u.s. senate. members beginning with the general speeches. we also could see votes on beginning negotiations with the house over a revised federal education program changing the no child left behind law. senators expected to start work on 2016 spending for the transportation and housing and urban develop and department. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: help them to remember that you are with them every moment of every day. blessed by your loving providence, may they trust you to surround our nation with the shield of your favor. give them a quiet confidence for facing the difficulties of our times. lord, make our senators instruments of your will for the healing of our nation and world. thank you for the rewards you give to those who live for you.

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

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: from the outset, the new senate has worked to realize a smarter and more inclusive appropriations process. that's why we passed a budget, moving past six years of inaction. that's why we passed all 12 appropriations bills through

committee, moving past six years of inaction. nearly all of those bills passed on a bipartisan basis. that's why it's so disappointing to see voices on the other side try to tie them up in gridlock. but we never lost sight of the goal. we never stopped trying to move the senate forward and our country ahead. because we kept pushing, we were steadily overcoming the partisan gridlock of the past and moving back to regular order on are aeption pros -- on aeption pros. last week we passed one bipartisan appropriations bill that funds america's veterans. today we'll begin to advance another, the bill that funds america's transportation and housing infrastructure. i'd like to recognize the senator from maine, senator collins, for her work in crafting a bipartisan bill that makes smart investments in critical transportation and infrastructure priorities. this is a bipartisan bill. it will help ensure our transportation systems are

reliable, efficient, and safe. this is a bipartisan bill that will increase the efficiency and affordability of federal how hog programs. the expanded moving program will offer a helping hand to americans. it is one of the efforts of the bipartisan -- from expanding it from 39 to 339 housing authorities, convec we can helpe americans achieve self-sufficiency. americans who strive for a better life deserve real opportunity. they deserve serious policies that can make positive differences in their lives. that's what moving to work aims to achieve. it's just one more reason to pass the bipartisan transportation infrastructure bill before us. again, i want to thank our colleague from maine for her important work across the aisle

to craft it and we look forward to debating the bill today. now, mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second-degree time. the clerk: a bill to prohibit members and staff of the federal reserve system from lobbying for or against legislation and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask that the chair lay before the senate the house message accompanying s. 1177.

the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a message from the house of representatives. the clerk: resolve that the house insist upon its amendment to the bill s. 11 77 entitled an act to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act to ensure that every child achieves and ask for a conference on. mr. mcconnell: gray to the request for the house for a conference and authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees and i send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to go to conference with respect to s. 1177. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to grue to the amendment of the house, agree to the request from the house for a conference, and authorize the

presiding officer to appoint conferees with respect to s. 1177, an original bill to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mcconnell, purdue, capito, coats, cornyn -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: and i ask that the mandatory quorum call be waived with respect to the cloture motion. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i, too, agree with the distinguished republican leader that it's good we're moving through the appropriations process. the key to getting this done is december 11, and i've checked

with the subcommittees. i've been in touch with the white house, and the progress is being made -- significant progress. and i would hope during -- they'lthey'll be working hard dg the recess that we're going to have for thanksgiving. by the time we get back here, it's going to be time to start making some really difficult decisions, which we have to do. so i look forward to the appropriations process succeeding and next year i hope that we can move through the bills individually. that would be the best thing to happen to the senate in a long time. mr. president, on the bill that is before the senate at this stage, the education bill, we have two of the finest senators that i've had the pleasure of serving with who are the manager ofs of -- the managers of this legislation. the distinguished senator from the state of washington, of course, a member of the senate democratic leadership, and the

distinguished senior senator from tennessee, lamar alexander. they have worked together well, and it's easy to work well with either one of them. they understand when a legislator is. a legislator can't get everything they want, but they have towork for the good of the country. these two senators have done that with this legislation. and i've been writing this legislation and advocating on behalf of that legislation. i would have probably done it a little different than they did but it is a fine piece of legislation put together by two fine senators and i look forward to this being completed in the immediate future. mr. president, one of the founding fathers, benjamin franklin, said, you may delay but time will not. for far too long republicans have delayed doing something to address our nation's insolvent surface transportation system or to address other vitally important infrastructure problems.

as paul ryan said earlier this year on the house floor, quote, "instead of fixing the problem, we've dodged it. five times we've come up with temporary solutions and transferred money from the general fund into the trust fund, which in english means we patched a pothole and not fixed the problem." sadly, mr. president, that is what has happened. and it looks like it's going to happen again, which is really too bad. we're going to have another short-term extension because the conferees couldn't work out the differences. our republican colleagues have delayed, but time has marched on, and it's wreaked havoc on our nation's tens of thousands of roads that are in disrepair. that is problem and a very dangerous one. we have 61,000 roads and bridges that have been deemed structurally deficient. just a short distance from where we are here, a couple miles, is

the memorial bridge that connects arlington national cemetery with the national mall. that bridge is corroded, it's failing. they've closed down several lanes of that bridge. vehicles pass over this memorial bridge. they're subject to weight re-instructions. why? because of the bad condition of the road. and the bridge itself. they're working now to fix the problem. but here's the kicker, mr. president: memorial bridge is just one of 14 structurally deficient bridges in our nation's capital. according to the american road and transportation builders association. there are 14 structurally deficient bridges in our nation's capital alone. that's a staggering figure. but around the country we have about 60,000 others that are -- that we have a problem with. the problem is bigger than thousands of these decrepit

bridges. the american society of civil engineers estimates that one-third of u.s. roads are in poor or remedial condition. that's 1.3 million miles of roadway. an academic said at a steering committee chaired by senator klobuchar recently that each year american motorist who drives a car is in effect paying an extra $2,000 because of the damage to the cars as they drive around, feel the crashes as you hit those big potholes. that's not only in washington, d.c. it's all over the country. that's to say nothing of the time and resources wastes each year because of our struggling transportation system in other ways. we waste nearly 7 billion hours in our cars due to traffic congress jetion, 3 billion gallons of fuel. we need real long-term investment in america's surface transportation infrastructure. right now we're spending about

$09 billion a year -- $90 billion a year. that includes state and local funds. that is just to maintain the current poor condition. people dliek to hea don't like , but the fact is, we need to do more. the federal highway administration estimates it will take $170 billion a year to improve the condition of our roads and bridges. if we don't increase that funding, it'll only get worse. by 20 the american society of -- by 2020 the american society of civil engineers maintains that the u.s. will need to invest $3.6 trillion to bring our infrastructure up to par. if congress continues the current baseline fund for the next six years, our transportation infrastructure will be in such worse condition than it is today, it will be a disaster. it looks like that's where we're headed. with the new highway bill. instead of maintain ug the statisticker us quo, now is the time for congress to increase surface transportation funding.

there is no reason for any republican to balk at spending more money to fix our nation's roads and bridges. you can be conservative and still support fixing our roads and bridges. $2,000 per driver because of the condition of our road and highways. we need look no farther than the senior senator from oklahoma. is there anybody in the world that could say that jim inhofe is not a conservative? of course he is. but he's worked hard with liberal barbara boxer to address this critical need. now, their bill is not everything i'd like, and that's an understatement, but i appreciate their efforts. we need other republicans to step up, as did inhofe, and do the right thing. we need a long-term highway bill with increased funding for our roads and our bridges. we shouldn't delay. now is the time to be bold and and -- with adequate resources to address infrastructure needs.

in the capitol visitors senator there is a statue of sarah winne maker. each state gets two statues. the one is sarah winne maker. i wish one would be done away with. sarah winnemaker's statute is a beautiful statue. the artist, a young man, when the contest was being held to find out who would get the benefit of being able to sculpt this thing for statuary hall, when they brought in his, the judges gasped. it was so unbelievable. her skirt blowing in the breeze. he depicted her, a flower in one hand, her autobiography in the

other. i admire that statue. i have a smaller version of that in my office. think about her accomplishments. she was the first native american to publish an autobiography. she spoke five different languages. she was a defender of her people. she met with the president rutherford b. hayes. she was courageous, resolute, good for our people and good for our country. she was one of nevada's heroes. november marks national native american heritage month. we honor them and their impact on the united states. we honor the contributions of the native americans. native american heritage is a pillar of america's foundation and is certainly the foundation of so many different states. nevada has 22 separate tribal organizations. we feel that's an important part of our history in the state of

nevada. native american cultures are uniquely embedded with the fabric of our nation and their contributions must never be forgotten. would the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: the compound motion to go to conference on s. 1177 is the pending business. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, the senator from washington and i are here to recommend to members the senate that we vote "yes" on allowing the majority leader to appoint conferees and the minority leader to appoint conferees so our committee can continue its work on a bill to fix no child left behind. the vote we're about to have is not to vote on the merits of the

bill. the reason it is not a vote on the merits of the bill is because there is no bill. what we're asking for is the usually routine request to permit us to take our legislation which passed the senate 81-17 and to meet with members of the house of representatives, who have passed a similar bill, and see whether we can come up with a bill that the conference would recommend to the house and the senate to approve. when that occurs, which could occur this week, then senators would have at least a week to consider whether to vote for or against the bill. so i emphasize again to senators or their staffs who may be watching, this is a routine request. this is the kind of request that the senate should almost always approve, giving our leaders a chance to allow us to continue our committee work, especially

given this bill. "newsweek" magazine recently reminded us what everybody knows. everybody knows this law needs to be fixed. we're seven years overdue. we spent an entire year, the senator from washington and i, working with our committee, which is as diverse as any committee in the senate to produce a result. the process allowed numerous amendments. everybody who wanted an amendment got one in committee. and as a result of the process, all 22 voted to report the bill to the senate, a remarkable event really considering the diversity of views on our committee. then we came to the floor of the senate. we had a full debate. we considered more than 70 amendments, and the vote was 8 81-17. a remarkable event. this is a bill that has alligators lurking in every part of the pond, and the senate is about to get a result on something that affects 100,000

public schools, 3.5 million teachers and 50 million students. now, since the senate passed its bill and the house passed its bill, the senator from washington and i have been meeting with our counterparts, the chairman of the house education committee and the ranking members. our staffs have been talking, and we've been trying to take the two bills which are very similar really and see if we could suggest to the conference a way that we could get a result. we don't have the result because we haven't had a meeting of the conference. we can't have a meeting of the conference until the leaders are allowed to appoint the members of the conference. now, the house of representatives on monday evening, their rules committee reported a rule to allow the leader to appoint members of the conference, and they did it on tuesday, yesterday, by voice vote. we should be doing this by consent. i would think everybody in the senate would want us to go to work to see if we can produce a result on this.

so we'll have a chance apparently in a few minutes to vote "yes." we want to allow our leaders to appoint conferees so that we can see if we can get a result. this is not a vote on the merits of the bill. almost everybody voted for the bill in the senate last time. but even if you didn't, this is not a vote on the merits of the bill. if you want to vote "no" later which i hope you don't -- i hope we'll come up with something you'll support -- you'll have a chance to do that. we have about -- talking for years. we offered amendments. members of the committee have had the staff draft for the last several days. they have been briefed for several days. no amendments can be offered. no bill can be offered until the conference actually meets. so this is a vote to allow the leaders to appoint conferees so that we can move ahead on the urgent business of seeing whether we can produce a bill that we will recommend to the

house and senate that will fix no child left behind. i want to thank the senator from washington for her leadership. it was her advice that led us down this path which so far has produced a good result. i want to thank the majority leader for making time to put this bill on the floor, and the democratic leader, senator reid, who has worked to make this easy for us to do during this process. so we've had excellent cooperation from senators. i think everybody wants a result, and we hope that we can go to work to do it. so vote "yes" to give us a chance to finish our work. then take a look at our work. you'll have a week to read it. we'll be glad to visit with you about it. and then i hope you vote "yes" again. but that will be the vote on the merit. this is a vote simply on whether you trust the leaders to appoint conferees to allow the committees to finish our work. mr. president, i will yield the floor, but i'd like to reserve the last five minutes before the debate ends for any additional comments that i might make. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president,

thank you. we are all in agreement that congress absolutely needs to work together to finally fix the broken no child left behind law for our students and our teachers and our parents and the communities in my home state of washington and across the country. and today we will have the chance to take another step forward towards that goal. mr. president, as you heard from our chairman, senator alexander, since february of this year he and i have worked together on a bipartisan education bill that would remove the harmful one-size-fits-all mandates of no child left behind while also including federal guardrails to make sure all of our students do have access to a quality education. we improved our bipartisan bill in the help committee with the help of our committees and a number of amendments that were agreed to. and in july the senate voted to pass that bipartisan bill with a vote of 81-17. now, the house also passed their

bill in july. and since then chairman alexander and i, as he just mentioned, have been working with our house education and workforce committee chairman klein and ranking member scott. the four of us have had really good conversations about making sure the conference is successful, and i hope we'll be able to continue our bipartisan work in the conference, continue to bring in the priorities and ideas of our fellow senators and members of the house and make sure that the final product that we will bring forward is something that can pass both chambers and that president obama can sign into law. but first we need to take the next step in the legislative process by approving this compound motion to name conferees and allow the senate to proceed to conference in the house. in the senate we want to appoint every member in the help committee. we want to make sure their voices are heard in the conference meeting. so i urge our members to support

this compound motion in a few minutes here so we can continue this incredibly important work to finally fix no child left behind. and i once again want to thank chairman alexander for the tremendous job he has done in moving the legislation to this point. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, shortly today the senate will vote on the motion to appoint conferees or what's often called the motion to go to conference for a bill that reauthorizes the elementary and secondary education act or the esea, the legislation governing our federal k through 12 education policy. because most americans have probably never heard of this obscure parliamentary procedure, the motion to appoint conferees,

that is, i'd like to take just a moment to explain how it works, or at least how it should work. when the house and senate each pass separate but similar bills, the two chambers have the ability to convene what's called a conference, a conference committee. a conference is essentially a meeting where delegates from each chamber come together to iron out any differences between their respective similar but somewhat different bills. and then put together what's called a conference report, which is a single piece of legislation that reconciles any dis parities between the house-passed bill and the senate-passed counterpart to that bill. once the delegates to the conference -- the conferees as they're sometimes known -- agree on a conference report, they bring it back to their respective chambers, to the house and to the senate, for a final vote.

it's important to note here that once the conference report is sent to the house and the senate for a final vote, there's no opportunity to amend the legislation. it's an up-or-down vote. each chamber can either approve or reject the conference report in its entirety. if each chamber votes to approve the conference report, then it's sent to the president who can either sign it into law or veto it it. so what we're doing today is voting on the motion to appoint conferees for the reauthorization of the elementary and be secondary education act. earlier this year both the house and the senate passed their own esea reauthorizations, and now we're voting to proceed to the conference process and to appoint certain senators to participate in that process. as conferees. historically and according to the way the conference process

is supposed to work this vote it that big of a deal. voting on the motion to appoint conferees is usually and mostly a matter of routine. but it's not a vote that should be rushed through on a moment's notice because it is the last opportunity for senators and representatives who are not conferees, such as myself, to influence the outcome of the conference process. we can do that by offering what are called motions to instruct the conferees. for example, let's say that i was not chosen to be a conferee on a particular bill, but there was an issue related to the bill that was important to me and to the people i represent. in that case, i could ask the senate to vote on a set of instructions that would be sent to the conference to inform the conference's deliberations and influence the substance of the conference report. mr. president, this is how the conference process is supposed to work. but it is not how the conference process has been conducted with

respect to this bill, the elementary and secondary education reauthorization. sure, we're still voting to appoint conferees, an those conferees will still convene a conference. that conference will still produce a conference report. so from the surface, it will still look like the conference process is happening, is unfolding, in the manner in which it's supposed to. but beneejtbeneath the surface,w that all of this has already been prearranged, precooked, predetermined by a select few members of congress working behind closed doors free from scrutiny. and we know that this vote was scheduled on extremely short notice so that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the rest us to influence the substance of the conference report through motions to instruct. now, why does this matter? we know the american people care

deeply about k-12 education policy. but why should they care about this obscure parliamentary procedure in the senate? they should care, and, mr. president, we know that they do care. because the process influences the policy. in this case, the process expedites the passage of policies that we know don't work, policies to which the american people are strongly opposed. for instance, it's my understanding that this bill would authorize $250 million in new spending on federal pre--k programs, what amounts to a down payment on the kind of universal, federally run pre-k programs advocated impi president obama. this would be a disaster, not only for american children and american families but for our 21st century economy, that increasingly requires investments in human capital.

we know that a good education starting at a young age is an essential ingredient for upward economic mobility later in life. a mountain of recent social science research proves what experience and intuition have been teaching mankind for millennia. that is, that a child's first few years of life are critical in their cognitive and emotional development. yet we also know that too many of america's public schools, especially those public schools in low-income and disadvantaged neighborhoods, often fail to prepare their students to succeed. nowhere has the top-down, centrally planned model of public education failed more emphatically than in our nation's public pre-k programs. the epitome of public pre-k programs is head start, which

has failed to imriewfn improves the lives of the children it serves. according to a study by president obama's own department of health and human services, whatever benefits children gain from the program disappear by the time they reach the third grade. but because bureaucracies invariably measure success in terms of inputs instead of on the basis of actual outcomes, head start and its $8 billion annual budget is the model for democrats as they seek to expand federal control over child care programs in communities all across this country. this bill also doubles down on the discredited common core approach to elementary and secondary education that the american people have roundly and consistently rejected. mr. president, parents and teachers across america are frustrated by washington, d.c.'s heavyhanded, overly partnershippive approach to --

prescriptive approach to education policy. i've heard from moms and dads in utah who feel as though anonymous government officials living and working 2,000 miles away have a greater say in the education of their own children than they do. the only way to improve our k-12 education system in america is to empower parents, educators, and local policy-makers to meet the unique needs of their communities and serve the low-income families that the status quo is leaving behind. westerlily childhood education -- with early childhood education, we could start block granting the head start budget to the states. this would allow those closest to the children and families being served to design their own programs rather than spending all their time complying with onerous one-size-fits-all mandates and designate eligible public and private preschools to receive grants. we know this works because many states are already doing it. in my home state of utah, for

instance, the united way of salt lake has partnered with two private financial institutions -- goldman sachs and j.b.pr. tzger -- to provide first-rate education programs to thousands of utah children. they call it a pay-for-success loan. with no upfront costs or risk to the taxpayer, private captai cas invested in the program which is implemented and overseen by the united way. if, as expected, the preschool program results in increased school readiness and improved academic performance, the state of utah repays the private investments with the public funds it would have spent on remedial services that the children would have needed between kindergarten and the 12th grade had they not participated in the program. washington policy-makers should not look at utah's pay-for-success initiatives and other local success programs

like them as potential federal programs but rather that is a testament to the power of state and local control. of state and local ingenuity. mr. president, we should not expand washington's control over america's schools and pre--k programs. instead, congress must advance reforms that empower parents with flexibility and with choice to do what's in the best interest of their children. the policies in this bill, as i understand them, move in the opposite direction. thank you, mr. president. yiestled. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i know there are a umin of senators whnumbere appointments. one senator has a military funeral he would like to attend. i would like to make a few comments and then yield back the

rest of the republican time. critics of this body say we're not automobile to get a result. we're often able to get a rument. this vote is about whether we're able to get a result. that's what this vote is about. we had big differences. that's why we were sent here. if all we want to announce our differences, we could stay home and speak on a street corner. after weannounce our differences, our job is to get a result. we're the united states senate, not the iraqi parliament. under our rules, after we've had a full process, our leaders -- the republican lead and the democratic leader -- appoint members of the senate who work with members of the house and see if we can get a result. see if we can get a rument. -- gate result. 22 members on the committee, as diverse a committee we have, and unanimously they recommended a result. with many amendments. this came to the floor, more than 70 amendments, and 81-17 we got a result.

we have our instructions, mr. president. it came from this senate, 81-17. we have our instructions. we'll go work with members of the house of representatives, if given permission, and see if we can get a final bill. all 22 members of our committee will be on that conference. there will be more members than that on the conference. so all of the education committee members will be continuing our work to get a result. why would we slow this down? when the american people have waited for seven years for us to get a result on fixing no child left behind? mr. president, however you voted on the bill earlier -- and almost everyone voted for it -- i hope you will support senator mcconnell and senator reid and senator murray and me and our committee and our efforts to continue our work to get a result. this is not a vote on the merits of the bill because there is no bill. we're asking for per mug permiso

go write a bill and then we'll bring it back here and then senators will have at least a week to consider it and then they can vote "yes" or "no." i urge a "yes" vote. i yield back our time. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mrwithout objection -- is there objection to yielding back all time? mr. lee: mr. president? ask i ask consent to speak for one minute? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: reserving the right to object -- then i will speak for one more minute following his comment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: i thank my friend and distinguished colleague from tennessee for his remarks.

in light of the fact that this bill does involve a complicated process, in light of the fact that this bill, the original senate bill was many hundreds of pages long, in light of the fact that the conference report is likely to be lengthy, i would hope and i would urge my colleagues who have a say in the matter, i would hope that we will all work toward a process that can result in at least allowing the american people to see this bill before it comes back in a conference report form, at least a week or so before we actually have a vote on the conference report. i think the american people deserve to be able to see what's in it before their representatives in the house and in the senate have an opportunity to vote on it. i hope this will be the case, and i hop my hope my colleaguesn agree to that. mr. alexander: as the senator knows, that is the case. i i said it yesterday and i just said it on the floor. we hope to complete our work this week. we may or may not.

but the bill will be out for at least a week for the senators to consider. 22 members of the snaft a reading -- senate had a reading. we hope to get a bill. we'll get a result. and, yes, all members -- i'm glad we're having this discussion. we haven't had conferences in years around here. senator mikulski has mentioned that. maybe this discussion will help us understand how to get a result in the united states senate. i yield the floor and call for a vote. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to disagree with the amendment of the house, agree to the request from the 2340ur houm the conference and authorize the appointment of conferees with respect to the original bill with respect to the elementary

and secondary act of 1977. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sns snaft that debate on the commands motion to go to conference for s. 1177, shall shall brought to a close? the yanks are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: sem

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 91, the nays are 6. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen ans sworn having vote ed in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. cloture having been invoked, the question occurs on the motion to go to conference. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the yeas appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the chair appoints the following

conferees on the part of the senate, which the clerk will report. the clerk: senators alexander, enzi, burr, isakson, paul, collins, murkowski, kirk, scott, hatch, roberts, cassidy, murray, mikulski, sanders, casey, franken, bennet, whitehouse, baldwin, murphy, and warren. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: pursuant to the previous order, the ask that the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 2577. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.r. 2577, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 138, h.r. 258 77, an act making

appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and so forth and for other purposes. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. i understand we're moving to consideration of the transportation and h.u.d. appropriations bill. is that correct, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. wicker: and reserving the right to object just for point of clarification, i am under the assumption that the bill will move under regular order requiring a 50-vote threshold for all amendments. could the senator from maine tell me if i am operating under

the correct assumption? ms. collins: mr. president, i want to ensure the senator from mississippi that for germane amendments, regular order will be in effect. mr. wicker: i thank the senator for her assurance, and i withdraw my reservation. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i send a substitute amendment to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. collins, for herself and mr. reed of rhode island proposes an amendment numbered 2812. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask that the reading be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i send a first-degree amendment to

the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. collins, for herself and mr. reed of rhode island proposes an amendment numbered 2813 to amendment numbered 2812. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i'm pleased to begin the floor consideration of the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill for the transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies. this bill funds programs that are essential to the american people.

our bill provides $18.5 billion for the department of transportation and $38.5 billion for the department of housing and urban development. to meet the housing needs of low-income, disabled, and older americans, to shelter the homeless and to boost our economy and create jobs through much-needed investments in our roads, bridges, seaports, railroads, transit systems and airports. let me begin my remarks by thanking the chairman of the full committee, senator cochran, and the vice chairman, senator mikulski, for their leadership in advancing these appropriations bills. as chairman cochran has previously noted, this is the first time in six years that the

appropriations committee has approved all 12 of the funding bills. and i would point out we did so months ago. i also want to thank and acknowledge the hard work of my ranking member of the subcommittee, senator jack reed. i'm very pleased that he is cosponsoring, we are offering together the substitute amendment that we just filed. the two of us have worked very closely in drafting this bill, and we have listened to the recommendations from members on both sides of the aisle. through considerable negotiation and compromise, we have crafted a bipartisan bill that targets limited resources to those programs that meet our most essential transportation and housing needs.

as a result of hard work and compromise by many of our colleagues and the administration, the recent bipartisan budget bill allows the legislation before us today to be made even more effective. as i mentioned, i have offered on behalf of senator reed and myself a substitute that reflects the new allocation made possible by the budget agreement. this additional funding has allowed for further investments in key programs, such as increasing the home program by $830 million, for a total of $900 million. increasing the community development block grant program by $100 million for a total of $3 billion. i would note that those are the

current funding levels. the bill also provides $255 million in additional funds for the f.a.a.'s facilities and equipment account for a total of $2.8 billion, which is the budget requested level to ensure that critical aviation programs are not delayed. these programs offer a wide range of support from space-based surveillance, data communications to everyday basic needs of ensuring that power systems are fully supplied to support the aviation and air traffic systems that operate 24 hours, 7 days a week. we have also allocated an additional $100 million for the tiger program for a total of $600 million for this important and much-in-demand program that

supports infrastructure, economic development and job creation throughout the nation. in fact, mr. president, every state in the nation has benefited from the tiger program. we are bringing the marine security program up by $24 million for a total of $210 million to match the recently passed authorized level. and finally, we're providing an additional $311 million for f.d.a.'s capital investment grants program for a total of approximately $1.9 billion, which supports transit systems across the country. mr. president, this bill is critical to meeting the best needs of our nation's crumbling infrastructure. we've all heard of the low grade that the american association of

civil engineers has given to our bridges and our highways. any of us, particularly those of us who represent large rural states, know what the deplorable condition of far too many of our roads and highways and the need for state departments of transportation to post bridges that are no longer able to accommodate weight loads and modern traffic. the tiger program will help us meet the needs of our crumbling infrastructure. this highly competitive program creates jobs. it supports economic growth in every one of our states. the need for the program is demonstrated by the statistics. listen to this, my colleagues. the department of transportation

has received 627 eligible applications requesting more than $10 billion for fiscal year 2015 from all over the country. but only 39 of those 627 eligible applications were able to be funded. only 500 million of the more than $10.1 billion in requested funds could be granted. this is a successful program with an overwhelming demand. and i'm happy that the new allocation allows us to give it a modest increase. it doesn't begin to match the application level for this program which, again, is a reflection of our infrastructure

needs in this country. turning to air travel, the aviation investments will continue to modernize our nation's air traffic system and help to keep rural communities connected to the transportation network. these investments are creating safer skies and a more e morefficient airspace to move the flying public. i've been very did he have straight staited by the air traffic accidents that have occurred in recent years. the runaway train in the maine border in the province of quebec in canada devastated the community, and the inferno killed 47 people. first responders from maine responded to the calls for help from their canadian counterparts and helped to put out this

terrible fire. more recently, we've seen an amtrak train in pennsylvania derailed, killing eight passengers. we've seen case after case of cars, railcars turning over, spilling hazardous substances. this is a real problem, and it is one that this bill addresses. to improve rail safety, our legislation provides $50 million in new funding for infrastructure improvements, rail grade crossings and positive rain control safety technology. in addition to rail, we've included several important provisions to enhance truck safety on our nation's highways. for example, our bill requires the department of transportation to finalize a rule mandating

electronic logging devices within 60 days of enactment. mr. president, this rule is critical to ensuring that bad actors will not be able to falsify their records. it will bring greater accountability to the industry. it helps those good truck drivers, the vast majority of our truck drivers, to separate them from the bad apples who are falsifying their logs. the bill also requires the department of transportation to publish a proposed rule on speed governors, which limits the speeds at which trucks can operate. mr. president, the department has delayed this important rule making 22 times since 2011.

it is far past time to get this important safety rule completed and to implement it. and it isn't just the ranking member and i who think so. this is also supported by the trucking industry itself. we need to make progress in both the area of electronic logs and speed governors and our bill will ensure that that occurs. we also proil funding for the office of defects investigation at the national highway traffic safety administration to analyze consumer complaints and trends related to vehicle safety defects. now, you may recall, mr. president, this agency came under scrutiny this past year for failing to discover and act on defective air bags as well as

faulty ignition safety switches. we must ensure that remedies are implemented promptly and make certain that the public is better informed of critical defects. our bill will also provide for critical housing programs. it preserves existing rental assistance for vulnerable families and individuals and it improves the federal response to the problem of youth homelessness. both of these were priorities from me, mr. president. i wanted to make sure that those vulnerable low-income families, that our disabled citizens that are low-income seniors did not lose the subsidized housing to which they are entitled and in

which they are already living. so that is a very important important provision. i would note when you look at the department of housing and urban development's budget that more than 83% of the budget is devoted to these programs that are so vital to ensuring safe and affordable housing for some of the most vulnerable americans. improving the federal response to homelessness is also an important priority for me. that's why we placed a special emphasis on this bill, on the growing problem of youth homelessness, and we have funded additional vouchers for what is known as the vash program that is aimed at our homeless veterans. sufficient funding is provided to keep pace with the rising

costs of housing vulnerable families. now, i will note that doing so this year has been especially challenging, given the administration's decision to lower mortgage insurance premiums because that reduced f.h.a. receipts by nearly $1.1 billion. but despite this challenge, this bill, by setting priorities, ensures that the more than 4.7 million individuals and families currently housed will not have to worry about losing their assistance. and again, let me emphasize without this assistance, many of these families, many of our disabled americans, many of our low-income seniors could become homeless. we're preventing that. the increase in youth homelessness is especially

troubling and warrants more attention. reflecting this concern, $40 million is provided to expand efforts to reduce youth homelessness. in addition, the bill includes funding for more than 2,500 family unification vouchers to assist our young people who are exiting the foster care system. it extends the amount of time that these youth can use their vouchers. mr. president, i'm sure if you talked to foster youth in your -- your state, it would be the same as mine. you will find that when they reach a certain age, they are no longer eligible for care by foster families, and they have nowhere to go. and oftentimes, they end up in shelters. that is not an acceptable situation. so by expanding these family

unification vouchers, we're hoping to ensure that these youth are not homeless or forced to live in shelters. these efforts build on our success in reducing veterans held homeless. vash is a program that actually works. we've reduced the number of homeless veterans by a third. but the job is not done. we have a goal in this country of ending homelessness among our veterans who have served our country. so we would provide an additional 10,000 vouchers for our homeless veterans so we can complete our work and reach that goal. our bill is also an important source of local development. we worked hard to provide

$3 billion for the community development block grant program. this is an extremely popular program with the states and communities because it allows them to tailor federal funds to support local economic and job creation projects. in fact, in my state, it's one of the most popular economic development programs, and i think that's true across america because it isn't a top-down federal government dictating how you use the funds. instead, there is great flexibility in providing funds to states and communities, and they decide what is needed. they match the funds. there's often private sector money involved as well. it may be to revitalize the downtown to build affordable housing. whatever that particular

community decides will spur economic development and create jobs. this is a job creation program, and it's one that is flexible and recognizes that those at the local and state know best what their economic development and job creation priorities are. now, mr. president, the bill before us does not solve all of the problems facing housing and transportation in this country. we simply do not have the money to do that, even with the higher allocation in this era where we are facing a $17 trillion debt. this is a fiscally responsible bill. it reflects priorities. we cannot fund every good program out there. we have to make choices.

we certainly don't want to fund programs that are not effective we have put our money on our priority programs that will make a real difference. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to present our appropriations bill to this chamber. again, i want to thank my ranking member, senator jack reed, with whom we have worked very closely on the substitute amendment, and as we begin debate on the transportation transportation-h.u.d. appropriations bill, i urge my colleagues to consider the careful balance struck by the compromise that our subcommittee and our full committee worked so hard to achieve. thank you, mr. president. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i rise today with my colleague,

senator collins, in support of the transportation, housing and urban development appropriations bill before us. i first begin by commending the chairman for her extraordinary work. her thoughtful, careful consideration of all these issues and her willingness to include priorities for members on both sides, and as always, she did this in a fair, considerate and transparent manner. along with the staff, they did a remarkable job. so i thank her for her leadership and for her consideration. and now, as a result of the budget agreement, we have a higher allocation, an allocation that will allow us to make more responsible investments in key transportation and housing initiatives that will help grow our economy, create jobs, strengthen neighborhoods and better meet our affordable housing goals throughout the country. we need to improve housing stability for our most vulnerable citizens, and this allocation will allow us to preserve h.u.d.'s housing and homeless assistance programs

which are vital to our nation's security and the progress and opportunity for all of our people. over half of h.u.d.'s rental assistance goes to support someone who is elderly or disabled or both, so these programs are particularly important for the seniors and for disabled americans who need the kind of security that only adequate housing can give. and without these programs, frankly, many of these individuals would be homeless or pay more than half of their income in rent alone and be unable to support the other basics of life -- food and clothing and just basically getting around. overall, this bill makes important contributions towards improving the safety of our roads in another area of our responsibility, transportation, and helping communities better connect people to jobs and housing opportunities. that's often overlooked that housing is critical in every

aspect, particularly being able to get and maintain a job, and that certainly is something that we want to encourage. these investments can serve as a catalyst for economic development also, enhancing the community, preserving community assets, allowing federal resources to leverage many times over in some cases private resources and local resources. among the critical transportation investment this bill provides $16 billion to the federal aviation administration, fully funding the agency's budget requests for air traffic control, safety oversight and its facilities and equipment. again, so much of our commercial activity depends upon a solid aviation infrastructure. we are filling their request, ensuring that they have adequate infrastructure, particularly when it comes to air traffic control in an age in which there are technological revolutions causing them to reinvest

constantly in better equipment and better preparation. for the past three years, in fact, maintenance on the agency's basic infrastructure has been deferred so these air traffic control challenges could be met and could be fully funded. but that's not a sustainable long-term strategy. the bill in front of us today with the leadership of the chairman puts the f.a.a. back on track, and we want to keep it on track. as the chairman has pointed out in the transportation area, $600 million for the tiger program which funds local solutions to transportation problems. one of the commendable aspects -- and there are many in this program -- is these are localities coming to the department of transportation with specific requests that they know will help their economy, that will help move people and goods and services and improve the competitiveness of not only the locality but the nation.

in addition to that, $41 billion in highway grants and another $8.6 billion in transit formula grants that states and local governments rely on every year. and in addition to these provisions, the bill makes strong investments in amtrak and rail safety, providing $50 million for rail safety grants and targeted new investments in the northeast corridor which is one of the major thoroughfares of commerce and travel in our country. it also allows the federal railroad administration to hire 84 new inspectors and safety staff to address the safety transportation of passengers and energy products, and we have seen repeated incidents of tragic accidents caused by outdated equipment, caused by many factors. we hope with this legislation, we will not only reduce those but eliminate them. we have also seen accidents in the center of the united states, in the far west where products were being transported by rail

and there were problems there, too. again, these energy products are necessary for the whole economy, and we need to be on the job inspecting to ensure that they're moving safely through all of our communities. these investments are necessary. they're necessary for safety, they're necessary for efficiency, and they're necessary to build the kind of transportation system that supports jobs and economic growth. i think most people and most people back home understand the connection between good infrastructure, good jobs and a prosperous economy. they get it, and this legislation gets it also. at the department of housing and urban development, the bill makes important investments in our communities. again, as the chairman has pointed out, the community development block grant program, cdbg, is an extraordinarily effective tool for local governments to spur innovation and economic investment. and again, as she indicated, it

comes from the bottom up not the top down. its mayors and city councils and local planning agencies are able to utilize this money in combination with other resources to fund projects that make their community more effective and more efficient, and it's based upon their perspective not our perspective, and it's a very efficient and very, very helpful program. it gives communities the tools to address their ailing infrastructure problems, and it brings critical services to many who need it the most. the legislation also includes additional resources for affordable housing productions for the home program, an investment we know is necessary as our nation faces a lack of affordable housing nationwide. the bill also protects some of our most vulnerable citizens by providing critical resources to prevent and end homelessness. among veterans and youth in particular, this bill provides

an additional 10,000 vouchers to move us closer to eliminating homelessness among our nation's veterans. just a few days ago, we celebrated veterans day, but we can't celebrate it one day a year. we have to celebrate it every day. one way we do that is to put the resources so that every veteran we hope can achieve affordable, safe and decent housing. that way we celebrate their service every day, and this bill tries to do that. we've already seen success in this regard. about a 33% reduction in veterans' homelessness since 2009, but it's not good enough. there's still work to be done. that's a commitment that senator collins and i share, and her leadership has helped us move forward to achieve that objective. and for youth experience in homelessness, this is another phenomenon. she spoke very eloquently about the fact that we are able to target resources to help some of these programs for young people to find homes.

particularly the point about young people who are aging out of foster care. we have a fairly substantial system to help young people until they reach their adulthood, and after that it seems to go away. and so with resources, we are helping children through foster homes and then suddenly they have to go and they're on their own. this legislation is going to help them make a transition, at least have the housing they need so that they can use their skills productively to the benefit of everyone. it also helps us improve coordination across the government so that these young people don't fall through the cracks. some of it's resources and some of it's just working together cooperatively in a governmental governmental -- governmentwide approach, and the legislation helps encourage that. as i said, homelessness is a

barrier to education, employment and opportunity f. you have to move -- opportunity. if you have to move three or four times a year and you're a young child, your education is going to be very challenging from school to school to sool -- to school. if you're a person who doesn't have an address or moves frequently, how do you get that call back for the job interview if they can't find you and you can't find them? all of this instability can be significantly reduced and opportunity better achieved if we have dependable housing. and that's at the essence of our proposal today. so it applies to the youth, it applies to families, it applies to a whole span of americans. and, again, let me thank the senator for her leader snip crafting this bill. on the whole, it achieves a balanced compromise, the response of priorities of the members of this chamber within the allocation we received.

we don't have unlimited resources so we had to figure out innovative ways to deliver better results with what we have. and i think we've gone a long way in doing that. we also have to continue to look to the future. making smart investments today that will help us build a much better tomorrow. we have better transportation systems, better housing options. and, again, this legislation does that. as with any legislative proposal, there are aspects of the legislation that could be improved. i hope we can improve them going forward. there are provisions, for example, with respect to the safety of double-33 trailers, which has already passed the senate on a bipartisan basis. those are issues that we can and we must work on as we go forward, but overall this proposal i think does a great deal to respond to the needs of the american public. and, again, let me thank the

chairman and say it's very challenging but very enjoyable to work with her. we also have, very quickly, an omnibus we must prepare. so we're literally going from the floor to meet with our colleagues, coming back and hopefully we can pull this all together so that we will have the opportunity to present to the senate a bill that is thoughtful and achieves the needs of our people. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at 5:00 p.m. on monday, november 30, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar 268. that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate. and following disposition of the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 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 the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i'd like the senator from maine make whatever comments she wants to make. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i just wanted to make a brief announcement before yielding to senator blunt and senator klobuchar. and that is that we are open for business as far as amendments are concerned. i would invite my colleagues to start sharing their proposals with senator reed and with me

and with our staffs so that we can see if there are some that can be cleared and that perhaps we can move later in the day a package by unanimous consent of those that are acceptable to both sides and noncontroversial. so the sooner we can get going on the review of those amendments, the better. and i would encourage my colleagues to proceed. thank you. i yield. mr. blunt: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 315 that was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: senate resolution 315, expressing support for the goals of both national adoption day and national adoption month and so forth. mr. blunt: mr. president, i ask -- the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection.

mr. blunt: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: thank you, mr. president. let me before i start my remarks say how pleased i am to see senator reed and senator collins here with this important bill and with the opportunity to amend the bill and do the business that we should be doing. i'm also glad to be here with senator klobuchar. she and i cochair the senate side of the congressional caucus on adoption. and the resolution that was just agreed to adopts november as national adoption month and november the 21st as national adoption day. and while we're here talking about this, all of our states have kids that need to be adopted. and if you went to the missouri department of social services web site today, you'd find 114

foster youth that are ready and waiting to be adopted. if you looked around the country today, you'd find that there are 415,000 children in the united states foster care system and 108,000 of those kids are waiting to be adopted. last year 22,000 young men and women aged out of the foster care system and they never got that opportunity for the permanent home, the forever home that can make such a difference in your life, not only as a kid but your life as an adult. you know, if you went to -- if you looked around our state today, i've got two or three kids here i want to talk about. austin is 12. he's full of energy, he's got a great smile. he's extremely active, as lots of 12-year-old boys are. he loves to be outside. he enjoys, in his phrase, going

on adventures. he loves animals. he'd like to live on a farm one day. he likes basketball. he likes being on his basketball team. but mostly he'd like to have a family. mostly his dream is a dream that he'd have a family to encourage him and support him. and two other young men, one 11, one 7, brothers. when you first meet makee, you could tell he just is relaxed, he's laid back, he's an easy guy to be with. in his free time, he likes being active. he likes to be on his bike. he likes to play football. if there's possible to be outdoors, he'd like to be outdoors but he's also happy with the video game or the tv. at school he likes history class the best but his best grade at

school is in art. his brother, jamir, may appear to be pretty shy and quiet, but once he gets to know you he easily turns on the charm. he's a football and basketball guy as well. but he enjoys the quiet activities of drawing and reading and coloring. he loves being with his brother. he loves video games. his favorite class is math. he earns his highest grade there. but what they'd like is a family and they'd like a family that will allow them to keep in contact with their siblings but would also give them some structure and some attention and some consistency that's been missing in their life. marissa's five. she's got some challenges but she's a sweet, loving girl. she's happy. she's curious. she loves to laugh. she has a hard time right now expressing herself in lots of

other ways so she's working on building her vowels and her consequence senate sounds. she works on -- consequence senat concenant sounds. she's got a spunky attitude but she would melt the heart of a future family if those things ever become connected. and, mr. president, there are tens of thousands o of children all over the country today just like that that just need a family. tens of thousands of children where a family could make all the difference in the world, not only when they're growing up but when they're adults, when they have that family to turn back to. and i will say, nobody is better to work with on these issues than senator klobuchar. and without objection, i'd like to enter into a colloquy with her and come back to me in a little bit after she's had a chance to talk about the importance of adoption month and adopon day. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. i actually would have a question

first of senator blunt because i know he himself is a parent of an adopted child from russia. i think i've heard a rumor that they are traveling to every state in the union. mr. blunt: trying. ms. klobuchar: is that correct? okay, good, i wanted to get on the record. because i know you wanted to go to north dakota, which is everyone's dream right now, and yoyou got some advice from me to go to the great state of north dakota. but one of the things your child that you adopted is russian and we've had had so many issues with some of these countries from russia to the congo. i have families in minnesota that have adopted children from russia and they were just ready to adopt the sibling and they met the brother or sister, the kids met, of course, know the brother and then they -- the curtain was brought down and those kids were literally pawns in a political game when russia stopped all adoptions. you are hosting i know a meeting

with the people involved in adoptions in the congo. we've had a similar situation where these visas have been pulled and these parents who visited these kids, are ready to adopt these kids haven't been able to do that. so i just wondered if you could comment, senator blunt, on these situations with countries and just what you sympathy happeni happening, what you think we can do. mr. blunt: i think this is a problem and, you know, there are lots of families in the united states that would love to have kids from wherever in the world kids are that need families. two examples you've just given are some of the frustrations of international adoption in just the last few years, where thousands of kids were coming to the united states from other countries, from china, from ethiopia, from guatemala, from the democratic republic of the congo, certainly from russia and, you know, the tragedy of so many of these stories is that the -- the child has suddenly seen that opportunity, they've

bonded with families, they've gone through the whole process. many people when russia stopped russian adoptions were ready to go to court, had been to russia maybe multiple times, had exchanged visits and photos. and not only the family is ready for the adoption to occur but, more importantly, the person about to be adopted is ready for the adoption to occur. and just to show what can -- in the case of russia, the kids who were closest to being adopted by american families, the russian government suddenly created incentives to put them at the top of a list that doesn't get much attention, which is here's some special incentives to russian families if you'll adopt these kids before the american families that were ready to welcome them can get them. we are having a meeting today with the ambassador from the democratic republic of the congo and grateful that the ambassador would come.

but our real concern there is there are many kids in the congo that have actually been adopted and there was a commission that had been put in place to study the question of why they can't get their exit visas now to leave with the families that courts in the democratic republic of the congo have said could take -- could adopt these kids and that group has been disbanded. so all that's necessary there is the -- the exit opportunity, the exit permission to leave the country to go with the families that are already legally the families that have adopted them. and i look for you and and i several of our colleagues are going to meet with the ambassador today. we're glad he's coming. we'd like to see that meeting result in going back and look at cases where their government has already decided this is a great match for these kids and these families and figure out how to let those families get their kids to the united states. ms. klobuchar: thank you.

this also is very important in my state. as i mentioned, we have the highest rate of international adoptions in the country. we have families that have opened their hearts and their homes to kids from every country from vietnam to guatemala to nepal to haiti. my background as county attorney for eight years, i oversaw the lawyers who worked with foster care and adoptions. we made it a huge priority to tried to -- try to speed up the process for kids to be adopted from foster care. right now in our country, nearly 400,000 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. over a hundred thousand of these children are eligible for adoption but too many of them will languish for years in foster care, oftentimes with a a -- with very good families for them. but obviously a permanent home is what you want. we talked about international adoptions around the world. there are estimated to be nearly 18 million orphans who have lost both parents and are living in

orphanages or are the streets that have -- want, again, a permanent home. senator blunt talked about some examples from his own state. i used one example. when the hatch family, emerson hatch was one of these children, an orphan, started the process to adopt her from india in 2000, emerson was one of 300 kids living in an orphanage built to house 34 children. the indian government refused to release her and the family had to endure a two-year wait and an earthquake and a contested election in india before they were finally able to get her out of india with one minute to spare before her passport expired. she was malnourished, she was 2 years old but only weighed 14 pounds and was in poor health. but with a lot of love and the help of the adoption medicine clinic at the university of minnesota, emerson and the hatch family are thriving. she is in high school. and the family is passionate about giving orphans permanent

loving homes. so there are many things that this senate can do. the first is as senator blunt has explained leading efforts when countries put up barriers for no good reason. obviously, sometimes you will have legal issues in countries with corruption or other reasons that there is a pause in adoptions, but when countries are putting up barriers for no good reasons and for reasons that are fairly transparent, we must lead and work with other senators across the aisle to get this done. the second is legislation. we have had a number of successful bills passed in the senate. the bill i'm probably proudest of is something that i did with actually senator sessions, senator inhofe which was to allow older siblings to come in internationally when our younger sibling had been adopted. what was happening is kids would turn 17 after holding the family together as the oldest sibling and then they would no longer be eligible for adoption. we had a family out of the philippines, nine children,

oldest kid held them together in an orphanage, oldest two kids, and then they turned too old to be adopted. that family i will never forget the mccorrises came to me and said we have these choices. we can adopt the seven kids and leave the two behind. it was like a sophie's choice. soar we can leave them all there because we want them to stay together. or you can change the law. that was the discussion. so i worked with my colleagues, and i'll never forget the mccorrises came with pictures of these children on their ipod and showed them to the staff members and the staff would call our staff crying and said okay, we won't hold it up anymore. and we were able to get that passed and i was able to be there, senator blunt, with that family in their home, a farmhouse that they have expanded, and it was like a philippines version of "the sound of music." they are an incredible family. i just talked to them a few

months ago. they are doing well. this is, i would argue to my colleagues, a bipartisan area in congress, something we can do across the aisle, but it's also something where we can make significant difference, not just in one family's lives but in many, many family's lives. and so i want to thank you for your work and your continued leadership in this area. mr. blunt: i would say in this regard, there are several things we're trying to do that we're still working on. senator klobuchar and others together. clearly there are great stories to be told. and one thing we don't want to forget on national adoption month or national adoption day is the many families and the many individuals that benefit from adoption. it's really easy to talk about the frustrations of trying to make things work better, the foster kids that aren't adopted, the international kids that should be here that have families that wanted to be here. we also want to talk about many success stories. we had an angels in adoption event just a few weeks ago and

recognized from virtually every state a family that had done something extraordinary like the family that took a family from the philippines and expanding the farmhouse was probably job one if you're going to bring nine more people into your house. but the supporting families adoption act, the timely mental health for foster youth act, the adoption tax credit refundability act all need attention to make adoption work and to make it easier. it is a life-changing thing for everybody involved, and in most cases it's a life-changing thing, not just for the family but for anybody who really knows the family and sees what happens when people are able to reach out and become a family and make a difference in the moment but also to make a difference forever. and so i will let senator

klobuchar finish up here, but working on these issues is important, it's bipartisan. you're never going to find anybody to say well, we don't need that, but we do need to be sure we're paying the kind of attention that we need to pay to make this work better, to make it easier to increase the chances that adoptive families not only are able to become adoptive families but they're also able and more likely to be successful adoptive families. and again, senator klobuchar, thanks for your leadership and your work on this. ms. klobuchar: thank you. as you know, the work is never done. we have a number of bills that are out there for which we have bipartisan support that we're going to continue to work on. and i think my last statements would be that our kids deserve so much more than just a roof over their heads and a bed to sleep in. each and every child deserves a loving home, a nurturing family and a brighter future. that's what national adoption month is all about, and that's

why senator blunt and i are here on the floor today, and that's why all of us have a responsibility to carry on this torch and to keep fighting for these children. thank you. thank you, senator blunt. i yield the floor. mr. president, i was going to go on to one other subject briefly for two minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much. mr. president, i rise today to express my concern that the department of veterans' affairs chose to issue performance bonuses to senior executives, including the director of the st. paul regional office of the veterans benefits administration, despite recent revelations of improper and dishonest conduct. according to a report released

by the v.a.'s office of the inspector general in september, two v.b.a. executives used their positions to assign themselves to different jobs that involve fewer responsibilities while maintaining their higher salaries. they actually assigned themselves to a different job where they had to work less and then kept their high salaries. one of them was a woman named kim graves, the director of the veteran benefits administration st. paul regional office since october, 2014. the inspector general found that ms. graves used her influence as director of the c.b.a.'s eastern area office to compel the relocation of the previous st. paul officer director. so she moved that person and then moved herself into the job. she then proceeded to submit her own name and filled the vacancy that she had just created. taking on the job of directing the st. paul regional office was actually a step down in responsibility for ms. graves.

in the inspector general's words, she went from being responsible for the oversight of 16 regional offices to being responsible for only one regional office, but she kept her senior executive service salary of $173,949 per year. she also received over $129,000 in relocation expenses. in spite of this behavior, ms. graves received an $8,687 performance bonus this year. st. cloud v.a. health care system chief of staff susan markstrom received a performance bonus as well the same year she was reported with mismanagement issues. a chief of staff collecting bonuses while running off nurses and doctors, a senior executive using her position to push out one of her colleagues and get hers a plum assignment with fewer responsibilities but the same high salary, this kind of action creates a breach of

trust. and i am generallary proud of the work of veterans' affairs. we obviously have issues in our health system with backlogs and other problems, but there are a lot of hardworking people who work in veterans' affairs that should be lauded for that work because our veterans deserve nothing but the best. but in this case, i do want to thank the inspector general for being willing to look into this difficult case and shedding light on what's been happening. the conduct is unacceptable and further erodes trust. it is commendable that the v.a. inspector general took action by referring these two cases to the u.s. attorney for possible criminal prosecution. the v.a. needs to do right by our veterans and taxpayers by holding bad actors accountable and implementing reforms to prevent exploitation like this from ever happening again. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today during our session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: mr. president, i rise today in support of senate bill 310, the eliminateing

government-funded oil painting act, or the e.g.o. act. i'd like to thank my colleagues, chairman ron johnson, ranking member tom carper of the committee on homeland security and government affairs. that committee considered the e.g.o. act in its business meeting of june 24, 2015, and reported it favorably without amendment. the eliminating government-fund oil painting act is legislation that bans the federal government from spending taxpayer dollars on oil paintings of presidents, vice presidents, cabinet secretaries or members of congress. mr. president, you may not believe this -- these paintings can cost as much as $40,000 and are often placed in a back hall of a government bureaucracy never to be seen by the public. and i will note that $40,000 is the same as the average annual wage of a worker in louisiana. think about it.

that worker would work a whole year, and as much as she would earn, that is what the federal government will spend on a cabinet secretary who serves for six months and then it is put in the back of the building never to be seen. now, with trillions in debt, there is more to do and our obligation to the taxpayer to spend their money wisely, but this is a start. i offer my strong support of the e.g.o. act and urge its passage. with that said, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 165, s. 310. i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider br be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cassidy: mr. president, may i comment again? i have no clue why the esteemed democratic leader objects. all i can say is it is an

incredible insensitivity to working families. i have no clue -- there is a family out there right now struggling, not sure if they can pay their rent or their mortgage. they're going to lose their car. their children will go to school in old clothes and maybe hungry because the amount of money they earn per year is not enough, and they look at people in washington like a new version of "the hunger games." it is the capital of this country and all the riches of this country are brought to the capital to paint paintings of government officials to be hidden away. while they struggle to make their mortgage and their car note and to make sure that their child is properly fed. that people in government would be insensitive to those families shows you the problem of government. that people in washington would be insufficiently aware that the

average family is making $40,000 a year, the same as what one of these paintings can cost and not care is an indictment of those who do not care. mr. president, i regret that there is objection to this, but we will ask -- we will bring it up later, and i thank you for your time. i yield back. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: and that i be

given unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i am here to speak in probably what was my 118th time to wake up speech related to climate change. i want to take this occasion to express my appreciation to a person who the tv cameras can probably see behind me sitting in the staff bench, joseph macet, who has been a fellow on my staff for over a year now. he's hidden. he has just gotten out of the way. and who has been very instrumental in helping me prepare these speeches. i'm grateful to him. so today i would ask that we imagine a dark castle with looming ramparts and tall towers. it is strongly built and it is well defended. its defenders are determined and i implacable. they patrol those ramparts and

from their castle battlements, they attack and harass their opponents. the castle's thick walls were built to keep out unwelcome things. in this castle, those unwelcome things are science, the science of climate change and truth, the truth of what carbon pollution does to our atmosphere and oceans. and decency. the human decency in the face of that information to try to do the right thing. this is denial castle, the fortress of climate denial constructed by the big polluters. like many castles, this castle is built on elements that date back to earlier wars. some parts date back to tobacco companies denying that smoking causes cancer.

some parts of it date back to the lead industry's denying that lead paint poisons children. some parts go back to denial of what acid rain was doing to our new england lakes or denial of what pollution was doing to our atmosphere's ozone layer. heck, there might even be a few bits dating back to denial that seat belts and air bags were a good idea. but now it's the big carbon polluters who command denial castle. they enjoy the power now to pollute for free, so they attack climate science. they send out trolls to disrupt web sites and blogs. they harass climate scientists. one minion became attorney general of virginia and so harassed a university of virginia scientist that mr. jefferson's university had

to use university lawyers and go to the state supreme court to get the harassment stopped. this stable -- this castle has within it a little stable, its own little stable of scientists. to trot out like trained ponies to create false doubt and uncertainty about the harm that carbon pollution causes. and, of course, the polluters have mouth pieces like the "wall street journal" editorial page to help spread their fog of doubt and denial. and most of all, they have got weaponry, the weaponry on these dark ramparts is not just pointed out wards at science and at the public. those polluter weapons point in as well. at the members of congress who

are hostage inside the castle. this is not just a fortress, it's also a prison. members know that if they tried to escape, the full force of the polluters' political weaponry will fall on them. many of the hostages are restless but escape is hazardous. some are actually happy to help man the ramparts. look at the effort by senate republicans this week to override the obama administration's clean power plan. our nation's most significant effort yet to assert global leadership in saving off the worst effects of climate change. for those republican senators who want out of denial castle, escape is hazardous because citizens united, that shameful supreme court decision, armed the polluters on the ramparts

with a terrifying new weapon. the threat of massive, sudden, anonymous, unlimited political spending. a republican in a primary has virtually no defense that. one minute you're on course to reelection. the next moment a primary opponent has millions of dollars pounding you with negative ads, and the polluter-funded attack machine has turned on you. one polluter front group actually warned that anyone who crossed them would be -- quote -- "at a severe disadvantage," and that addressing carbon pollution with a price on carbon would be a political loser. from a group backed by billionaires now threatening to wield just in this election $750 million in political spending, that's not a very

subtle threat. and, of course, a threatened attack doesn't actually have to happen to have its political effect. just the threat, a quiet threat, a secret threat can be enough. and we'll never see those threats unless we're in the back room where they're made. that is the unacknowledged danger of citizens united. what were the five republican judges thinking when their citizens united decision unleashed unlimited political spending and its dark twin, the silent threat of unlimited political spending? this is not an idle concern. by 2-1, americans think the justices often let political considerations and personal views influence their decisions. americans massively oppose the citizens united decision.

80% against with 71% strongly opposed. and most tellingly, by a ratio of 9-1, americans now believe our supreme court treats corporations more favorably than individuals. even self-identified conservative republicans by a 4-1 margin now believe the court treats corporations more favorably than individuals. linda greenhaus, who long resisted drawing such a conclusion, has written that she finds it -- and i'll quote her -- "impossible to avoid the conclusion that the republica republican-appointed majority is committed to harnessing the supreme court to an ideological agenda." other noted court watchers like norm ornsteen at the conservative american enterprise institute and jeffrey tubin long

ago reached a similar conclusion. so let's look careful at what those five justices did in their 5-4 citizens united decision, and let's start where they started, with the first amendment to the constitution. the first amendment protects honest elections by allowing limitations on the influence of money. the first amendment allows limitations on election spending when they reflect a reasonable concern about corruption. so if you're a judge who wants to unlesion limited corporate money into elections, you need to get around that problem, which they did -- by making the actual finding that all this corporate money won't present even a risk of cung of ruption,a chance. that is obviously false but they said it anyway, which is interesting. but, wait, it gets more interesting still.

to make that factual finding, they had to break a venerable rule, the rule that appellate courts don't do fact finding. they broke that rule. they did something else, too. every time congress and the supreme court had examined corporate corruption in elections, they found a rich, sordid record ofrate corpo corruption of elections. that's american history. the five justices knew that a record like that in the case would have made it really hard to find no risk of corporate corruption of elections. all the evidence would go the other way. so how did the five justices make sure that the case had no good evidentiary record on the corporate corruption of elections? very cleverly. they changed the question in the case.

what the court calls "the question presented." and they changed the question late in the case, after there was any chance to develop a factual record on that new question presented. it's very unusual but it's exactly what they did. and then they overruled a hundred years of practice and precedent of earlier courts. one could argue that each one of these different steps was wrong. certainly the ultimate factual finding, that corporate money can't corrupt an election, is way wrong. but the worst wrong is that these steps are linked together in a chain of necessity you must follow to get that result. what is the chance that these conservative justices just happened to change the question presented, which just happened to prevent their being a robust factual record on the very question where they just happened to need to make false factual findings about

corruption, which just happened -- this, of all times -- to be the time they broke the rule against appellate fact finding? all of which just happened to provide the exact findings of fact necessary to get around that first amendment leash on corporate political spending. put all those steps together and what you see is justices behaving not like an umpire evenly calling balls and strikes but like a locksmith, carefully manufacturing a key, each of whose parts is precisely assembled to fit the tumblers and turn a particular lock. the result was aamazing new weaponry for the corporate polluter apparatus. political gatling guns in a corporate of mus muskets.

before citizens united, republicans regularly stood up to resist climate change. a republican nominee campaigning for president had a strong climate change platform. a republican president spoke of its urgency. republican senators authored and sponsored big climate change bills. republican congressmen voted for the waxman-markey bill in the house or wrote articles favoring a carbon tax and then came over and became senators. but after citizens united, virtual silence. the polluters used citizens united's new political artillery to shut debate down. money can be speech but it isn't always. money can also be bribery, bullying, intimidation, harassment, shouting down and drowning out. the legendary turn of the century political fixer, mark hannah, once said, "there are two things that are important in politics.

the first is money. and i can't remember what the second one is." he didn't say that because money is just free speech. money is political artillery. and look at the munitions. my gosh. most dark money political ads in the last election were negative ads, at times virtually all up on the air have been negative ads. many ads have been reviewed and deemed false or misleading, at times a majority of the ads running were deemed false or misleading. that's not debate. that's artillery. the power to fire that artillery opens the way for secret threats and promises to use or not use that artillery and it does cause corruption when a politician won't vote his conscience because he hears those whispered threats and fears that new

artillery. but even with all this new political artillery, the denier castle is not as secure as it looks. it is built on a foundation of lies, lies that the science of climate change is unsettled, lies that there is no urgency to this, lies that there will be economic harm if we fix the problem. the truth is exactly the opposite. the effects of carbon pollution are deadly real in our atmosphere and oceans. time is running out to avoid the worst of the peril. and a sensible political response to climate change actually yields broad economic gains. the denier castle's foundation of lies is slowly crumbling. the cracks are already beginning to appear. 12 republican house members escaped from the castle far enough spo nes sponsor a climate

resolution. young republicans under 35 by a majority think that climate denial is ignorant, out of touch or crazy. conservative heartland farmers see unprecedented weather in their fields and coastal fishermen see unfamiliar in their nets. corporate climate leadership grows, from wal-mart, coke and pepsi, ford and g.m., mars and unilever and general mills and many others. and whole industries, like the property carkt insurance industry -- property casualty insurance industry. and, of course, well-respected military leaders warm as climate change as danger, a catalyst of conflict. and with all that comes the economic tide of lower and lower cost clean energy, energy which is probably cheaper already than fossil fuel if the energy market weren't rigged by the polluters to favor their dirty product. so the blocks of the denier castle are loosening and beginning to fall.

mortar sifts down. the whole structure of deceit and denial is creek and crumbling. fear is starting to spread within the castle about what will happen when the lies are exposed and all the bullying revealed. will there really be no price to pay for all that deceit and denial in a world of justice and consequences? the "wall street journal" editorial page have gotten to anxious, it accuses me of treating climate herotics like cromwell did catholics, all because i, the junior senator of the smallest state, had the temerity to say that mighty exxonmobil, one of the biggest corporations in the history of the world, a goliath if there ever was one, should maybe have to tell the truth in the place we trust in america to find the truth, an american courtroom.

and exxon has gotten so frantic that their public relations people are starting to use bad language, things i can't even say on the senate floor. even this week's clean power plan challenge has an err of disoperation. a last-ditch effort to show the fossil fuel industry that folks have done all they could before they stand down and evacuate the castle. the dark castle will fall and it will fall abruptly. it will collapse. more hostages will break free and a torrent will follow. and when the lies and political influence are also exposed, there will come a day of reckoning. for all faithful stewards of god's earth and for our american democracy, that will be a day of joy, a day of honor, and a day of liberation. each one of us can push a little harder to make that day come a

little sooner, so let us lean into our tasks and to our duty. i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i'm pleased to report that the ranking member and i have two amendments that have been cleared by both sides. mr. president, it appears that i am premature by a couple of moments, so i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i ask that the quorum call be lifted? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse:man, i will speak for five minutes -- mr. president, i will speak for five minutes on especially help sis awareness month. if the matter for which senator wick certificate waiting comes to the floor, i will interrupt immediately so i don't slow down his business at all.

as long as we're just sitting in a quorum call, i would like to speak in recognition of november as epilepsy awareness month. epilepsy is a chronic, debilitating condition that can promote chronic seizures, caused by strokes, tumors or brain injuries but for a lot of patients, the cause remains unknown. it is no easy thing to live epilepsy. these patients include sawyer, who recently started second grade. we all remember what it was like to be a young person in school. we all remember how hard it could be to make friends and fit in. but i'm sure we all know someone who for some reason or another was labeled as"different" and had a harder time than most. imagine how hard it must be while also struggling with epilepsy. it takes a brave person to

confront that challenge head-on and i think we can all admire sawyer's courage every day as he goes to school and pursues his education in challenging circumstances. one reason sawyer and his mom moved to rhode island was to take advantage of the support services provided by the matty fund, a local organization dedicated to helping those living with especially help is and raising awareness of the condition. founded in 2003 by richard and deb sarajevo in honor of her son matterymatte, the group designep for kids with epilepsy. sawyer recently attends camp matte and spent time with kids and older camp counselors living with epilepsy and are thriving. sawyer flourished there. according to the group's

executive director, sawyer could see in himself these volunteers and it comforted him. i'm proud of the work that the matte found is doing to support rhode island kids like sawyer. i also would like to see us in congress do more to give hope to him and millions of others living with especially help sivment federal funding for epilepsy research was cut $27 million from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013. -- as a result of the recent budget battles. funding has been restored since, but until we provide the kind of year-to-year funding certainty that big research initiatives need, there will continue to be trouble. and i believe i see the floor manager ready to proceed with the measure, so i will interrupt my remarks and allow the distinguished senator to proceed. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i thank the senator from rhode island. the ranking member and i have

two amendments that have been cleared by both sides. i would ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc: senator mccain's amendment, number 2809, and senator mikulski's amendment, number 2817. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report the amendments en bloc. -- by number. the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. collins, proposes amendments en bloc number 2809 and 2817. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the amendments are agreed to. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, just a very brief explanation on both of these amendments. senator mikulski's amendment simply allows the secretary of

transportation to select the federal appointees for the washington metro system. right now that's done by the head of g.s.a., and of course g.s.a. is an agency with no transportation policy expertise, so this simply makes sense. it's noncontroversial and has already been passed out of the senate committee of jurisdiction. as you know, senator mikulski has been very concerned, as have many of us, about the safety and operational issues with metro, and i believe this amendment is an excellent one and i'm proud to lend it my support. senator mccain's amendment ensures that the federal aviation administration reviews its procedures when there are complaints from a community about the noise of airplanes that are landing in a particular

area. and, again, i think both -- and then do a report. i think both of these amendments make a dprait deal of sense, and i'm pleased that we were able to clear them and get them adopted. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment 28156789. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker, for himself and mrs. feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2815 to amendment number 2812. mr. wicker: ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the amendment -- the reading be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: and i thank the chair and the ranking member of the committee and of course the staff for working with us on this issue. this is an amendment that should

be familiar to members because essentially the same language was voted on in the form of a motion to instruct conferees last week. the essence of both that motion, which was adopted on a vote of 56-31, and this amendment today is to prevent a federal mandate which has been contained in the committee version of this bill. that mandate would have required all 50 states to allow twin-33 tandem tractor-trailer rigs in each state. some 12 states allow these twin-33 trucks i trucks and som8 states prevent them. if the language were to remain in the bill, all 50 states, including the 38 states who have closen not to accept these,

would be mandated. and so i think the vote of the senate was clear last week, and i would simply point out that this would remove a federal mandate. this would assist small business truckers who don't have the capital to move to these new, longer double trucks. it would promote public safety, and i would submit save lives, mr. president. and also save $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion a year in maintenance and repair because of the damage caused by these twin-33 trailers. so i appreciate the committee working with me to get a vote. and, at this point, i would ask that the amendment be apartisan dod. -- be adopted. the presiding officer: the senator maine. ms. collins: mr. president, we

are now prepared to have a voice vote on senator wicker's amendment. therefore, i know of no further debate on the wicker amendment. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is now on the amendment. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i think we could now resume the remarks of the senator from rhode island. i'm pleased that we're making progress, and i encourage other members to come to the floor, share with us their proposals so that we can continue dispensing with amendments. and, again, my thanks to the senator from rhode island for interrupting his remarks. mr. whitehouse: i'm very happy

to accommodate the distinguished senator and would simply ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be added to the record as if delivered intact. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i yield the floor.

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, yesterday i spoke about the horrific terror attacks in paris last week and why they were a stark reminder of two things. first, that the stretch of isis stretches well beyond syria and iraq. and second that this terror army has grown in power and grown in influence and certainly grown in territory. unfortunately the administration and commander in chief particularly have stood by as spectators without developing an effective strategy to degrade and destroy isis as the president claims is his goal. instead we've seen airstrikes

which are necessary but not sufficient to deal with the threat of isis in syria and in iraq. more than a year ago i, among others, called with the president to discuss congress's strategy. my thought is any time americans are sent into harm's way, as there are americans in harm's way both in iraq and perhaps throughout the region, there ought to be a clear purpose articulated by the commander in cheervetion and it -- commander in chief and it ought to be a joint undertaking between the congress and the executive, because our men and women in uniform deserve the unqualified support of all americans, and i think that can best be demonstrated and accomplished by building consensus for this action in congress. but what we've seen instead are speeches, interviews and assurances that have really

attempted to hide the fact that the president's so-called strategy against is isis has been nothing more and nothing less than an abject failure. the picture painted by the administration on the perceived success of this strategy has been overstated at best and disingenuous at worst. between referring to isis, now numbering as many as 30,000 strong, as the j.v. team, just hours before the paris attacks and just hours before the paris attacks proclaiming in an interview with abc news that they were -- quote -- "contain "contained," the president has simply not shot straight with the american people. the american people can take the truth. they just haven't heard it yet about the nature of the threat and about an effective strategy to deal with that threat. and as we've learned and as the 9/11 commission observed, one of the worst things we can do for

our own national security is allow safe havens for terrorists to develop in places like syria and iraq. places where they can train, they can arm and then they can export their attacks. and given the unique capability of isis, they can communicate by social media and over the internet and radicalize people here in the united states just as they apparently did to people in france. the criticism of the president's lack of a strategy is not a partisan issue, it's not limited to members of my political par party. on monday in an interview on msnbc, the rank member on the senate intelligence committee, the senior senator from california, said -- and i quote -- "she said, isil is not contained," adding, "i've never been more concerned." that's senator feinstein, the

ranking member or i believe they call it the vice chair of the intelligence committee. i couldn't agree with my democrat colleague from california more. isil, isis, whatever you want to call it, has not been contained and i agree with her, i have never been more concerned by the terrorist threat particularly since 9/11. it's pretty clear that in the wake of the tragic events in paris that what the administration is doing to combat isis is failing. it's not working. in iraq, isis has captured city after city. over the last two years where americans have shed their blood, where americans have spent their treasure and took years to bring relative peace preceding president obama's precipitous withdraw from iraq. i can only imagine how hard it is for some of our veterans who served in iraq to hear the

laundry list of familiar places that have been taken by isis almost overnight. sadly, of course, this includes cities where the precious lives of american heroes were lost, places like mosul, fallujah, and ramadi. i can only imagine what an american veteran, having lost a limb or suffered other grievous injury, what they must feel, the rage they must have by seeing those hard-fought gains squandered. and i can't help but think about the gold star mothers, moms who've lost servicemen and women in combat in service to our country. what a terrible squander of hard-fought-for gains. but that's what laid the predicate and created the vacuum for the threat we see today. so where we stand today -- from

where we stand today, iraq is undeniably worse off than when president obama took office. he said he wanted to end the war in iraq and afghanistan only to see, because of bad judgment and bad strategy, the war proliferate and get that much more serious. at least the war being conducted against us and american interests and our allies. like i said, this is the result of that bad policy and bad judgment is not one less war, it's a safe haven for isis that's been carved out of syria and iraq which border has been completely erased between those two previous separated countri countries. as 30,000 fighters continue to plunge the region deeper into chaos. mr. president, i was struck by

the comments of the director of the central intelligence agency who spoke at the center for strategic and international studies yesterday. he said that after -- or i should say before the current administration that there were mainly -- there were probably about 700 adherents left, that is the origin of this problem today which was known as al qaeda. 700 or so adhere notes left. and he went on to say that now, as i've already alluded to, that there are between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across iraq and syria. those are the number of troops that isis can muster now as a result of our failed policies in iraq and syria. so according to the c.i.a. director's own estimate, that means there's been an increase just during the seven years of

the obama administration of between 2,700 and 4,400%. mr. president, your strategy's not working. and as we all know, this is not just about a fight over there. this is about a fight that's coming here to a neighborhood, to a city near you. according to the media reports on monday, c.i.a. director also -- the c.i.a. director also warned that isis was likely planning additional attacks. and on that same day, a new propaganda video popped up on-line where isis issued a fresh threat to target washington, d.c. perhaps most concerning -- and it's all concerning -- is the serious threat we face at home

from a jihadist who is already living here on u.s. soil. you know, most of the people who carried out the attacks in france were born and grew up in belgium. some of them emigrated, one under a fake syrian passport, apparently. but we need to be worried about home-grown radicalized terrorists, radicalized by isis or like-minded groups via the internet. in vex vex, we've seen this firsthand. so-called home-grown threats that occurred at fort hood in 2009. and in garland, texas, earlier this year. but in the face of all, this the president's own c.i.a. director talking about the huge increase in the threat over the last seven years of this failed strategy, given what's snapped paris -- given what's happened in paris, given the threats against the united states and washington, d.c. in this propaganda video, why in the

world would any reasonable person say we don't need to change a thing; we need to stay the course, which is apparent what will the president is saying? no rational person would say, hey, this is working out just the way i had it planned. you would reconsider. you would reevaluate in light of the evidence and experience. that's what a reasonable person would do. well, "the washington post" on november the 16th -- i guess that was two days ago -- issued an editorial called "president obama's false choice against the islamic state." and they used the word to describe the president in this first paragraph that i thought i understood the meaning of -- and i think i did -- but i looked it up anyway and it's the word petulant. here's what they said -- "pressed about his strategy for fighting the islamic state, a petulant sounding president

obama insisted monday, as he has before, that his critics have offered no concrete alternatives for action in syria and iraq other than -- quote -- 'putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground.' well, petulant, i did look it up, means childishly sulky or bad tempered is one definition. so apparently "the washington post" wasn't impressed with the president's response either. and he says -- they went on to say that the president's claim was faulty in a number of respects. first of all, nobody's proposed putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground. no one. so this is a strawman that the presidenpresident erects just sn knock it down to try to discredit anybody who doesn't drink the same kool-aid he does on this topic.

"the washington post" went on to say that a number of military experts have proposed a number of constructive ideas that would help us make better progress against this enemy. things like deploying more special operations forces, including forward air controllers who can direct munitions and airstrikes and bombing raids with much more accuracy than without them. we could also make sure that we have more americans to advise the iraqis, moderate syrian forces and other people with similar interests, to advise them to battlefield tactics to make them more effective. the president could send in more advisors to iraqi battalions and more u.s. specialized assets. there's no one in the world that has the technological advantage on the united states when it comes to our military and our

specialized assets like drones, for example, among other things. and then there's the issue of the kurds. you know, the peshmerga have been an impressive fighting force. they have been boots on the ground in a large portion of iraq, and they've been crying out for the sort of weapons that they need in order to be more effective. the administration has decided, well, let's send everything through baghdad. and, sadly, most of those weapons don't end up making their way into the hands of the kurds and the peshmerga because of political differences between those. so there's a lot we could do and the president's strawman that they continually erect so he can just knock it down as he tries to rid expiewl criticize anybody who has the -- ridicule and criticize anybody who has the temerity to question this failed strategy. it's just not working. it's not working for him and

people increasingly are losing confidence in his judgment. to eradicate isis abroad and neutralize the threat this terror army poses at home, we need a proactive multifaceted strategy. the president's approach, characterized by ineffectual airstrikes and half-measures, has resulted in tactical stalemate that's kept isis morale high and recruitment study. -- recruitment steady. you know, we are blessed with some of the most elite military forces in the world. incredible human beings and great patriots. but not even they can hold on to territory after it's bombed because there are just simply not enough of them. that's why, as "the washington post" suggested, it's so important to send in american advisors on tactics and people that will allow the boots on the ground, like the kurds, the

persh measure ga to be more -- peshmerga, to be more effective. they can be the boots on the ground. they're the ones most direct interest in the outcome. it doesn't take an expert military strategist to see that air power alone will not defeat isis. perhaps the greatest military leader we've had in -- certainly in my adult lifetime, general david petraeus, has said that. the president's own military advisors have told him that but he simply won't listen to them. preferring, it seems to me, to sort of run out the clock on his administration and then have to hand off this terrible mess to his successor. but heaven help us if in the meantime, as a result of this ineffective strategy, an emboldened isis, that we see more attacks not over there but over here. and you know what? we already have u.s. boots on the ground in iraq and syria.

i'll just remind everyone, there's about 3,500 u.s. troops in iraq, 3,500, and about 50 u.s. special operators in syria, as the obama administration has publicly stated. so if the president's going to put american boots on the ground, why not come up with a strategy, working together with our allies and those with aligned interests, to make them more effective and to actually crush isis before isis hits us here in the homeland? we know the white house has sought to micromanage the military campaign and impose unreasonable restrictions on what the troops that are there are allowed to do, so-called caveats. are war fighters literally have had one arm tied behind their back, and this is simply just another recipe for continued failure and it has to stop. it has to change. we know that isis can't be

dislodged from territory it now holds unless we have effective partners on the ground. that means working closely, as i indicated, with partners like the iraqi security forces, the kurdish peshmerga, and the sunni tribal forces and supporting them with u.s. air power and intelligence. to further bolster these ground partners, the president needs to consider embedding american troops as military advisors, as i just said. and by employing u.s. troops like the joint tactical air controllers that i mentioned earlier from the "washington post" editorial, that was one of their suggestions, in support of those ground partners, we would make our air strikes more precise and more lethal. this is the type of thing that will be needed to clear and to hold territory after recapturing it from isis. it really doesn't accomplish very much to bomb the living day

lights out of some isis stronghold and not follow on with troops to be able to hold that territory, but we end up doing the same thing over and over again, bombing the same territory, they leave and then they come back because there is nothing there to hold that territory. in the long run, the overall effort to dislodge isis from key tribal areas and population centers has to be undergirded by a political framework as well that will sustain the lasting rejection of isis's bankrupt ideology. no one's suggesting that military combat alone is going to solve this problem, but in order to bring the people who can, the so-called reconcileables, the people who are willing to try to work toward a long-lasting solution and eradicate the ones who won't, it's going to take a military strategy and a political framework.

and i would just close on this, mr. president. there has been a lot of concern. i've heard it in my office and we've all heard it from our constituents back home. a lot of concern about refugees. whose heart doesn't break for people who have been run out of their own homeland, who have seen family members murdered by a butcher like assad in syria? but this is not a new phenomenon. we've known since the syrian civil war started following the arab spring in 2011 that hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of syrians have fled their country, have been dislocated within the country, have moved into refugee camps in turkey and jordan and lebanon, and now they're going to europe and some of them are showing up

here in the united states. i bet if you ask every single one of those or most of those refugees, would you prefer to live in safety and security in your own land or do you want to go somewhere else, they would say well, i want to stay here. so we need a policy that will actually allow syrians to stay in syria and iraqis to stay in iraq, but in the absence of any kind of military strategy and no political framework and no solution from the commander in chief, these poor people have nowhere else to go. so we need to create safe zones in syria. we can do that. we can create a no-fly zone in cooperation with our partners there in the middle east. we need to create safe zones in syria where tens of thousands of refugees who are now trying to flee syria could actually live with our help. this means areas where innocent men, women and children could be

protected from attacks both from the air and from the ground, zones where they don't have to worry about being murdered 24 hours a day by isis or by the blood-thirsty regime of bashar al-assad. congress should not have to tell the commander in chief how to conduct a successful military campaign. or what a strategy looks like. but you know what? it takes "the washington post" editorial to tell the president that what he is saying is the alternative, it's just not true and there are productive ways that we can turn the tide against isis and provide more stability and safety to people who prefer to stay home and not flee to distant shores and create consternation here in the united states about are we adequately screening these refugees to make sure they're not a threat to us here.

so it's my hope that the president will consider thoughtful options that are being proposed by members of congress. i'll bet they're thoughtful options being proposed by the president's own military advisors, but he's just simply not listening to them and stubbornly resisting reconsidering his failed strategy. petulant is what the "washington post" called it. childishly sulky or bad tempered. that's what they called the president's attitude. the american people have seen some of our own countrymen and women murdered by isis in barbaric and horrific fashion in images transmitted around the globe. they are understandably apprehensive about our security as a nation and our receding leadership role in the world. what's basically happening is as

america retreats is the tyrants, the thugs, the terrorists, the bullies fill that void, and in this case just like before 9/11, that void is filled by bad people who want to not only harm the people nearby but the west, meaning the united states and our allies, over here. so the american people deserve a clear, credible strategy from the president. one that will combat this terror threat before the violence we saw last week in paris shows up here on our own doorstep. more than ever, our nation needs strong leadership, and i hope the president will finally rise to the challenge. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i would ask unanimous consent that i speak to the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. as my colleagues know, we're in the process of discussing an appropriation bill called an omnibus bill. for the first time in a long time, we've passed an appropriation bill in the senate. that's progress. and we are working on a second one today as well. but as we debate the priorities and spending levels for this final appropriation bill for this year, i want to highlight an opportunity we have to deliver on a promise to provide strong support for the national institutes of health and for the life-saving biomedical research that results in that spending. i would also mention that we have the opportunity to assist in financial support in providing resources to advance the efforts of a couple of

agencies that are greatly allied with n.i.h., that being the food and drug administration, the department of defense and its medical research as it treats -- finds cures and treatments for our military men and women and the consequences of their service, as well as the center for disease control. but what i want to highlight today that is if we fulfill a promise in regard to medical and biomedical research, we can position our country to provide steady, predictable growth to n.i.h., the largest supporter of medical research in the world, and the sustained commitment which has been absent for so long will benefit our nation many times over and bring hope to many patients in today's generation and those that follow. unfortunately, we have not adequately and we have not always upheld our responsibility in this regard.

the national institute for health's purchasing power has diminished dramatically. if you account for inflation, n.i.h. receives 22% less funding than it did in 2003. this has negatively impacted our research capacity. in the best of times, n.i.h. research proposals were funded one out of three times, so three proposals, one of them was accepted for funding. that ratio has now fallen to one in six, the lowest level in history. the challenge is ours and the moment to act for our moms, our dads, our family members, our friends, for people we don't even know and for the fiscal condition of our country, the moment to act is now. for if you care about people, you would be supportive of medical research, and if you care about the fiscal condition of our country, you would be caring about medical research. i'm a member of the labor, health and education appropriations subcommittee that's responsible for the

funding of n.i.h. and these other agencies, and earlier this year under the leadership of my colleague and friend from missouri, the chairman, senator blunt, my senate appropriation colleagues and i were successful in significantly boosting n.i.h.'s budget in the senate's f.y. 2016, fiscal year 2016 appropriation bill. we achieved more than a $2 billion increase in n.i.h. this is an amount around $1.95 billion more than the president's request and more than $880 million above the number contained in the house's version of this legislation. this $2 billion increase would be the greatest baseline boost to n.i.h. since 2003. it bothers me when i say it's a boost to n.i.h. because what it's a boost to is not a federal agency. it's a boost to the results, the consequences of that investment in research.

now with the recent two-year budget deal that became law recently, it presents a path by which we are able to deliver a much-needed budget increase to n.i.h. and to prioritize important research that saves and improves lives, reduces health care costs and fuels economic growth. this boost would be a tremendous step in putting n.i.h. back on a sound path of predictable, sustainable growth, demonstrating to our nation's best and brightest researchers, medical doctors, scientists and students that congress supports their work and that they will make sure we have the resources needed to carry out their important research. the time to achieve this objective is now. if the united states is to continue providing leadership in medical breakthroughs to develop cures and treat disease, we must commit significantly to supporting this effort. if we fail to lead, researchers

will not be able to rely upon that consistency. we will jeopardize our current progress, stunt our nation's competitiveness and lose a generation of young researchers to other careers or to other countries' research. whenever congress crafts appropriation bills, we face the challenge. we all face this issue of balancing our priorities with the concern about making certain our nation's fiscal course is on a better path than it has been. therefore, it's extremely important for us to find those programs that are worthy of funding that actually work that are effective and that serve the american people and demonstrate a significant return to the taxpayer who actually pays the bill. congress should set spending priorities and focus our resources on initiatives that have proven outcomes. no initiative that i know meets this criteria better than biomedical research conducted at

national institutes of health and our other federal allied agencies. n.i.h.-supported research has raised life expectancy, improved quality of life, lowered overall health care costs and is that economic engine that our country so desperately needs as we try to compete in a global economy. today we're living longer, we're living healthier lives thanks to n.i.h. research. deaths from heart disease and stroke have dropped 70% in the last half century. u.s. cancer death rates are falling about 1% each year. but as we know, much work remains. diseases like cancer, alzheimer's disease, stroke, mental illness touch all of us, touch all of our communities, touch all of our states and dramatically affect our country. half of the men and a third of all women in the united states will develop cancer in their lifetime. one in three medicare dollars is spent caring for an individual with diabetes. nearly one in five medicare dollars is spent on people with alzheimer's or other dementias.

in 2050, it will be one in every three dollars. in other words, the cost of dementia and alzheimer's grow dramatically over time. new scientific findings are what yield the breakthroughs that enable us to confront these staggering financial challenges of these diseases and others. therefore, in order to advance life-saving medical research for patients around the world, balance our federal budget, control medicare and medicaid spending, let's prioritize biomedical research and lead in science and in discovery. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity as we work to fashion this final appropriation bill before the deadline of december 11 to work with my colleagues across the senate to make sure that biomedical research, n.i.h. and its allied agencies receive the necessary financial support that benefits all americans today and in the future. and, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: i ask to be able to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president, i rise today to speak about our persistent global security crisis, but i also want to connect how our national debt crisis affects that. our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims' families of these tragic events of the last three weeks, mr. president. just this week the senate foreign relations committee hosted the french ambassador to the united states. and in that meeting, we shared our thoughts that our prayers are with them and with the people of france, but more than that we stand in solidarity with them against these evil forces

that manifested themselves on the streets of paris just this past week. the horrific isis attacks in paris, killing more than 130 people and injuring more than 350 people, mostly men, women and some children, serve as a chilling reminder of the threat we continue to face from international terrorism every day. earlier this week, russia confirmed that, in fact, it was indeed a terrorist bomb that took down a russian airliner over the sinai peninsula, killing all 224 people aboard. and just last night we saw two air france planes -- thank god, under a false alarm -- be grounded because of fear of some terrorist attack. in addition, isis has now claimed responsibility for twin suicide attacks in beirut just last week, killing 43 more people. this makes three international attacks in three short weeks. isis continues to be a

persistent threat to the west and to the security and stability in the middle east. unfortunately, as they have already said several times, these attacks only confirm what isis has in mind for the future. isis has, indeed, been very clear about their intention to bring their version of terrorism to our own backyards here in america. indeed, isis even threatened parris-style attacks on our nation's capital in a recent video this week. earlier this week, c.i.a. director john brennan said he would not consider the paris attacks a one-off event. director brennan went on to say -- and i quote -- "it's clear to me that isil has an external agenda and that they are determined to carry out these types of attacks. i would not anticipate that this is the only operation that isil has in the pipeline." in light of the latest attacks

by isis beyond iraq and syria, by the way, i could not disagree more with our president, who says that his policies are, indeed, containing isis. the president and his administration continue to underestimate this threat. they even called them the j.v. team not too long ago. despite the fact that isis has demonstrated its ability to penetrate large-scale attacks -- or perpetrate large-scale attacks beyond the borders of its so-called caliphate, president obama refuses to change this failed strategy. beyond the fault here -- beyond the fault of the president, however, fault lies near congress as well -- fault lies here in congress as well. we're all involved with this. washington is entirely too often focused on the crisis of the day instead of getting into true underlying problems and solving them directly. it shouldn't take a tragedy like this for washington to pay attention. again, the latest terrorist attacks only underscore that we

are facing a global security crisis of increasing magnitude and this is inextricably linked to our own national debt crisis. as a matter of fact, the biggest threat to our global security is still our nation's own federal debt. this is as true today as it was when chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in 2012, admiral mullen, said the same thing. in the past six years, washington has spent $21.5 trillion running the federal government. mr. president, that's so large i have a hard time even grasping how significant that is. but what i can understand is this. of that $21.5 trillion that we've spent running the federal government, we've actually borrowed $8 trillion of that $21.5 trillion. that's a tragedy of proportion we've never seen in america before. with over $100 trillion of future unfunded liabilities on top of the $18.5 trillion we've already built up, this is about

$1 million for every household in america. every family in america today shares in this responsibility of about $1 million per family. we are so far past the tipping point we may be at a point of being unmanageable, mr. president. if interest rates alone were at their 30-year average of 5.5%, we would already be paying over a trillion dollars in interest. that's unmanageable, mr. president. that's twice what we spend on our defense investment. it's twice what we spend on our discretionary non-defense investment. it's unmanageable. and we're well past that tipping point. yet washington's own dysfunction and gridlock is keeping us from completing the budget process as i speak today in passing appropriations bills here in the senate. i might even argue, mr. president, we may have seen the last truly voted upon and approved appropriation bill in the senate because of the abuses of the rules that we see both sides have played in recent

years. only four times, shockingly, in the last four years, only four times, mr. president, has the budget process ago, long with the authorization process, a-- process, along with the authorization process, along with the appropriations process -- only four times in the last four years has that process worked in the way it was designed, as it was written in the law in 1947 in this budget law. for example, this year we have tried to get on to the defense budget. that means that we're trying to take the appropriations bill that would fund the defense so we can go defend americans abroad and we can defend our interests here at home against threats like isis, and we are being blocked from even getting that bill, which passed with a vast majority of votes in committee, from getting to the floor for a vote. no less than three times have the people on the other side of the aisle blocked that from going to the floor for debate, amendment process and a vote. and three times the democrats have voted against allowing us to get that defense budget on to

the floor, thus making it a political football. it's something i just really don't understand, not being of the political process here, and trying to get accustomed to how this works. i just don't understand that, mr. president. we have these recent attacks from isis and yet we can't even find consensus here in this body to fund our defense department. william fuge, the very first senator from georgia, in whose seat i serve today, would absolutely be appalled. he would remind us that in the united states constitution there are only six reasons why 13 colonies, of which georgia was one, came together to form this miracle called the united states. one of those six reasons, mr. president, was to -- and i quote -- "provide for the common defense." and here we are through dysfunction and partisan politics not acting appropriately to fund the ability to provide for the common defense.

i hope we can learn, mr. president, from recent events and get serious about tackling this debt problem so we can use that resource to fund our strong foreign policy. and we need a strong foreign policy to fight these that's broad. but to have a strong foreign policy, mr. president, we have to have a strong military. we proved that in the 1980's when we brought down the soviet union with the strength of our economy and the power of our ideas. but we're at risk today because of our only intransigence and this national debt. to have a strong military, though, as we proved, we have to have a strong economy and that's in jeopardy because of this growing debt crisis. to confront this global debt crisis, we have to get serious today, we have to break through, we have to get shoulder to shoulder and defend our country, which means we have to do the dirty work here on the floor of the senate and pass the funding so we can defend ourselves against these new threats. now is the time, mr. president, to solve this debt crisis so we

can lead as a country again to deal with this global security crisis and provide for the safety of every american wherever they are in the world. thank you, mr. president. and i -- i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, are we in a quorum call, sir? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, let me start today by congratulating our colleagues on the environment and public works committee on which i serve, on the banking committee, the commerce committee, the finance committee, where i also serve, on the recent apoimentz of a house-senate conference to attempt to produce a final product for a multiyear transportation plan for our country. i am a strong supporter, as are many of my colleagues, of investments in our nation's roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems. i've been there for is 15 years

a senator, for eight years as a governor and for years before that as someone who's focused on economic development and job creation within the state of delaware. i am pleased on the one hand that after too many years, mr. president, of short-term extensions in transportation funding, we are set to make rebuilding and modernizing our country's transportation systems a long-term national priority again. god knows we need to. however, i regret that we still have -- and i still have -- deep concerns for how congress has decided to pay-as-you-g pay fore investments. for decades we have paid for our transportation systems -- our roads, highways, bridges, transit systems -- through the use of user fees in the form of federal excise taxes, in some cases on gasoline and diesel fuel. they support our nation's funding of our -- the funding of our nation's transportation

system for over half a century, over 50 years. and i believe that approach remains the fairest and most efficient way to fund transportation projects. however, since 2008, we have strayed from a user-paid approach and rely instead on $75 billion worth of budget gimmicks, unrelated offsets, and debt to prop up our transportation trust fund to pay for transportation investments. rather than right our course, both the house and senate transportation proposals rely on tens of billions -- tens of billions of dollars of additional budget gimmicks and unrelated offsets to fund this bill over the next six years. that's not the right way to pay for our infrastructure. i think it's the wrong way. it's not unfair, in my view, to ask the businesses, to ask the people who use our roads, our highways, and bridges to help pay for them.

we've done that for 50 years. we know how to do it. that'it's a reasonably simple s. we can adjust the tax credit in order to offset any increase on the user fee and impact on families because this kind of tax can be seen as not progressive. but having said that that's not what we're going to do. and what we're going to do instead is do what we've done for the last seven years and use gimmicks and things that have nothing to do with transportation to ostensibly pay for transportation funding. all that being said, this is the course that congress has voted for, and despite my misgivings over the funding, there is still much to commend in both the house and senate legislation, particularly in the environmental side and out of among the things that i think

are to support and to certainly preserve in conference, but a robustly funded freight system, competitive grants for major projects, funding to reduce dangerous diesel pollution, and research grants to explore alternatives to user fees -- the gas tax and the diesel tax. i hope that these provisions are retained in whatever bill emerges from the conference committee. other provisions sump as caps on investment -- such as caps on investment off of freight funding and rail and port and water transportation projects and cuts to public transit funding in northeastern states should also be dropped. finally, congress will face the question of how to balance the benefits of long-term investment predictability with the urgent project investment needs. we must consider the significant unmet investment needs around our country and the huge

economic benefit that transportation investments offer to america's businesses and families. this legislation would best serve our country by maximizing annual investment levels for all transportation programs over a shorter period. instead of having an adequate amount to pay for transportation over six years, i would hope that our conferees would consider using that same amount of money to spread it over five years or even four years. we could use every dime of it and then some for the transportation needs of our country. i just want to close -- i don't know; this may be the last talk i give on the? senate -- on the senate floor. i've given a burvelg on transportation, not so much the authorization side but how do we pay for it. but writing the transportation authorization legislation while not easy is -- for a long time

we have use add user fee approach, gas tax, diesel tax. since dwight inns hour was president. we last raised the gas and diesel taxes in 1993. it's been 22 years. the gas tax today is 18 cents. it is worth, after inflation, about a dime. the diesel tax, about 23 cents. today it is worth 15 cents. i bought gasoline a couple days ago, just a tad over $2 a gallon. last week i'm told that there were close to 30,000 gas stationstations across america e people filled up and paid less than $2 a gallon for gasoline. less than $2 for gasoline. we see the price -- and a couple of my colleagues, senator durbin, senator feinstein and i in the senate, others in the house, have offered legislation to restore the purchasing power

of the gas tax and diesel tax, mott to increase it by 25 cents or a half dollar or a dollar, as some have suggested, but simply raise it four cents a year for four years. at the end of the four years in 2020 index it to the rate of inplacing. and we would generate from doing that something like $220 billion. to use for roads, highways, bridges, and trank sit systems over the next -- and trank sit systems over the next ten years. instead we are not going to do that. we're going to take money that -- an increase in t.s.a. fees, to protect people who fly in airplanes, and use that instead for roads, highways, bridges. taking money that should go to strengthen our borders and the border crossings where we have huge amounts of cargo moving across our border. instead of using it to bolster the strength of those border crossings and make able they're able to detect drugs and other

things, we're geein going to tat money and put it into roads, highways, bridges. find a new way to avoid paying for roads, highways, bridges, transit systems, diendz o kind l way by saying the federal rerks we're going to real estate duce their reserves by $60 billion. they have a large portfolio of investments and a lot are treasury securities. during the course of the year, the federal reserve from all of their investments earns a lot of money. and after they deduct their expenses from all the money they earn from interest income they earn, they turn what's left over to treasury. they actually remit money during the course of the year. last year the federal reserve remitted something like a half trillion in the income. that's revenue that enables our treasury to reduce the deficit. what the house came up with is

an idea, the idea was why don't we just reduce the -- just reach in and take $60 billion out of reserves of the federal reserve and just use this for roads, highways, bridges, instead of it being taken and turned over in due course to the treasury to reduce the deficit? some people say, what's wrong with doing this for transportation? well, what's wrong with doing this for homeland security? what's wrong with doing this for defense? what's wrong with doing this for agriculture i? what's wrong with doing this for anything? it sets a terrible precedent and invites future congresses to do the same thing. and instead of us adhering to a policy that served us for many years -- those who use our roads, highways, bridges, should pay for them -- we're resorting to gimmicks and the kind of thing we should not do. having said that there is a good deal to like, especially in the authorization language. yoi applaud those who worked on

this legislation, appreciate the help. i wish we had taken a different course with respect to actually paying for that, for this work that needs to be done. the last thing i would say is this: our friends at mackenzie consulting, an international consulting firm, have an arm of mackenzie consulting called global institute, and their -- that arm of mackenzie reached out a year or so ago and they tried to figure out if we were to invest robustly, robustly, in our roads, hoirks bridges, our transit systems, what kind of effect would it have on unp employment in this country? what kind of effect would it have on unemployment in this country? what kind of effect would would it have on gross domestic product 0 in this country? here's what they calculated. they calculated if we're truly to make the kind of investments needed -- not the limp-along kind of level, almost level funding, which is woefully

inadequate, but really good investments, we would add 1.8 million jobs in america. 1.8 million jobs in america. a lot of the folks, the long-term unemployed are people who wish they could be hired back to do juke jukes projects. they're -- to do construction projects. and they're sitting on the sidelines because we don't have the money to pay them to hire them to do these projects. they tell us that in terms of g.d.p., robust transportation investments would enable us to grow g.d.p. annually by 1.5%. when you think about that, g.d.p. -- we're lucky in this country to get g.d.p. up to 3% per year. so are most developed nations. but simply by making robust investments in our transportation systems, we could expect to grow g.d.p. by as much

as 1.5% per year. the level of funding that's in the legislation that'll be coming before us doesn't come even close to that, not even close it that. i think we missed an opportunity here. i think we've missed an opportunity here. in one of my hearings today, mr. president, one of our witnesses quoted yogi gea bear d gave us a funny quote by him, who died earlier this year. "when you come to the fork in the road, take it." "when you come to the fork in the road, take it." we've come to the fork in the road with respect to transportation funding. and with apologies to yogi berra, we have taken i think the wrong fork in that road. with that, mr. president, i'll call it a day and note the absence of a quorum.

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico.

mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: mr. president, the attacks in paris were an unconscionable act of terrorism. america stands with the people of france, the people of paris as we support those grieving and those working to deliver justice to the people involved. make no mistake, the heinous terrorist attacks in paris were an act of war. isil has barbarically killed and tortured innocent civilians, including americans, not just in paris but also recently in beirut and routinely in iraq. they operate around the globe, are well-funded, well-armed and have no intention of stopping

until their radical goals are realized. they continue to prey upon the innocent and manipulate the vulnerable. in some areas isil operates freely because of the instability created by persistent ethnic, sectarian and religious conflicts in iraq and syria. but this crisis is not limited to iraq and syria, and the world's powers and their interests are quickly aligning in the urgent need to wipe the map clean of isil and its affiliates. to be clear, there are smart ways that we can destroy this barbaric terrorist organization without entangling american troops in another endless and bloody ground war in the middle east. america has a critical role to play in that effort, but it must be part of a larger strategy and

coalition, employing a full range of military might as well as economic and diplomatic power. we can further engage in this fight in the following ways: first, we must relentlessly target isis headquarters in raqqa, in mosul, through air power and destroy isil's large oil infrastructure and refineries. second, strangle the flow of foreign fighters on syria's northern border. third, we must compel russia and other governments to reach a political end to the syrian civil war so that we can unify and focus on fighting the islamic state. fourth, we need new measures to crack down on those who financed this terrorism and this extremism. and finally, it is time to drive

a much harder bargain with an iraqi leadership that still, still refuses to build a state that is politically inclusive and decentralized. defeating isil cannot be solely an american solution, and nor should american ground troops be on the front lines. it is past time that our arab allies begin focusing their efforts with our support on isil militarily and economically. ultimately local arab ground forces are the only lasting solution to defeating isil because they will be the ones left to ensure peace and stability once the more immediate military operations are concluded. some say that we should deploy 10,000 american troops to syria. however, we know that this

strategy would require significantly more troops and would not permanently eliminate isil or kill their ideology. instead, doing so may well exacerbate the conflict and further isil's recruitment efforts. we can say this because we have an historical reference, and that historical reference is not from some distant land or from another century. for nearly a decade our brave men and women in uniform were deployed in iraq and were asked to clear and hold multiple large cities. at the peak, in 2007, nearly 170 ,000 americans were deployed on the ground, providing security to communities all across iraq. nearly 4,500 -- 4,494, to be

exact -- gave their lives. and more than 32,000 were wounded. these tragic losses happened in every -- in the very same area where isil now occupies a major city in iraq, mosul, and a major city in syria across the border, raqqa. the point of me bringing up the iraq war is not to relitigate the past but to keep in mind a very important lesson, that even when deploying nearly 200,000 american men and women to stabilize one country, the strategy of clearing and holding large territories is only a band-aid. it is not the permanent solution. this is especially true when the

political leadership in these countries are unwilling to create an inclusive representative government. the calls for sending 10,000 american troops to fight isil and to provide security across both iraq and syria would mean asking our sons and daughters to remain in these countries fighting year after year for decades into the future. and we know that when american forces are placed in the heart of these regional conflicts, it will only further prolong the more lasting solution of having local partners on the ground, and our allies in the persian gulf taking responsibility for this region economically and militarily. lastly, mr. president, i want to

talk a little bit about the issue of the syrian refugee crisis. every single syrian refugee must be subject to the highest levels of vetting and viewt an scrutin, including repeated biometric screenings before ever entering the united states of america. syria is a war zone and we have a duty to ensure that our own homeland security is intact. the real priority, however, should be addressing the real security gaps that currently exist under the visa waiver program, something that democrats and republicans agree on. currently the visa waiver program allows citizens of countries who qualify, 38 countries, including 31 from europe, to travel freely and

stay in the united states for up to 90 days. individuals who have purposely traveled to iraq or syria, who have joined training camps or sympathize with isil's cause, that is where the real risk to the homeland lies. the victims who have suffered at the hands of isil are not the problem and we should instead be working to close the loopholes that allow dangerous individuals with violent intentions to potentially enter our country today. in the coming days, i will be calling for reforms to our visa waiver program so that we can focus on the real threats to our homeland. there is a difference between terrorists and victims of terrorism. the implicit assumption that syrian refugees, many of whom have suffered brutally at the

hands of isil, are a threat because of their country of origin is a rejection of american values and represents giving in to our worst ethnic and religious prejudices. i am greatful tha grateful thatn father and my grandparents fled germany in the years leading up to world war ii, that this country chose to see them for what they were -- enthusiastic american emigrants seeking to escape the dangerous politics bring their former nation. had this brand of twisted antiemigrant logic been applied to them, i can only wonder how very different my life would be today. let's remember that the enemy in this current scenario is isil, not the refugees who flee from their destruction. we simply will not have the moral standing as a nation in

this region to lead this international scenario if we ignore those who have lost everything at the hands of these barbaric terrorists. isil has killed and tortured many innocent civilians and is actively plotting to do more harm. we should all agree that isil must be eliminated from this earth. but let's learn from our past mistakes and set to this work in a way that is both strategic and effective. thank you, mr. president. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold the request? mr. heinrich: i will. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, i ask that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senate is i not in a quorum cal.

mr. franken: oh, i see. thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i rise today with a -- with a heavy heart to express my condolences to the people of france for the tragedy that they have experienced. no words can describe the barbaric and senseless acts of terrorism committed against the innocent victims in paris, people who were simply going about their lives, people who were just enjoying a meal, out with their family or attending a concert with friends. these barbaric acts were an affront to the people of france and to all of humanity. this is a time for solidarity with france and with all victims of terrorism.

the world has rightly come together to condemn these barbaric acts and now we have to work together and redouble our efforts to defeat isis and other terrorist groups in syria and iraq and elsewhere. and as we remember the victims of the attacks in paris, mr. president, we cannot forget all those who are fleeing the terror in syria. the ongoing conflict in that country has created 4 million refugees. these are people who are fleeing assad's barrel bombs and his brutal assault on them on the ground and they are fleeing murderous terrorist acts committed by isis and other groups. of that 4 million -- 4 million refugees, mr. president -- 1.9 million are in turkey.

650,000 are in jordan, a country of 6.5 million people, and 1.2 million are in lebanon, making up a fifth of lebanon's entire population. now, the white house has a very modest plan to bring in 10,000 syrian refugees into the united states over the next year. it's a -- it's a tiny number compared to what other countries are doing. even france, the country that just suffered the terrorist attacks, is going to honor its commitment to take 30,000 refugees over the next two yea years. each one of the 10,000 refugees we are accepting, mr. president, is important because it could be the difference between life and death for those individuals.

that's why i was proud to join senator durbin and other members to urge the white house to do more, because we can and we should do more. mr. president, the united states has always been a refuge for the vulnerable, for those who are fleeing political repression, or those who are persecuted simply because of their religion. and the syrian refugees that the administration is prioritizing for entry are, in fact, the most vulnerable. these are survivors of violence and torture, people with medical conditions and women and children. mr. president, the news site buzzfeed has published a series of images of children, of young syrian refugees. i encourage everyone to look at

these images because they capture the vulnerability and debt operation of the people that we're trying to help. children like ahmed. we're showing -- this is him sleeping in this image behind me. as the buzzfeed story says, "ahmed is a 6-year-old who carries his own bag over the long stretches that his family walks by foot. his father says -- his uncle, his uncle says. he's brave and only cries sometimes in the evening. his uncle has taken care of ahmed since his father was killed in their hometown in northern syria. children like moram. moram is an 8-year-old and the story describes how her house was hit by a rocket. a piece of the roof landed right on top of her and the head

trauma caused her brain to hemorrhage. she's no longer in a coma but has a broken jaw and cannot speak. we can only hope that these children won't share the fate of ailen kurdy, whose image i can't get out of my mind. he's the drowned 3-year-old boy whose photograph on that beach galvanized the world. he was part of a group of 23 who had sat out on two boats to reach the greek island of koss but the vessels capsized. ailen drowned, as did his 5-year-old brother galipe, and so did the boy's mother, rihan.

now, in the aftermath of the gruesome terrorist attacks in paris, some have taken the view that we should turn our backs on these people, the very people who are fleeing from the terrorists. some argue that we cannot both help these vulnerable men, women and children and keep our country safe. but they paint a false choice. mr. president, we can do both and we should do both. let me take just a minute to describe the stringent and very extensive security screening procedures that these individuals go through before they can even enter the country. procedures so extensive that it can take up to two years, usual between a year and a half and two years, for them to be cleared to come here.

these refugees, mr. president, are subject to the highest levels of security checks of any category of traveler entering the country. those screenings include the involvement of our security and intelligence agencies like the national counterterrorism cent center, the f.b.i.'s terrorist screening center, the department of homeland security, the department of state, and the department of defense. all available biographic and biometric information of these refugees are vetted against law enforcement and intelligence community databases so that the identity of the individual can be confirmed. and every single refugee is interviewed by a trained official from the department of homeland security. and finally, mr. president, the screening process accounts for the unique conditions of the

syria crisis and subjects these refugees to additional security screening measures. now, we absolutely need to make sure that these security measures are as stringent and or thorough as possible -- and thorough as possible, and if there are ways to further enhance these screening protocols, we should make sure that we're doing that. each year the united states accepts tens of thousands of refugees from around the world and there's no reason why some of those can't be syrian refugees who are the most vulnerable. so we can strike the right balance. we can protect our security and do our part to address the largest refugee crisis since world war ii. but rather than showing compassion and standing up for american values, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to close the door

to people who are fleeing the most horrendous forms of persecution. i believe that would betray our core values and it would send a dangerous message to the world that we judge people based on the country they come from or from their -- their religion, and that would make us less safe by feeding into isis' own propaganda that we are at war with islam. mr. president, we are better than this. remember the closing lines of the poem that is inscribed on the pedestal of the statue of liberty, the gift from france to the united states as a symbol of

freedom and of generous welcome to foreigners. the poem, the new colossus, was written by emma lazerus, who was involved in charitable work for refugees and deeply moved by the plight of russian jews, like my grandfather, who had fled to the united states. the closing line of her poem arr poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. accepted these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me. i lift my lamp beside the golden door."

there should always be a place in this country for men, women and children who are fleeing horror, the same kind of horror that befell so many innocent people in paris last week. this is not the time to score political points, mr. president. this is the time when we -- when we come together and show leadership. this is the time, this is now, the time when we uphold the values of the united states of america. thank you, mr. president. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i would yield to the senator from kentucky for the purposes of describing an amendment that he has filed. the presiding officer: the

senator from kentucky. mr. paul: mr. president, make no mistake, we have been attacked in the past by refugees or by people posing as refugees. the two boston bombers were here as refugees. they didn't take very kindly to what we gave them -- education, food, clothing, and they chose to attack our country. in bowling green, kentucky, we had two iraqi refugees who came through the refugee program, posing as refugees and then promptly decided to buy stinger missiles. fortunately, they bought them from an f.b.i. agent and we caught them, but when we caught them, we discovered that their fingerprints were already on bomb fragments in iraq in our database, and yet we had no clue and admitted them anyway. i think we have an insufficient process for knowing who's here legally and illegally. 11 million people in our country illegally, 40% of them have overstayed their visa.

do we know who they are? do we know where they are? if we extrapolate those statistics to those who are visiting our country from the middle east, do we know where the 150,000 students are who say they're going to school in our country from the middle east? i don't think we do. i don't think we should continue adding people to the rolls of those coming from the middle east until we absolutely know who is in our country and what their intentions are. so my bill says this, my amendment says this -- that we're not going to bring them here and put them on government assistance. when the poem beneath the statue of liberty says give me your tired, give me your poor, it didn't say come to our country and we'll put you on welfare. in those days, you came for opportunity. many christian churches have supported refugees. my church has supported refugees coming here. that's charity. but when you put them on welfare, that is not charity.

we borrow a million dollars a minute. we don't have enough money to do this. it's a threat to our national security. and my amendment would end the housing assistance for refugees in order to send a message to the president the people have spoken, we are unhappy with your program. if you will not listen to the american people, we will take the money from the purse. thank you, mr. president. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the senator's amendment. all of us recognize that our first obligation as americans is to ensure the security and well-being to the extent that we can of our citizens, and that is

our first priority. there are many flaws in the system for admitting people to this country. those flaws go beyond the problem of people sneaking into our country illegally or overstaying their visas. they extend to the process that we used under the visa waiver program, and indeed one of our colleagues, senator coats, has introduced a thoughtful bill to have us take a better look at that program and whether it is a way for citizens who have been radicalized to come from western european countries into our country and to do us harm. there are many ways that we can improve the process.

i'm working with senator cantwell on a bill having to do with biometrics to make sure we have more information. but i look at the senator's amendment and he lists 34 countries that would be affected by his prohibition. 34 countries. they include countries like turkey. turkey is a nato ally. turkey is absolutely vital in the war against isis. it includes our strong ally jordan. if jordan and turkey and lebanon, who have already taken in four million refugees who are fleeing from syria, if they are

destabilized, what does that mean for the stability of that entire region? mr. president, just last month, i went on an official trip with several of my colleagues to get a better understanding of the migrant crisis that is engulfing europe. we traveled to the two countries that are the entry points for many of the refugees who are fleeing conflict in syria and who also are coming from afghanistan and iraq and some countries in africa as well like libya. so we went to italy and we went to greece. at that time in the middle of last month, 710,000 individuals had come in through greece and

italy to go on to other countries in western europe and in scandinavia. and we talked to the officials there, and i was not happy with the responses that i received from greek, italian and u.n. officials about their screening of refugees, even though it was evident that the vast majority of refugees were people who were fearing for their lives and seeking -- seeking safety. i was worried that isis fighters would embed themselves in this flood of refugees, and what the greeks and the italians with help from the u.n. high commission on refugees were doing was fingerprinting people, taking their photographs and then essentially sending them on

their way, and i asked are we comparing these fingerprints, these photos, this other information with our, the american, watch lists for terrorists? are we matching them up against our no-fly lists, our larger terrorist watch list, and the answer was no, and that needs to change. but, mr. president, i also traveled to a shelter in athens that was run by doctors of the world, an organization with which i was previously unfamiliar, and there i met a very young mother with her adorable little girl. they whether from eritrea and they had been part of the flood

of refugees. they pose no harm to our country or to any of the countries in which they might ultimately settle, and yet they might need a little bit of assistance, a little bit of help because the mother was so young and her daughter only age 2. i also met two young girls from afghanistan who both said to me please don't take our pictures and put it on facebook because we fear for our relatives back in afghanistan. look what has happened in afghanistan as the taliban has regained strength and now is once again oppressing women and

girls, denying them an education, forcing them into early marriages. another country on this list is nigeria. certainly a country we have to be very careful about because this is a country where isis has a stronghold and where boko haram is located. but it's also the country where hundreds of girls were kidnapped for trying to get an education. in other words, we can't just list 34 countries, some of which are essential to work with us in the war against terrorism against isis. like jordan, like turkey. we can't just list all these

countries and say that they are off-limits. we can't just automatically say no to an iraqi interpreter who has worked with our special forces and now is in danger of losing his life and having his family slaughtered because he helped to save americans' lives in iraq. are we saying we will not let a single person from 34 countries into our country no matter how many american lives they have saved, no matter whether or not they pose a threat to us? now, mr. president, i want to make very clear i do not think our process for screening people to come into this country is

good enough. it is not. if it were good enough, we would not have people who could cause us harm in this country. but you know, perhaps we should be focusing on those americans -- yes, even americans who have become radicalized and have traveled to syria and iraq and been trained to plot attacks here in this country. lone wolf attacks like major hassan at fort hood, an american citizen who was radicalized online by an extremist islamic cleric. we can't apply a one-size-fits-all to 34 countries that include a nato ally and other allies who have

been helpful in the war against terror, terrorism, or who -- who include countries that include individuals who have helped the cause, who have saved american lives or who pose no threats to us. like those two young afghan girls that i met at the shelter or the very young mother with her very young little girl. we do need to tighten our process. we need to do more. and you know, i would think that members of this body who voted just months ago to weaken our ability even under court orders to provide surveillance of those who we suspect would do us harm

would think again about what they have done in this time when the threats coming at us have never been greater. but this is a meat ax approach. it is too broad, and it does not really address the problem that we face today. we do need to address that problem. perhaps we need a pause to redo our processes, but this is not the answer. finally, mr. president, as i read this language, the way it is written, it may apply to refugees who are already -- who already have been legally admitted to this country.

do we want to do that? we need to think about this. we need to get this right. and senator paul's amendment is far too broad and does not -- is not the right answer to what is a real problem. thank you, mr. president. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i want to associate myself with the comments from the chairwoman. she described the amendment extremely well. i, too, rise in opposition to the proposed amendment for all the reasons she listed. she was quite vivid and quite concrete in numerous examples. individuals in afghanistan who've assisted us and who are in jeopardy if they don't get an opportunity to come to the united states. people in jordan who fight with us each day. who can fail to recall the horrific scene of the rotter dam pilot who was burned by isis.

that was a jorda jordanian who s fighting with us. and to tell his family or his fellow countrymen they can't come here as they qualify through rigorous procedures as a refugee and are granted asylum? so for all these reasons, and they've been so well spoken by the chairwoman that i won't go on, but i just want to make it very clear that i too oppose the amendment. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i rise today to make the case for lifting the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil. lifting the ban is a smart move and it's long overdue.

it will benefit not only my home state of north dakota but also our nation and our allies. and that's why i'm proposing to include legislation lifting the ban in the new highway bill that congress is on track to pass this month. the highway bill is must-pass legislation and the benefits of allowing crude oil exports are multiple. when taken together, they make a powerful case for allowing our producers to market their product on world markets. doing so would enhance domestic production, increase the global supply of crude oil, grow our economy, create good-paying jobs for our people and make our nation more secure. so let's look at these benefits one by one. first and foremost, crude oil exports will benefit american consumers. the price of oil is based on supply and demand. the more oil on the market, the lower the price. the volatility and the global

price of crude oil is felt right down to the consumer level. more global supply means lower prices for gasoline and other fuels and more money in consumers' pockets. those facts are backed up by studies at both the u.s. energy information administration and the nonpartisan brookings institute. this spring e.i.a. administrator adam semensky, confirmed these findings in testimony before the energy and natural resources committee on which i serve, as does the presiding officer. and in september, the e.i.a. released a new report that reaffirm the benefits to consumers and businesses that would result from lifting the decades-old crude oil export ban. second, in addition to benefiting consumers, crude oil exports will benefit the american economy. crude oil exports will increase revenues and boost overall economic growth. it will help increase wages,

create jobs and improve our balance of trade. the one area of our economy that currently enjoys a faborable balance of trade is -- favorable balance of strayed agriculture. that's because our farmers and ranchers successfully market their products around the globe. our crude oil producers should be allowed to do the same. local economies also benefit. service industries, retail, other businesses and communities centered on oil development would see more economic activity and growth if this antiquated ban is lifted. crude oil exports will also benefit the u.s. energy industry. the e.i.a.'s latest study concluded that lifting the ban will reduce the discount for light sweet crude oil produced in states like my state of north dakota as well as texas and other states. and encourage investment, more investment, in domestic energy production. the drop in the price of hill to

year has slowed domestic production but we continue to produce oil. today in my state of north dakota, we produce about 1.16 million barrels of oil a day, only down slightly from our peak of more than 1.2 million barrels of oil a day. the reason is that our producers are resilient and innovative. they are developing new technologies and new techniques to become more cost-effective and efficient all the time. the american energy industry is here to stay. the energy sector, moreover, provides high-paying jobs for our people. we know that from experience in north dakota, which has the fastest growing rate of per-capita personal income in the country, among all the states in recent years. on a national level, crude oil exports will help bring our energy policy into the 21st century. the crude oil export ban is an

economic strategy implemented in the 1970's and the world has changed dramatically since then. back then, the conventional wisdom was that there is a finite quality -- quantity of oil in the world and we pretty much knew where i it was. nobody envisioned the kind of energy revolution we're seeing in north dakota, in texas and states like colorado and many others. consequently, the model has shifted from scarcity to abundance and we need to have a comprehensive approach to energy that reflects the new reality. that means we need additional investments in technology, in transportation and energy infrastructure like pipelines, rail, roads and other industry needs. by leveraging our natural resources and american innovation, the united states is in position to demonstrate real global energy leadership.

and last but not least, crude oil exports will strengthen national security. u.s. crude oil will provide strategic geopolitical benefits not only for us but also for our friends around the globe. it will provide our allies with alternative sources of oil and free them from their reliance on energy from russia, venezuela, iran and other unstable parts of the world. as a further security advantage, adding more supply would provide a buffer against volatile events in the middle east and elsewhere in the world. we finally have an opportunity to curb the disproportionate influence opec has had on world oil markets for five decades, and we need to do it. the president's deal with iran lifts sanctions against iranian oil, bringing 1 million barrels a day of their product on to

global markets. clearly it is inconsistent for us to maintain a ban on u.s. oil exports while the president lifts a ban on iranian exports. sending jobs, revenues and economic growth to places like iran, while blocking the same benefits for american citizens. the ban on crude oil exports has long outlived its usefulness and repealing it is long overdue. for consumers, jobs, the economy and national security, we need to come together and lift the ban. we can do that by including legislation lifting the crude oil ban in the bipartisan highway bill set to pass congress this month. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i would note the absence of a

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

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. 14 years ago, families across new jersey were still struggling with the grief of empty seats at dinner tables and closets full of clothes never to be worn again. 14 years ago at this time the news headlines were reflecting on one of the greatest tragedies our country had ever witnessed which were the attacks on 9/11

of the world trade center, the pentagon and pennsylvania. today the trauma for that is no longer as raw as it once was, yet we are still affected forever and much still tries at the soul of our nation. while the sun still rises, the seasons still change, the wounds of that day may never heal. there are so many families across new jersey who are still struggling with the aftermath of this terror with the illness of loved ones who survived and serve as first responders in the 9/11 attacks. while the debris has long been cleared and new towers now stand at the world trade center site, many of the thousands of brave first responders who sacrificed their safety for the good of our country are still battling very serious health issues. the exposure to debris, to dust, to other hazardous materials and

chemicals on september 11 and the weeks and months that follow has caused countless chronic medical problems for tens of thousands of americans, including many new jerseyans. they and their families are still burdened every single day with the physical, emotional and financial costs of the attacks on 9/11. for too long in the wake of the attacks, there were significant gaps in the access and quality of care to survivors. one such survivor, james zroga, a new york nypd officer and former ocean county, new jersey, resident struggled with accessing care to treat his severe and chronic respiratory problems. after serving as first responder in the wake of september 11, where we believe he acquired that those serious health

problems. james passed away just four years after the attacks at the age of 34. thanks to the invokes, though, of the zroga family and the state and federal lawmakers, people like senator lautenberg, senator menendez, a bill was passed into law to provide health care, treatment and compensation for survivors and first responders like james zro zroga dealing with the aftermath and the effects of the 9/11 attacks. because of the james zroga 9/11 health and compensation act of 2010, over 75,000 first responders and survivors are now enrolled in the world trade center health program, receiving quality care. over 5,000 survivors and first responders still require medical treatment because of their exposure and/or their service as first responders, and because of

the zroga act, they have had access. because congress failed to act when the world trade center health act expired in 2015 and without congressional action, funding for the program will run out by next year. additionally, funding for the september 11 victim compensation fund will likely expire around the same time next year as well. earlier this month, one new jersey's editorial board, "the star ledger," had this to say about this body's failure to act. the bill has overwhelming support from both parties. they understand this is an american problem with victims from all 50 states, and they know this legislative solution is not radical. we take care of workers with dangerous jobs, especially heroes who risked their lives to help humanity while most of us watched from home, paralyzed by

grief. we have not just a patriotic responsibility but a moral obligation to ensure that the americans who sacrificed so much for the good of our country in the wake of september 11, 2001, are treated with the respect and care they deserve. they are our heroes. they are our champions. they stood up and worked when many ran. it is incumbent upon this congress to follow the lead of senator gillibrand and heed the call coming from our constituents to pass the james zroga 9/11 health and compensation reauthorization act. i am proud to stand with senator gillibrand and our colleagues in the senate and in the house, advocates and first responders who urgently are calling for the passage of this necessary legislation that reflects our values and our ideals. i would like to close with the words of a courageous newark

fire department captain who responded to the 9/11 attacks at great personal risk and had the following to share with my office about the renewal of the zroga act. as a member of the 9/11 task force, i responded on 9/11. this volunteer state police team participated in numerous search and rescue operations on that day. the thousands of firefighters that worked that day developed medical issues thereafter, including myself. i have had three surgeries for thyroid cancer. i also developed the 9/11 cough and have developed side effects from radiation treatment. we are not looking to get rich. we just want to be able to continue serving as firefighters without roorg about our health because of 9/11. those in this chamber who somehow remarkably oppose this

bill need to hear this man's word and my own as well. we cannot fail to act. by what we do here now, we not only just take care of those heroes from 9/11, but we send a message to all americans about how we stand up for those who stood for us, who fought for us, that when the most perilous times came to be, they were there for us. this country is a nation that takes care of its heroes. what we do here with this legislation will forever highlight this ideal, celebrate its truth or it will cast a dark shadow over it. i hope today and in the coming days we move this legislation forward and be the light upon the great men and women who are so patrioticcally dedicated to our nation. thank you.

mr. president -- i'm sorry. i'll yield. before i yield the floor, i'd like to also take -- talk briefly about the transportation appropriations bill this chamber is considering. i really appreciate the hard work that senator reed and senator collins have done to get this bill to a place that makes critical investments in transportation and housing and in particular for some of our most vulnerable citizens. their work has been tireless, and i'm happy to see much of the progress they're making. however, this appropriations bill as it currently stands includes some provisions that would weaken highway safety. at a time when 4,000 people, 4,000 people are losing their lives annually on american highways and 100,000 are injured due to large truck crashes, it is paramount that congress do more to improve safety, not

remove evidence-based safety policies. new jersey alone has some 38,00s that connect people of our state and gets them where they need to be. it drives much of the commerce and economy of our state every day, and new jersey is strategically placed that makes it a very important pass-through state as well for goods up and down the east coast. these roads also see a tremendous amount of truck traffic at all times of the day and night. if you have ever driven on the new jersey turnpike, you know what i mean. so i'm concerned that we saw an increase in truck accidents from 2009-2012, an increase in crash injuries. by 40%, and truck crash fatalities there at this time have increased 16%. now, this is data, these are numbers, but they are also human

lives, they're fellow americans who had their lives shattered by horrific accidents. truck driver fatigue is a leading cause of these major truck accidents. these drivers who work extremely long days delivering the goods we depend upon deserve basic protections allowing them to get sufficient rest to do their job. i filed an amendment on the hours of service rules which were put in place to prevent truck driver fatigue and ensure that the rules put in place after years of study and robust stakeholder feedback would still be enforceable. now, some people would believe that we should suspend these rules, these commonsense policies by calling for even more study. my amendment ensures the rules will remain enforceable while further study is conducted so that we don't see more lives put at risk as a result of these delay tactics.

what we should be doing is ensuring safety is first, and if it proves not necessary, then pull back. these -- there are other provisions, though, in this bill that i believe could jeopardize highway safety as well. i'm pleased, though, that earlier today we were able to work together and pass an amendment to further study a proposal to allow heavier trucks, longer trucks on the road. heavier trucks could cause greater damage and destruction to human life and property when these accidents occur, so i am grateful to the work of my colleagues for working together on this. a final example of a commonsense provision we in congress should address as we work to improve highway safety is the minimum levels of insurance required by truck drivers. when truck crashes do occur and the insurance doesn't cover the cost of these accidents, taxpayers are left to front the bill. we should look to the

decades-old minimum level of insurance and assess whether those minimum insurance standards need to be raised so that families torn apart by truck crashes aren't then thrust into debt because of medical bills. i have met with some of these families. i've sat with them and heard their stories about how low levels of minimum insurance have left them in dire straits. as taxpayers, we should not be left without the funding to rebuild damaged roads and bridges in the aftermath of such significant crashes. it's time to modernize a minimum level of insurance for truck drivers so they are all better equipped in the aftermath of an accident. again, i sat with far too many survivors and their family members. i've seen and talked and engaged with them, hearing the truth of their stories. we cannot sit silently while traffic safety, while truck accidents are increasing in our