quorum call:

the presiding officer: the distinguished senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call -- i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. roberts: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to alert the senate and all of my colleagues to yet another -- yes, yet another -- egregious action by the internal revenue service, one that will affect every charity, every church, every nonprofit and the communities they worked so hard to serve. now, i emphasize "another"

because it seems that the i.r.s. continues a march toward regulations and practices that target hardworking and -- that target and burden hardworking americans. now, let me just recap. first we learned that the i.r.s. had released a confidential tax return information on companies the i.r.s. believed opposed the administration. and then we uncovered that the i.r.s. had illegally targeted groups whose views differed from the white house. followed by an extensive effort to hide information, i.e., lois lerner, her so-called lost e-mails which weren't every really lost. it was a true injustice to law-abiding organizations and to american citizens. which is why, mr. president, i should not have been surprised,

but i was, to learn of the i.r.s.'s latest scheme. hot off the presses is a new i.r.s. proposed regulation that needlessly targets charitable contributions. right now when you make a contribution of $250 or more, charities will send you a written acknowledgment confirm being the details of the donation, including the amount of the donation. the taxpayer uses this acknowledgment to document his or her tax deductions should there be any question. now, most charities take the time to send out a written confirmation of the donation as part of their "thank you" to the donor? it's, it's inexpensive and it builds goodwill. in short, it works for the taxpayer and also for the charity. now, that's, a straightforward, commonsense method to confirm a

donation was made and no one, not even the i.r.s., argues that it is not working well. but now and why has the i.r.s. proposed a new method to substantiate donations, a method that could do great harm to the charitable sector and give the i.r.s. more tools to go after taxpayers they may not like? as we know that they have done before. well, the i.r.s. wants to set up a new, more formal system or the charity would have to gather information about its donors, keep that information and -- here's the rub -- report the information to the i.r.s. what type of information are we talking about? the return would include the charity's name and address, the donor's name and address and here's the scary piece, the donor's social security number.

again, all of this new information have to be sent to the donor and the i.r.s. and kept on file by the charity at considerable cost. even more disturbing, the i.r.s. would store, maintain and use this information in case the donor is -- is audited. now, although this is described as an option, given the i.r.s.'s recent track record, do we really trust the agency to store this information and not use it for other purposes? i, for one, mr. president, do not. i don't think we can trust them with a new source of data on donors. we must do all that we can to prevent the i.r.s. from gaining access to this sensitive data. i'm also alarmed at the thought of whether the i.r.s. can properly safeguard this information because the agency has demonstrated zero capacity to keep similar data out of the hands of people who commit fraud

and thieves. charities and churches that routinely receive thousands of dollars from their supporters now become greater targets for people who commit fraud. earlier this year, the i.r.s. admitted that it had been hacked and private taxpayer information had been compromised. if they can do it to the i.r.s., you better believe they can do it to your local nonprofit. and while the i.r.s. today says this rule as proposed would simply be voluntary, suffer no illusion. the i.r.s. will eventually move to make this a mandatory -- a mandatory requirement. charitable organizations are also speaking out against this i.r.s. -- this i.r.s. proposal. they understand the chilling effect -- chilling effect -- this would have on their donors but, more importantly, on the dmiewnts they servcommunities t.

tim delaney, who is the president and c.e.o. of the national council of nonprofits, recently wrote, "the i.r.s. proposal would open the door for scam artists. nonprofits have neither the financial resources nor sufficient staffing to combat hackers who will see an easy source for social security information. this also creates a liability nightmare for the innocent nonprofits. to be asked to share their address, their credit card number, their social security number -- all in the same place -- would be muff to scare even the most committed donor decline to -- decline to give. tim delaney has aptly summarized this pending and serious problem. he poses very legitimate conditioners, especially regarding how scam artists might operate, explaining imposters' phone scripts would go something like this.

"hi, i'm work for several nonprofits here in kansas to make sure that generous donors like you get full credit for your wonderful contributions. the nonprofits ask me to thank you for your generosity and confirm your name and address. oh, also the i.r.s. has a new regulation that nonprofits need your social security number so we can send you a form confirming what your contribution -- or confirming your contribution in case you get audited. what's your social security number so we can send you the form?" well, sadly, mr. president, many people who want to be sure to support their charity will give the scam artists exactly what they want. to protect the mission of supporting the nonprofit community and for the taxpayers who share their hard-earned dollars to those in need, i've introduced legislation to block

this regulation and maintain current law. the protecting charitable contributions act would maintain current i.r.s. rules governing the subsubstantiation of charitable contributions and prohibit -- prohibit the i.r.s. from issuing, revising or completing any new regulation that would alter the existing rule. mr. president, this doesn't make sense and i would think that the i.r.s. would agree, when in their own description of the proposal they state that the president's system works effectively. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to join me in stopping this dangerous and unneeded proposal for moving forward. and i would urge all those who play a role in supporting nonprofits to go to the i.r.s. web site before december 16 to provide written comments to the i.r.s. about this proposal. yep, the i.r.s. would like to have your comments. let me repeat that.

i would urge all those who play a role in supporting nonprofits to go to the i.r.s. web site before december 16 to provide written comments to the i.r.s. about this proposal. the message shuck simple -- the message should be simple -- no. this is one christmas greeting had you better send. mr. president, i yield the floor. and after careful examination, note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, thank you. i rise today to talk about a few areas where i think we can make -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: oh, well, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i rise today to talk about areas where i think we can make great progress on before the end of the year. there has been aologicallive session where we've passed a number of important bills, and i think there's more we can do. specifically i'll talk about some legislative initiatives that will give a leg up to american workers, ohio workers. also it will help our families and help our students. i will start with students. there is an opportunity here over the next couple weeks for us to ensure that we reauthorize

the perkins loan program. perkins is an incredibly important program, particularly for low-incomer students. of all the student loan programs out there, per exines is in any view the most flexible. if we don't pass an extension, in loans won't be rewarded. even in january as students start this next semester. so let's not allow college tuition to become even less affordable for low-income students. let's ensure that they can get a college degree, pursue their dreams and that we do move forward with this perkins reauthorization. i spoke about this on the floor a month or so ago and i talked about it as a program incredible important for students in my staivment i talked about the fact that there are 60 schools in the buckeye state, in ohio, who have received loans from this program. over the last school year, more than 25,000 ohio students received financial aid through perkins, including about 3,000 students at kent state and $1,700 students at the ohio

state university. i was in columbus last weekend, had a chance to meet with some ohio students. they want to ensure that this program will be there for them so they can stay in school. some are help from other programs but they know if they don't have the perkins loan program, they can't afford to makenmake ends meet and stay 234 scoovment i also heard from beverly warren from kent who was here a couple weeks ago and dr. michael drake who i saw last week at ohio state. they want to ensthiewr their students have this possibility. one of the students i've talked to is named carryie richmond, a junior at kent state. she was an incredible intern, a student who was working hard. in fact she is at kent late likely to graduate a little bit early. she spent her teenage years going from foster home to foster home. she fought the odds. but she's now i excelling in

college. she is bright. even with her pell grant she has to have the perkins loan ford to make ends meet. it is an important program but it is about people. it is about carryie and others like her. the impact goes beyond her. over 1,700 schools participate. if it is expired, it is only more difficult to pay for school. instead what wreeshed be doing here in the senate making it easier, not harder, to afford to go to school. some of these tuitions have gone up andup. we've got to be sure that every student has the chaiens to get ahead by going to college our university. if we don't move ahead, students will lose their eligibility if they change institutions or academic programs. so it is a big deal them to. if we don't act sornings students who are seeking loans for the winter and spring semesters will be ineligible. it is possible that 105 0,000

freshmen will lose their eligibility this spring. let's give them this charntion let's give them this opportunity. by the way, let's extend it but at the same time work on which is to improve the program. i know there are members on my side of the aisle who say they have concerns about some of these student loan programs, would like to reform them, make them work better. that's great. let's take the time to $that. but in the meantime let's not eliminate this program and have these kids fall between the cracks. i'm there on the reforms. i would like to help on that. i think we can do better for all of our student loan programs and to help all of our kids be able to have a better chance to you can coo h-- tosucceed. let's extend this program and then work on those reforms. i want to thank senator casey, senator baldwin, collins and others for their strong leadership on this and i want to ask my colleagues in the senate to do sumly what the house has done and do an extension of this

program. the house has already passed this legislation. there's no reason it shouldn't be in the omnibus legislation and there's no reason we shouldn't move forward with enshoing that these kids have the certainty they need to be able to stay in school. second issue i want to talk about is that while students get the education they need, we've also got to ensure that the they are going back to are safe and make sure the communities can grow. in too many neighborhoods around this country you have a lot of blight, a lot of homes that have been abandoned. two things happen. when homes are abandoned, they become a magnet for crime, for drurks for other criminal activity to the point that they're dangerous for the community. but, second, they drive the cost of the other houses down, sometimes by as much as 80%. if you are in a community where you have a beautiful home. you're taking care of it. because your neighbor's home becomes abandoned it drives all the property values down.

here in the congress, we have spent are a lot of taxpayer money helping people deal with their mortgages when tear a under water. particularly after the financial crisis. but we ought to focus more in my view on also taking down these abandoned homes and creating safer neighborhoods but also through market forces allowing the property values of all these homes to increase. i think this is an honorable effort and one that a lot of people are focused on now around the country. i don't think we're quite caught up to where our neighborhoods are here in washington, d.c., because when i go home to ohio, i hear about it all the time. we've got about 80,000 of these dangerous abandoned homes in ohio. the and, again, to address public safety concerns and tumbling home values, one of the best alternatives is to demolish these structures. sometimes another structure can be rebuilt there. we want more economic development in these communities. in some cases whether it is there was an abandoned home and it was torn down and made into a community garden. the point is to get these homes

down so we can have the redevelopment we all want. i've walked the streets with local officials in cleveland, warren, ohio, in lima, ohio, and toledo and seen these problems firsthand. as i do that i at that you can to the residents and ask them what they think. for them, it is an ey eyesore, a danger for their grand kids. they are worried about their property values. i had one occasion to speak to someone in toledo, ohio, that was particularly concerning to me. this was a woman who had three kids. her home was right next to an abandoned home, literally six or seven feet away. sort of like a row house almost. show saidshe said, rob, every no to home worrying that the home next to us is going to be torched by an arsonist. these homes were being used as arsonists as practicing for

burning down a home. she was worried about her kids. she couldn't go to sleep at night because if that home caught fire next to her, her home could be next. this is something we ought to focus on and can focus on. land banks some of our hardest hits of ohio, michigan, other states have gotten to work tacking this problem. they've done a great job. they don't have the resources they need to demolish as many properties as they would like to help some of these neighborhoods. that's why these land banks have come to us and said, can you help us a little more? after talking to them, after visiting these neighborhoods, we did take action. we authored legislation called the neighborhood safety act comeback in 2013 which was a bipartisan effort and a bicameral effort. in the house you had members like dave joyce, marcia f. nch working on this. our legislation call for the hardest hit funds to help people not only pay down their mortgages but also to help people knock down these abandoned homes. we pushed it aggressively and

this important change was actually made administratively. and it has provided nearly $56 million in ohio and around the country to deal with these thousands of abandoned homes. michigan also got funds, as did other states. now in many of these states these hardest-hit funds have run owvment there arout. there are more abandoned homes than money to deal with the problem. given the success rate we have and the fact that these land banks are doing a great job, we think it is time to provide some more funding. that's what we propose to do in the omnibus appropriations bill. i'm working with senator stabenow, senator brown and others to transfer funds from what's called the home affordable modification program, which is a program that would be eliminated under our proposal, and shift some of those funds into the hardest-hit funds for demolition purposes. i have repeatedly discussed this issue with our leadership, senator mcconnell and others, our leadership here on the committees in the senate and in the house, and am very hopeful this can be done before year-end. it is the right thing to do. it is an opportunity for us to

be able to shift some of these funds from a program that is not working as well into a program we know works and to be able to make progress in some of our struggling neighborhoods in ohio and around the country. i want to give special thanks to these land banks in ohio who have taken the lead on this issue back home. particularly i want to thank the tireless efforts of jim mccaucus. jim is the director of thriving initiatives at the western reserve land conservancy and he has done excellent work in helping to lead this effort and highlight this issue. i hope we can get this done, even in the next week here, mr. president, to be able to help our communities in ohio and around the country. finally, when we talk about keeping our communities safe and talk about the need to help our students, we also have to be sure that we're helping our workers, ensure that we're protecting jobs in our states that are threatened by unfairly traded imports. i'm pleased that we will soon be voting to pass the conference report for what's called the customs bill. my understanding is this is something that may come up as early as monday or tuesday next

week. i hope we can send that -- i hope we can pass that here in the senate and send it to the president for his signature. there are a number of aspects to the customs bill that i support, but one i think is really important and it's legislation that is called the enforce act, to ensure that we're enforcing our laws properly. this is on the heels of legislation we already passed as part of the trade promotion authority earlier this year. that legislation is called the level the playing field act. sherrod brown, senator brown, my colleague from ohio and i authored this legislation. it's now a part of our law and ammunition we can use against unfairly traded imports and it's already working. because it's already been signed into law, and it's helping to deal with either dumping when people are selling it below their costs or unfairly subsidized imports, it's helping workers in ohio. it's helping our tire workers. it's helping our paper workers. it's helping our steelworkers, and we're proud of that. but the problem is that although the legislation we've already passed to level the playing field helps with regard to taking on countries that are

sending their products here unfairly, sometimes those countries then decide to try to evade the provisions we put in place, the higher tariffs for their dumped products or the higher tariffs for their subsidized products. that's what the enforce act is about. it's about ensuring that although we have this legislation in place, if countries and their companies don't go around those regulations and still try to get products here into the united states by illegally either sending it through another country or relabeling the product so that it doesn't fall under the tariffs that might be levied against them. so i'm really hopeful that we'll be able to pass this additional legislation. it's incredibly important, as i said, for ohio but it's also important for the country. time after time, we have seen that once we put these protective orders in place against these unfairly traded imports, these countries continue to illegally enter our country through illegal transshipments through other

countries or again through relabeling these products. so i think we have an opportunity here to move forward on something that is really important to help protect workers, to ensure that we can closely examine these schemes and top them. this effort by the way is backed by the national association of manufacturers. it's also backed by the american iron steel institute. it's also backed by the united steelworkers. they are a common cause because they understand this is so critical for us to ensure that our workers get a fair shake. i got an email last week, mr. president, from workers at pemex aluminum in ohio. they have 78 workers at their facility and they won an important case against unfairly traded aluminum extrusions from china. i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: these workers said senator portman, this relief enabled our company to compete once again on a fair and level playing field, and that's the relief we hope to provide by enforcing our laws against this

product coming in. but then they say as a result we recently completed an investment of $38 million to expand our facility in lutonia and create additional significant jobs. our great concern is that this trade relief is now at risk due to the efforts by chinese producers to avoid paying duties by among other schemes manipulating the alloy content of their extruded aluminum products and shipping the products to the united states under a different name. in other words, getting around the protections that are in place by simply relabeling the product. again, this also happens by going around other countries. that's why the enforce act is so important. those 78 workers at pemex aluminum know it's important and they know this legislation will help them to be able to get a fair shake. finally, mr. chairman, i want to thank the members of the conference committee on the customs bill for putting our b.d.s. language into this legislation. this is to avoid boycotts and divestment in sanctions of israel. this is the way that some countries around the world are trying to delegitimatize israel,

it's something that is important for us to take a stand on as a congress, and we do that in this customs legislation. so again, mr. president, i think there is some good legislation we can pass here in the next week or so in the united states senate, i hope we will do it. i thank you for giving me the time tonight. we need to continue to stand up for our families, for our students, for our workers and ensure that indeed we do give the people we represent a fair shake. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. connally: mr. president, i rise today -- mr. donnelly: i rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of indiana service members and their families and all americans who served during the vietnam war, as this year marks the 40th anniversary of the end of that war. mr. donnelly: here's a picture from the indiana historical society of some of the amazing americans who served during that time. tens of thousands of hoosiers bravely answered the call, and they volunteered or were drafted

to serve in vietnam in almost every single capacity you could think of. bravely and sadly, 1,243 hoosier soldiers gave their lives in service to our country in vietnam. in vietnam, our vets endured 100-plus-degree heat, monsoon rains, snake-infested rice paddy fields, staggering conditions, incredibly dangerous situations. our service members would rather have been home in terre haute or richmond or indy or evansville or fort wayne, but they served because they love their country and they answered when our nation called them, and their answer was count on me. at the end of the war, many of our vietnam vets didn't receive

the welcome home or the recognition they deserve. not all received huge hugs when they hit the tarmac back in america, but our vets, our vietnam vets are heroes just like those who stormed the beaches in normandy and who trudged through frozen rivers in korea and went through the deserts of iraq and the mountains of afghanistan. our vietnam vets deserve to be held and are held in the same high regard as those who fought in world war i, world war ii, korea, afghanistan, iraq. our vietnam vets are part of the seamless fabric that has saved our country and made it such a blessed place. today our vietnam vets get amazing receptions everywhere

they go. in my home state of indiana, a town in northern indiana, la porte, abedin -- la porte, indiana, in la porte county, every year on july fourth has their big parade. the streets are filled five, six, seven, eight people deep for two and a half miles long, and every year the parade is led off by the vietnam veterans of la porte county. this happens all over our state. and when the parade starts off, everyone gets out of their chairs, everyone stands up, even those who have challenges and have difficulties, to applaud our men and women who were in vietnam, and for two and a half miles, they get an amazing standing applause the entire way. these vets are our parents, our brothers and sisters, our aunts and uncles, our grandparents,

friends, neighbors and the folks who are sitting next to us at church on sunday. our vietnam veterans support and lead our communities as public servants, teachers, lawyers, nurses, business owners, factory workers, bankers. just about anything you can imagine, that's what our vietnam vets are doing to make our country a greater place. they're a generation of veterans who have taught us about love of country and service and who deserve to be honored for their selflessness and sacrifice. today indiana's home to nearly 150,000 vietnam war veterans. we have a responsibility to provide them with the benefits and support they have earned, that they have earned and to show them the same commitment they demonstrated while they fought to protect us and our freedoms more than four decades

ago. we must ensure our veterans have access to timely and quality care at local v.a.'s across our state and country and that this care is delivered in a way that meets their needs. expanding access to health care for our hoosier vets has been and will continue to be a constant top priority of mine. we recently broke ground in st. joseph county, indiana, on the new st. joseph county health care center. it will mean that many of our local vets in northern indiana will be just a short ride away from the health services that they have worked so hard to earn and to receive. we must continue to expand options for care. for example, through the veterans' choice program which is bipartisan legislation that's now law. provisions from our bipartisan service member and vets memorial health care package and mental health care package were signed into law recently as part of the

national defense bill. we are working every day to try to make sure that our veterans have the chance to receive good physical health care and good mental health care and that we stand next to them and with them every step of the way. a bipartisan community provider readiness recognition act was included and helps connect hoosier service members and vets with local providers, local providers who can deal with the unique challenges that folks who are in our military face. the demand for care among our vets has never been greater, and our obligation to them has never been greater. in recognition of their service and sacrifice, we must deliver on our promise to care for all veterans long after their last day in uniform. i have another picture here from the indiana historical society.

another group of our young soldiers who when they went off, as i said earlier, they didn't complain, they didn't make excuses, and when our nation called, as i said before, they said count on me. we must keep the promises we made to our vets. we must keep those promises for their entire lives. our vietnam vets and their families made incredible sacrifices. we can do a better job of giving them the recognition they deserve and the support they deserve. let's do it through words and action in our everyday daily lives. let us remember those who have sacrificed so much to defend our nation and our freedom, and let

us preserve their legacy and follow their example of service to others. and when you see someone wearing a ball cap that says vietnam vet, world war ii vet, korean vet, iraq, afghanistan vet, when you see them, say things. my guess is what they'll say to you is thank you, i was just doing my job. but they were doing so much more than just their job. they were protecting our nation and making sure that our children and our children's children had a chance to grow up in this most blessed of all places. god bless every american and hoosier veteran who served in vietnam. god bless their families. god bless indiana, and god bless america. i yield back, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i thank the senator from indiana for his great remarks.

thank you for making them today. i come to the floor tonight to discuss puerto rico, a territory of the united states since 1898, millions of residents who have been citizens since 1917, nearly 100 years. this community of 3.5 million people is facing an economic crisis, fiscal and liquidity problems, and what are we doing about it here in congress? we're not doing anything. that needs to change, and it needs to change now. we spent ten years watching puerto rico suffer through a recession. we spent months here in congress discussing what to do, a lot of ideas, some popular, some controversial, and i can say as my part as the ranking member on energy committee, i've heard many ideas but now is the time to act. we need to allow puerto rico to restructure. that is, we need to give them the same opportunities we give

to average american citizens to restructure their debt, to municipalities, the same that we gave to wall street when they were in a financial crisis, the same brink that we were almost on in our own economic problems, but yet there are some here in the halls of congress that would rather listen to hedge funds and make sure that they are prioritized in a debt restructuring than actually putting in place debt restructuring. i propose a two-part no-cost approach that would be most effective and least controversial to help us out of this situation. the energy and natural resources committee which has jurisdiction over territories has heard from experts from the department of treasury, other government officials about how dire this celebration is now. yesterday a group of six c.e.o.'s sent a letter to the legislative leaders urging swift

action on the puerto rico situation. the whole issue on what to do about puerto rico long term has many divergent views, but all those divergent views in puerto rico are singing the same tune right now: restructure before january 1 or they will face serious issues of default. why do we care? we care because the united states government will have an impact of between $1 billion and $2 billion a year of more service demand if we do not allow them to restructure. this year the government and the electricity utility failed to make debt payments. government workers are being cut three days a week, patients are now waiting months for basic medical care. hospitals are going bankrupt. the health care industry is threatened by a complete collapse, 45% of the population is living in poverty, including 58% of them who are children and the unemployment rate is stuck at 12.2%, more than l double the

highest state. so what does this cost us, again, to act? here in the united states congress. it costs the u.s. taxpayers zero. it costs us zero because if you think about it, this is about debt restructuring. this is about setting up a process which just because puerto rico is a territory, they cannot get the relief in a structure. they tried. they tried to pass their own bankruptcy law. they tried and then basically were told that it didn't meet a federal standard. they're not like a municipality that has this authority. they are a territory. if we want them to restructure more successfully and keep more debt from coming to the shores of the united states, which i would say that we've had a huge increase in population, so the

the cost of inaction is this acceleration of the puerto rico population coming to the united states. in 2014, we see the number pped to almost 70,000 people in one year. the net migration has been more than 500% in the last ten years. so, if we do nothing in the next week and don't act on this problem, more migration of puerto ricans are going to come to the united states. and when they come, what will happen? well, they will be demanding more services. head start, tanf, public housing, unemployment insurance, pell grants. so default equals more federal spending. so the notion that my colleagues think that somehow this inaction is the way out of this equation, they are just adding to the u.s. taxpayer more responsibility. why? is it because they want to

protect hedge funds in a bankruptcy process? they want to decide here in the halls of the united states congress who gets in line first and who gets paid? i will remind my colleagues, particularly since the presiding officer knows the deep water horizon issue very well, we did not make decisions here in the united states, congress and the senate and the house of representatives, who would get paid in the deep water accident implosion. we appointed a receiver. they made the tough decisions. when it came to detroit's bankruptcy, we did not make the decisions. i guarantee you that of 100 members of the united states senate, there were probably 100 opinions in both of those cases how we thought each of those payments or restructuring should be done. but we're not the experts. and just because we have an opinion about what we would like to see puerto rico do doesn't mean that we should be writing that into legislation and

prejudging what should be an official legal process in a process of restructuring debt that we need to give puerto rico the authority to have. this is what newspapers across the united states are saying. "the los angeles times," the miami herald, the boston globe, "the new york times" and others: give puerto rico the ability to restructure their debt. so why are people inaction here failing to take this mantle? people have been arguing for months about different ideas. some of our colleagues want to increase the medicaid reimbursement rate. some of our colleagues want to have an eitc increase. some of our colleagues want puerto rico to do away with their pensions before they go into a bankruptcy structure. those are all political opinions by individuals that one could say are worth debate.

but now we are at the point of default just as we need to make decisions before january 1, our colleagues are now trying to say that we can continue to discuss this issue. we don't have time to continue to discuss this issue. we have next week, and as a member of the energy and natural resources committee and as a committee that oversees territories, i feel it is our responsibility to propose a policy and get it in place so that we can find some resolution of this issue. i think this two-part fix about making sure that there is the ability to restructure and a council to oversee it in coordination with treasury is the best that we can do at this point in time to save the u.s. government from further costs and to give relief to puerto rico. the notion that people here in the united states house of

representatives or senate are trying to protect hedge funds so that they can maximize their return is despicable. it is despicable. the notion that somebody is trying to protect these fundamental questions that need to be decided in a formal process of bankruptcy or reform, as we're calling it within the territory, is the fear and even process that should take place without prejudice. we are going to as a body have a very robust discussion, i guarantee you, for years and years and years to come about what the united states is going to do about the territory of puerto rico. let's at least give ourselves the luxury of having that discussion when the territory is not in default. let's come together and pass some legislation for them to restructure their debt.

let a professional organization take the politics out of this and make the best financial decisions that can be made now to save the u.s. taxpayer from further expense. i thank the president and i yield the floor. # the presiding officer: the senator from the senator from nevada. a senator: thank you, mr. president. mr. sasse: earlier today it was reported the president's deputy national security advisor was asked about my call that the president and the administration speak clearly about the nature of the enemy we face, about my call that we would be honest with the american people and with ourselves about the fact that we are at war with militant

islam, we are at war with jihadi islam, we are at war with violent islam. in response the white house was quoted in the "world herald" this morning as saying this: "our strong belief is not to treat these isil terrorists as leaders of some religious movement. even if you have a derogatory adjective attached to it, radical islam or is islamic extremist, essentially you are saying that these are leaders of a religious movement and that is what they want. they want to be seen not as terrorists or killers or thugs, as the president has said, but as leaders who speak on behalf of a religion, and that is why we have not identified that as the enemy in this effort," the white house said. mr. president, this is lunacy. first, while the white house is insisting that no one use the word sction -- the word islamic

or note any connection between the war that we're facing and some subset of islam, even as the white house insists that no one use the word, their own preferred adjective -- isil or isis -- begins with an "i." every fourth grader in america can deduce without any assistance from vanna white what the rest of the word that begins with an "i" is, and yet the white house insists that no one should use the word. mr. president, they are dealing wall world that they wish -- dealing with a world they wish were so as opposed with the world with which we're called to struggle. the world in which we live is a world where we are going to be facing a decades-long battle with militant islam, with jihadi islam, with violent islam. we are obviously not at war with all muslims, but we are at war with those who believe that they would kill in the name of religion and the white house

insists that we muzzle ourselves and not tell the truth. second, the white house's logic for why we shouldn't tell the truth to the american people or to ourselves is because the leaders of isil supposedly want to be identified with a religious movement. mr. president, the leaders of the isil movement and the broader jihadi movement that is trying to kill americans and all those who believe in freedom and an open society, the leaders of this movement also want to be martyred. is it the president's position that we should not kill them because they desire to be martyred? mr. president, this is lunacy. we have to speak the truth not because it alone will somehow diminish isis or isil, but because speaking the truth is actually the only way that we could begin to develop policies

that will not lead to more failed states in the middle east which are producing the terror training camps of next year. despite the fact that we are actually and obviously at war with militant islam, there is a terrible leadership vacuum in this country. the american people know this and, frankly, those of us who are getting our classified briefings and having to engage the leadership of our national security and intelligence communities know that this leadership vacuum exists, and those that are trying to keep americans safe, there are many wonderful freedom-loving civil servants fighting to protect our kids, they know and experience this vacuum of leadership every day. this vacuum is felt outside the beltway everywhere in america as is obvious in many of our towns, but even more dishearteningly and more dangerously it is increasingly obvious to the

professionals working in our intelligence community and our national security structure that this vacuum is harming our national security and our intelligence community as they try to fight for our freedom. here's why this matters. this vacuum prevents them from doing their jobs. they have no strategy to deploy. they have no rational policy to implement. and they have been asked to defeat an enemy that their commander in chief refuses even to name. this is lunacy. it is absurd, and it is unacceptable. mr. president, please lead. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i appreciate the senator's words, my friend with whrom i serve on the banking

committee and appreciate his good work. i take a bit of issue with his comments. i know there are more than two options, but i hear the greatest criticism of the president from those same people urging not necessarily senator sasse in this case, but from many of the leaders in this body on the republican side who were some of the strongest advocates for the war in iraq and some of those same people are saying back into the middle east, sending combat troops, going back to war or something, as the american people -- we all come to the floor claiming to speak for the american people perhaps, but we know that's not good policy and that's not what most people in this country want to do. but i appreciated the comments. mr. sasse: would the senator yield for a question? do you believe there is any connection between our enemy and islam? mr. brown: i'm not here to debate this.

i don't know exactly what that means, a connection between our enemy and islam. i know that semantics matter and i know that the criticism of the president in this body is sort of front and center no motor what he does -- no matter what he does when he gave what i thought was a coherent speech, often with restraint where we have taken the, i think we've taken the fight to isil in this country, i think we've done it domestically, i think the president wants to do it internationally. this body doesn't seem to have the courage to debate whether or not we actually look at an authorization resolution, authorization of the use of force where the president is still forced to rely on a resolution that president bush pushed through that led to a disastrous policies in iraq. i don't think that was the right thing, but i apologize. i want to speak on something else, mr. president. that's why i came to the floor. two weeks ago, most of us went home to our families to