to my colleagues that warn of massive price shocks from the transition to clean energy, i'd point out that we are already under way with our transition and the massive price shocks have not happened. the clean power plant is the most important tool that we have in our arsenal to fight climate change. and to my colleagues that are trying to stand in the way of making real progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, i say this -- when you're ready to be constructive and work on a comprehensive energy policy, to work on a comprehensive climate policy, we are open. i have continued to come to the floor of the senate over the last several months over the year of 2015 and said this is an issue that has unfortunately become incredibly partisan. this is an issue where we have democrats coming down onto the

floor, offering constructive solutions, and an empty side of the chamber on the other side. but this is the challenge of our generation. this is our obligation as the indispensable nation. the united states has to lead and the united states senate has to have a real debate on climate and energy policy, and we need republicans to step up. this issue is crying for republican leadership, and i'm looking forward to the day, hopefully very soon, where we will have it, where we will have a serious negotiation. i understand that not all of my ideas will win out. not all of the progressive perspective will win out, but that's the legislative process. we need a dance partner. we look forward to that moment. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on tuesday november 10, the chair lay before the senate the house message to accompany s. 1356, that senate mccain or his designee be recognized to offer a motion to concur in the house amendment and that there then be 20 minutes equally divided before a vote on the motion to concur. further, that if the motion to concur is agreed torque the senate proceed to immediate consideration of h. con. res. 90, the resolution be agreed torque the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, all without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 on monday, november 9, the

senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination, calendar number 334, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, that following disposition of the nomination, the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and then the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 303. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 303, designating the week beginning november 8, 2015, as national nurse managed health clinic week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure?

without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate shall proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 24. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 24, authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitor center for the unveiling of the marble bust of vice president richard cheney on december 3, 2015. the presiding officer: is there objection to froaght measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 307 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution

307, recognizing national native american heritage month and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to froaght measure? mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate -- i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. res. 308, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 308, expressing support for the designation of october 20, 2015, as national day on writing. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid podge the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res.

309, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: relative to the death of fred thompson, former united states senator no for the state of tennessee. the presiding officer: there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of h. con. res. 92. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 29, providing for a conditional adjournment of the house of representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the senate. the presiding officer: there objectiothereto proceeding to t? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate

completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, november 9. follow being the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of 2029 with the time until 5:30 p.m. with equally divided in the usual form. 59:30, the senate proceed to executive session as under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if flofs further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the provisions of s. res. 309, as further mark of respect to the late-fred thompson, former senator from tennessee. the presiding officer: under the previous order, and pursuant to s. res. 309, the senate stands adjourned until 3 p.m. on monday, november 9 and does so as a further mark of respect to the late-fred thompson, former senator from tennessee.

>> earlier today members blocked the 2016 defense department spending bill by a 51-44 vote with the 60 needed to move forward. after that the chamber advanced the 2016 military construction spending bill 93 to zero. follow the senate live on c-span2 in members gavel back in. >> every weekend at the c-span networks future programs on politics, nonfiction books and american history. as a nation commemorates veterans day saturday starting at 11 a.m. eastern american history will be live from the national world war ii museum in new orleans as we look back 70 years to the war's end and its legacy. we will tour the we see will tour the we see an exhibit and take your calls and tweets. starting this week and every sunday morning at 1 10 or new program road to the white house

rewind, takes a look at past presidential campaigns. this sunday will feature ronald reagan's 1979 presidential campaign announcement. on c-span saturday night at 8:30 p.m. the steamboat freedom conference debate, the effect of legalized marijuana in colorado and other states pick sunday evening at 6:30 p.m. our road to the white house coverage continues with former maryland governor and democratic presidential candidate martin o'malley who will speak at a council meeting at the university of new hampshire. saturday afternoon on c-span2's booktv starting at 4 p.m. eastern it's the boston book festival featuring nonfiction author presentations including jessica stern on the terrorist group isis.

>> get our complete weekend schedule at c-span.org. >> senators patrick leahy and mike lee sat down earlier today for discussion on bipartisanship and their efforts to work across the political aisle. they talked about legislation they both are cosponsoring that involves changes to prison sentencing laws as well as another bill aimed at protecting businesses and entrepreneurs from patent lawsuit abuse. posted by the politico, this is 45 minutes. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. thank you so much.

thank you very much, mrs. kennedy. it's an honor to be here this morning and i think this is a perfect representation of what the new kennedy institute in boston is aiming for. at her conversation this morning, i can tell you that there is such a thing as bipartisan legislating and i've seen it in action backstage in a glamorous union station green room here. people thought that it was dead but i can tell you that it's not a dinosaur. i actually heard these two senators from different parties discussing legislative tactics right here and who they should call across the aisle to lobby this morning on their bill. i think that's a perfect starting point for our conversation this morning. these two have teamed up on perhaps the most interesting projects i think we've all seen this year, which is criminal justice reform. it has brought together a very, very unlikely coalition of advocates on right and left. ya right and left her difficult brothers wanted a big event to

date on criminal justice reform. you have president obama earlier this week in newark having his own big and very interesting rollout of his sentencing reform actions. and tear up on capitol hill we have senator leahy, democrat from vermont, senator leahy, republican from utah teaming up on this measure tomko to jump right in to this question. everybody wants to know, there's lots of conversation, a lot of buzz but how we going to move it forward? what are the biggest pressure point in each of your view of where could this coalition break apart, number one? number two, what is the stumbling block you are most worried about? is a your colleagues in the house? is it just election-year timing? senator leahy, maybe you can get us going. >> first, thanks for having this, having this, and i was listening to mrs. kennedy talking before we came out.

of course, her late husband, senator kennedy, was widely believed come and used emphasized to me and everyone else, i have both republicans and democrats on the bill. it has a chance to pass. now, on this, on the, something we worked on now for years trying to get coalition. both senator lee and i am both former prosecutors. we don't need somebody to say we've got to be tough on crime. we were tough on crime, but it's also being sensible. and having a quarter to a third of the budget of the department of justice, according to the bureau of prisons, because of people, citizens of nonviolent crimes just locked up for years makes no sense. besides the societal problems. let us concentrate on real crimes, having somebody who's

life is ruined because of a drug addiction or a mistake. that makes no sense. mandatory minimums, the sentences that come from, why don't we just trust our judges to do a good job? but it takes republicans and democrats to work together. i think mike and i are kind of enjoy the fact that when we announced it is, you look at the lineup of senators, including the new chairman of the judiciary committee, senator grassley, it went across the political spectrum. that is the only way these days you're going to get something passed. ..