mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings of the quorum call be suspended and i address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: it's been nearly two years since nadia chef then scoa, the first military pilot and iraq war veteran was abducted from the ukrainian territory by pro-russia separatists and smuggled across the border to russia where she faces false charges and illegal

imprisonment. she's accused by russia of having directed artillery fire that killed two russian-state television journalists in eastern ukraine in june 2014, and then illegally crossing into russian territory without proper paperwork. this is despite clear evidence provided by her lawyers that she was captured by separatists before this incident occurred and then hauled across the border in handcuffs with a sack over her head. following her capture, nadia has reportedly endured interrogations, solitary confinement, subjected to a psychiatric evaluation at the infamous russian serb institute where soviet authorities were once known to torture political dissidents. further media reports suggest that she is gravely ill and near

death. there are international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners of war but russia finishes to deny that it is fighting a war in ukraine and is, therefore, treating nadia as a common criminal. while there are also international laws that govern the treatment of common criminals, russia has shown as much regard for those laws as ukraine sovereignty or the rights of russians like boris nemsov. here's a picture of nadia standing trial in a cage. from her prison cell in russia, nadia said, quote, if i'm found guilty i will not appeal. i want the entire democratic world to understand that russia is a third world country with a totalitarian regime and a petty tyrant for a dictator and it spits on international law and human rights. and in her last appearance in court, she said, quote, "the

trial proves the guilt of russian authorities. they're to blame for seizing ukrainian lands, capturing and starting a war in the region. they're to blame for trying to establish through their foul undeclared wars all over the world a totalitarian regime dominated by russia. she ended her court appearance by saying, quote, "russia will return me to ukraine yet whether i am dead or alive it will return me." nadia's captivity represents just the latest example of russia's brazen aggression and disregard for the independence and territorial integrate of ukraine. last summer another brave ukrainian and film direct ya from -- director faced a similar fate. a russian court sent him to 20 years in prison based on charges that he was planning a terrorist attack against russian forces

after the peninsula was annexed by russia. despite strong evidence that mr. senseof was innocent, he remains in a russian prison serving out his 20-year sentence. as he said in remarks following his sentencing, quote, "a court of occupiers can never be just." nadia is just one of president putin's countless victims and her show trial a throwback to the style of the soviet era is intended not to establish innocent or guilt but to punish dissent, invoke fear, and remind citizens of what happens to people who dare defy the former kgb officer vladimir putin. her trial illustrates just how far president putin is willing to go to humiliate ukraine for its pursuit of freedom and

punish ukrainians for refusing to accept its illegal occupation. and it's just one more way that putin is trying to bully free peoples and free nations into submission. he's sending the message that anyone who dares to challenge him will end up in a cage just like her or worse. but putin's efforts are failing. the ukrainian people have shown that they will not be intimidated. they will not be silenced. and they will not give in to fear. they've shown they will continue to fight for a free and democratic future for ukraine with or without international support they need and deserve. and one of the more shameful chapters in american history will be the fact that we still refuse to give the ukrainians defensive weapons with which to defend themselves. this president has made a lot of

grievous errors but it's outrageous as we watch ukrainians slaughtered by russian tanks and we won't even give them the weapons to defend themselves. the ukrainian government has urged moscow to release nadia in accordionaccordance with the agt that provides for the release of all illegally held persons. international leaders have echoed this call. but her illegal imprisonment continues. it's time to move past meaningless condemnations and expressions of concern and respond to putin's shameful and blatant breach of international law by sanctioning -- i emphasize sanctioning those responsible for the kidnapping and illegal and unjust impriso imprisonment of nadia as well as officials involved in the fabrication of false charges against her. a clear message must be sent to

moscow. release nadia or face sanctions. release her or face sanctions. the united states has a critical role to play in the preservation of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and it is a role that we suppress at our own peril. i know this is not a popular cause in the united states right now, but nothing will relieve us of the responsibility to stand up for those whose fundamental human rights are being violated and defend the values that america and our allies have sacrificed so much to preserve. how we respond to each and every attempt by putin to suppress democracy and freedom will have far-reaching repercussions. the united states and the entire international community must respond to this latest outrage in a way that demonstrates the

inevitability of the values which nadia so clearly represents. nadia's fight and that of all ukrainians who rose up peacefully against tyranny in their quest for freedom must also be the world's fight. we must continue to show putin that he cannot halt the march to freedom and democracy. the ukrainian people and the russian people, too, deserve no less. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: are we in a quorum -- the presiding officer: senate is in a quorum call. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call being vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, as the president prepares to go to cuba, i rise in memory of all of those cuban dissidents who have given their lives in the hope that cuba one day would be free from the yoke of the castro regime. it is that freedom i had hoped president obama was referencing when he said, "what i've said to the cuban government is" -- and

i'm quoting -- "if we're seeing more progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of ordinary cubans, i'd love to use a visit as a way of highlighting that progress ... if we're going backwards, then there's not much reason for me to be there." but that is obviously not the case, which is why "the boston globe's" headline on february 25 says it all: "obama breaks pledge. will visit cuba despite worsening human rights." instead of having the free world's leader honor latin america's only dictatorship with a visit, he could have visited one of the 150 countries which he has not visited, including several in latin america that are democracies. the president has negotiated a deal with the castros, and i understand his desire to make this his legacy issue. but there is still a fundamental

issue of freedom and democracy at stake that goes to the underlying atmosphere in cuba and whether or not the cuban people will still be preed and still be -- still be repressed and still be imprisoned or will they benefit from the president's willingcy, or will it be the castro regime is that reaps that benefit? unless the castros are compelled to change their dictatorship, the way they govern the island and the way they exploit its people, th the answer to this wt be much different: the castro regime will be the beneficiary. at the very least, the president's first stops should be meetings with internationally recognized dissidents: u.s. presidential medal of freedom winner dr. be sext tte, the prize recipient farinia and maria vara.

collecting thousands of signatures petitioning the castro regime for democratic change, as permitted by the way, under the cuban constitution, and so threatening was her father's peaceful petition drive that he was assassinated by castro's security agents. and he should meet with berta solei with the ladies in white and that should be the front page photograph we see next week. only then will the message that the united states not give in or give up on our commitment to a free and democratic cuba be clear to the world and to the cuban people. to leave a truly honorable mark in history, this would mean the president leaving the castros cordoned off tourist zone and seeking the ladies in white at their headquarters in the lauten

neighborhood where castro freedom -- poverty created by a stalinist state -- is the umbrella under which they live. the president should witness their bravery, listen to their stares stories, feel their despair and stand up with them and for them. if he did, he could learn st story of aliuska gomez, who was arrested this past sunday for marching peacefully. basically the ladies in white, they dress in white as a form of a symbol. they march with a glad ola to church every sun dmai protest of their sons and husbands who are arrested for their political dissent and they are beaten savagely -- savagely. he could learn of the story of

alisuska gomez who was arrested this past sunday for marching peaceful will you. she told her story, "we were subjected to a the love violence today. many of us were dragged and beaten. this has taken place only one week before president obama's visit." aliuska related how she was taken to a police station where she was forcibly undressed by several uniformed officers in plain view of some males. she said, "after they had taken away all of my belongings, they told me to strip naked, and i refused. so they threw me down on the floor and took off all of my clothing right in front of two men and they dragged me completely naked into a jail cell." she was handcuffed and thrown on the cell's floor naked afned --d left asloafnlt or how about the young cuban dissident who met

with ben rose and was arrested in havana. it was reported that on march 14 castro regime arrested carlos meloliva, head of the youth wing of the cuban trayotic union. he is being accused of antisocial behavior. on friday, he had participated in a meeting in miami with ben rhodes, president obama's deputy national security advisor. he returned to havana on sunday. i guess that's what raoul castro thinks about those who meet with the president's deputy security advisor. notwithstanding their true stories and thousands of stories like them, the president's first announced sweeping changes to america's strategic approach to the castro regime in december of 2014, in broad strokes we learned of the reestablishment

of diplomatic repletions in exchange for symbols of the united states flag flying over the embassy in havana and a cuban flag flying history of a cuban embassy in washington. we heard about how could you base designation as a state of terrorism would be lifted. we learned of the easing of sanctions to increase travel, commerce, and currency. but for those of us who understand this regime, we cautioned for nuance and urge against those broad strokes. we ask that the administration at least require the castros to reciprocate with certain concessions of their own, which would be as good for u.s. national interests as for the cuban people and for u.s.-cuban relations. for example, before the president ever traveled to burma, a country with notorious human rights abuses and with which this administration began to engage, the u.s. first

demanded and received action by the burmese to address their human rights record. to be sure, the burmese government agreed to meet nearly a dozen benchmarks as part of this action for action engagement, including granting the red cross access to prisons, establishing a u.n. high commissioner for human rights office, release of political prisons prisoners, ensuring international access to conflict areas. we asked, as the president's cuba policy unfolded, that they push for changes that put cubans in control of their own future, their political process, economic opportunities, civil societies, and governments. we didn't get a single one. we asked for changes that would honor america's legacy as a champion for human rights. we didn't get those either. we suggested changes that would ultimately bring coul cuba intoe

community of nations, contributing to, rather than detracting, from the overall prosperity of the hemisphere, and there were none. but most important lurks we asked that they remember that it is a lack of resources, not a change of heart, that slowed the castros' adventurism and instability, inducing support for those who would pose threats to our national interests within the western hemisphere. in essence, we were thinking strategically. instead, we traded strategy for tactics and leading human rights and democracy activists have criticized u.s. policies, those languishing inside of cuba who risk their lives and liberty every day much the simple truth is, deals with the devil require the devil to deal. opening channels of communications controlled by the regime means nothing unless we are going to communicate our values. it means nothing if we do not champion the material changes that the cuban people seek. it means nothing if we do not

speak the language that the castros understand, that the communist rave luges has failed miserably and it is time to let the cuban people decide their future. the castros know it, but it's the antiquated hallmark of the revolution and the ironfisted rule that came from it that keeps them in power. we talk about being in the past, well, that's in the past but no one challenges that past. and until that power is truly challenged, we can't expect to -- we can expect, i should say, to witness the further weakening of our leverage on behalf of democracy and human rights. in the meantime, the regime is already moving forward, already breathing new life into its existing repressive state systems. cubans are being beaten, arrested, and otherwise muscled and higher rates -- higher rates -- than ever before. the cuban commission for human rights, which is within cuba, has documented 1,147 political

arrests by the castro regime in cuba during the short month of february 2016. 1,147. in january of 2016, the commission documented 1,447 political arrests. as such, these 2,5888 political arrests in the first two and a half months of this year, arrests which represent the highest counted to begin a year in decades. this is what happens when president obama's first -- president obama first announces he won't visit cuba unless there are tangible improvements in the respect for human rights, and then he crosses his own red lines. nearly 2,600 arrests in two and a half months. and these are only political arrests that have been thoroughly documented. many more are suspected. u.s. fugitives and members of

foreign terrorist organizations still enjoy safe harbor on the island like jo ann chessamar or charlie hill who killed new mexico state trooper robert rosenbloom. not a penny of the $6 billion in outstanding claims by american citizens and businesses for properties confiscated by the castros has been repaid. unrelenting censorship and oppression of cuban journalists continues unscathed and the human path to liberty doesn't even include the u.n. embassy. what do we learn? we learned despite the obama administration's engage in the with the castro dictatorship and increased travel through the island, repression on the island is rising exponentially. why? because the castro regime, one of the most astute observers of the american political system,

is rushing to take advantage of the permissive environment created by the president's hunger for legacy and the relaxation of restrictions. but, mr. president, legacy is not more important than lives. for years we have heard how an improvement in u.s.-cuba relations and easing of sanctions and increase in travel to the island would benefit the cuban people. well, a benefit that never was realized despite the visits and investments of millions of europeans, canadians, mexicans and south americans, not one iota of better life or greater democracy for the cuban people. these assumptions are wrong. since december 17 of 2014 the president has engaged the regime, offering unilateral concessions that the castros are more than happy to accept. and if that's not enough for us to at least question our cuba policy, we are now facing a new unfolding migration crisis.

the united states is faced with the largest migration of cuban immigrants since the rafters of 1994. the number of cubans entering the united states in 2015 was nearly twice that of 2014, some 51,000, and tens of thousands more are desperately trying to make the journey via south and central america. and i ask, why would cubans flee if the promise of a better life in cuba is just on the horizon? when president obama took office, those numbers were less than 7,000 annually. 51,000. we hear that self-employment such as it is in cuba is growing but the number of self-employed workers in cuba has decreased. the cuban government today is licensing 10,000 fewer

self-employed workers than it did in 2014. in contrast, castro's military monopolies are expanding at record pace. even the limited spaces in which -- quote -- "self-employed workers previously operated are being squeezed as the cuban military expands its control of the island's travel, retail and financial sectors of the economy ." now, while speaking to a business gathering in washington here recently, in the nation's capital, president obama argued how he believes this new policy is -- quote -- "creating the environment in which a generational change in transition will take place in cuba." but the key question is, a generational change in transition towards what and by whom? cuban democracy leader antonio rollas expressed this concern. he said -- quote -- "legitimizing the castro regime is the path contrary to a

transition. cnn has revealed that the cuban delegation in the secret talks that began in mid2013 with u.s. officials in ottowa, toronto, and rome and which led to the december 17 policy announcement was headed by colonel alejandro castro espine, the 49-year-old son of cuban dictator raul castro. in both face-to-face meetings between president obama and raul castro this year, first at the april summit of the americas in panama city, and just recently at the united nations general assembly in new york, alejandro was seated with a wide grin next to his father. alejandro holds the rank of colonel in cuba's military of the interior with his hand on the pulse and trigger of the island's intelligence services and repressive ordinances. it's no secret that raul castro is grooming alejandro for a

position of power. sadly, his role as interlock tur with the obamacare seeks to further their goal of an intra family generational transition within the castro clan. similar to the assads and syria in north korea, and we know how well those have worked out. to give you an idea of how colonel alejandro castro views the united states, he describes its leaders as -- quote -- "those who seek to subjugate humanity to satisfy their interest in hegemonic goals." this is being ready to be the next leader of cuba who we have been negotiating with. of course it also takes money to run a totalitarian dictatorship which is why castro named his son-in-law as head of guyeza,

translated the business administrative group. guyeza is the holding company of c cuba's military. it is the dominant driving force of the island's economy. established in the 1990's by raul castro, it controls tourism companies ranging from the very profitable company which runs cuba's hotels, car rentals, nightclubs to the company which runs the island's retail stores. guyeza controls virtually all economic transactions in cuba. according to a leading industry public calculation, guyseza is by far the largest regional hotel con grom rat -- conglomerate in latin america. as mcclatchy news explained

tourists who sleep in cuban hotel, drive cars and ride in taxis have something in common. they are contributing to the revolutionary armed force's bottom line, cuba's repressive system. guyeza became the powerhouse thanks to the canadians and military forces that have and continue to visit cuba each year. the cuban military-owned tourism company, gavieota averaged 12% growth in be 2015 and expects to double its hotel business this year. these tourists are helping the cuban military. absolutely nothing is being done in that regard to promote freedom and democracy in cuba. to the contrary, they have directly financed a system of control and repression over the cuban people, all while enjoying cigars by cuban workers paid to work with less pesos.

despite the clear evidence, president obama wants american tourists to double guyezes' bonanza. bloomberg reports how raul's son-in-law is the gatekeeper for most foreign investors requiring them to do business with his organization if they wish to set up shop on the island. if and when the u.s. finally removes its half-century embargo on cuba, it will be this man, castro's son-in-law, who decides which investor gets the best deals. and again, he is part of the cuban military. so this is not about people to people. this is about us helping the very entities that help fund the cuban military and security agencies. in other words, all the talking points about how lifting the embargo and tourism restrictions would somehow benefit the cuban people are empty and misleading

rhetoric. in addition, internet connectivity ratings have dropped in cuba. the international telecommunications union measuring the information society report for 2015, the most reliable source with data and analysis on global access to information and communication, dropped cuba's ranking to 129, down from 119. cuba fares much worse in some of the world's most infamous suppressors including syria, iran, china and venezuela. in cuba, religious freedom violations have also increased. according to the london-based n.g.o. christian solidarity worldwide, last year 2,000 churches in cuba were declared illegal and 100 were designated for demolition by the castro regime. all together they documented 2,300 separate violations of

religious freedoms in 2015 compared to 220 in 2014. 2,300 versus 220. so religious oppression is on the rise. and if that is not enough, castro reneged on the release of political prisoners and visits by international monitors. most of the 53 political prisoners released in the months prior and after the president's december 2014 announcement have since been rearrested on multiple occasions. five have been handed new long-term prison sentences. meanwhile, human rights watch noted in its new 2016 report -- quote -- "cuba has yet to allow visits to the island by the international committee of the red cross or by the united nations human rights monitors as stipulated, as stipulated in the december 2014 agreement with the united states."

these were the conditions that prompted congress over the course of our long history with cuba to pass successive laws to build on, not detract from executive orders that created the embargo. so i stand with thousands of cuba's civil society leaders, dissidents, journalists and everyday men and women who long for the day when the freedom we enjoy in our great country extends to theirs. and as long as i have a voice, they will have an ally to speak truth to power against this dictatorship and against any effort to legitimize or report it. we must realize the nature of the castro regime won't be altered by capitulating on our demands for basic human and civil rights. if the united states is to give away its leverage, it should be in exchange for one thing and one thing only. a true transition in cuba. finally, as for the latest announcements from the administration, i stand against any roll back of the statutory

provisions that codify cuba sanctions. we learned this week that the administration has cleared the way for individual travel to cuba outside the auspices of a group or organization, and that is tourism, plain and simple. we learned this week that the administration has cleared the way for cubans, athletes, performers and others to earn salaries in the united states. that would be a good thing except that unfortunately much if not all of those salaries will go back to the regime as they must pay the regime most of what they make abroad. we learned that americans may purchase cuban origin products and services in third countries -- cigars, alcohol and basic products produced by a system of slave labor that funnels proceeds to one place: the regime's pockets. and when it comes to banking and financial services, we will now permit the u.s. financial system to facilitate the flow of these and other proceeds directly to the regime. the administration will allow

the cuban government, which profits from the sale of intelligence, like when they had our hellfire missile, to export cuban-origin software to the united states. never mind that the cuban government aggressively monitors the internet activity of cuban dissidents and sensors, users on the island. and then we're going to permit direct shipping by cuban vessels. these significant amendments to the cuban assets control regulations and the export administration regulations cornerstones of implementation of u.s. snarchgz against the cass --ings sanctions against the castro regime create new opportunities for abuse of permitted travel. they authorize trade with castros monopolies and permit the u.s. regime -- the regime to use u.s. dollars to conduct its business. castro exploits the lives and labor of cuban nationals.

into meeting late last week i warned officials of the department of treasury that these changes come up to and in some cases, i think clearly cross the line with respect to statutory authority. their actions are inconsistent with existing statutes and incompatible with the intent of congress as expressed through those statutes, and i should know as i was one of the authors of the libertad act when i served in the house of representatives. in my view, at the end of the day, this is a unilateral transfer of the little remaining leverage the administration hadn't given away prior to this week's announcements. with these steps, i believe commerce and treasury have set the stage for legal action against the administration. congress has authorized cat gories of travel to -- categories of travel to cuba, but none of these categories were tourists of commerce for commerce sake with the regime. the president has said that his cuba policy -- quote -- helps promote the people's independence from cuban

authorities, but it's clear that it does not. and yet this week in what would seem to contravene the letter and spirit of the law, the administration will reportedly allow the regime to use u.s. dollars in international financial transactions and a u.s. hotel company to partner with a cuban military conglomerate run by the castro family. let's be clear. it's not the cuban people who are eager and willing to shuffle dollars through p.n.b.parrabas. only the regime is willing and eager to do so. as to the reports that starwood marriott is looking for an arrangement with the regime with the blessing of the administration, it would be in agreement with a subsidiary of gaiza, the cuban conglomerate

ron by castro. how is that working when you are working with the regime? it would be managing a hotel for the cuban military and those with havana's swanky hotel that has been confiscated twice by the castro regime, an agreement by which employees are also hired by the regime's state employment agency instead of directly by a company in violation of international labor laws. so i ask how does allowing u.s. companies to do business with a regime, let alone the castro family itself, promote the cuban people's independence from the authorities that the president has set? this breeds new life into the castros' repressive state systems, and that new life means one thing. the repressive system will continue without changes. mr. president, next week when we anticipate that we will see a photograph of the president of the united states laughing and shaking hands with the only

dictatorship in the western hemisphere, i will be thinking of berta soler of the ladies in white and her fellow human rights and democracy advocates when she testified before congress last year and said -- quote -- "our demands are quite con qeet. freedom for all political prisoners, recognition of civil society, the elimination of criminal dispositions that penalize freedom of expression and association and the right of the cuban people to choose their future through free multiparty elections." not an overwhelming ask. what american would be willing to not have those basic fundamental freedoms? and what are we willing to do to impose on another country to say we'll deal with you even though you repress your people and deny them those freedoms? those are the words of freedom when berta soler spoke on her behalf and all those who risk

their lives and liberty every day inside of cuba to create that possibility. that is a legacy we should work until the cuban people are finally free. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and observe the absence of -- i would withhold. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, early, early this morning, i got a telephone call from the white house staffer that told me that the president was going to announce his choice to fill the vacancy on the u.s. supreme court, occasioned by the passing of antonin scalia, and this morning i was invited to the rose garden to witness that ceremony, and it was, i thought, one of the president's best deliveries of a message to the american people about a critically important issue. i applaud president obama for his nomination of chief judge merrick garland to serve on the

united states supreme court. no one, no one questions that judge garland is an outstanding attorney, an exceptional judge during his 19 years on the d.c. circuit court. no one questions his qualifications and experience to serve with distinction on the supreme court. i congratulate him, his wife lynn whom i just met and his daughters becky and jessie on this occasion. judge garland is a proud son of illinois. he is the grandson of immigrants who fled anti-semitic persecution. he was born in chicago to parents who ran a small business and volunteered in their community. he graduated at the top of his class at niles west high school, received his undergraduate law degree from harvard, clerked for the legendary judge henry friendly of the second circuit, justice william brennan of the u.s. supreme court. he has an incredible legal resume. he served in the justice department, worked in private

practice before he was nominated to the d.c. circuit court. president obama today told the story of how merrick garland in the u.s. department of justice was sat down after the oklahoma city bopping -- sent down after the oklahoma city bombing to handle the prosecution and how he carely and deftly and professionally handled that prosecution in a way that it would stick and it wouldn't be overturned because of legal mistakes. he felt personally attachment and obligation to the victims and their families, and he carried with him a memorial service bulletin that was given out with the names of each one of the victims. he brought it with him each day to the courtroom. he's that kind of person. a prosecutor but with empathy to the victims and a determination to make sure that he followed the law. he did. president obama has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility, and now the

senate must do the same. article 2, section 2 of the constitution provides the requirement that the president shall, shall appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the u.s. supreme court, and the president did that today. that same section that of the constitution goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the senate, this senate to advise and consent to that nominee. there's no requirement that we approve the president's nominee. he wants us to. i hope we do. but what it says is we have a responsibility under the constitution, the same constitution we swore to uphold and defend. so the president is using his authority and constitutional responsibility by naming merrick garland. now what will happen? the republican leadership of the senate has said end of story. we're not going to do anything. some senators have gone so far

as to say they will not even meet with this man, will not even meet with the president's nominee for the supreme court. in the history of the united states of america, there has never, underline never been a situation where the president sent a nominee to the supreme court to the senate where there was not a hearing, never, and now the republican majority here has said ignore history, ignore the constitution. we're not going to let this president fill this vacancy. their argument is that let the american people decide. there is an election coming. it will be in november. let them pick a president who will then choose that supreme court nominee. well, that's an interesting approach. it might make some sense had president barack obama been re-elected in 2012 to a term of three years and two months. he was re-elected to a four-year

term by a five million vote plurality. he is the president. and to argue that in his last year in office, he should have no authority or power in the constitution to exercise what is required of him is to ignore the obvious. by what right do we in the closing year of a senate's term -- a senator's term vote on the floor of the senate if we're disqualified from making important decisions in our last year in office in each term? it's a ludicrous position, ridiculous position, and it's a position which i find offensive. this system of government gives to the american people the last word about who the president will be. there have been times when i have applauded that decision, times when i didn't, but if you are respectful of this constitution and this government, then you follow the will of the people of this great nation, and they made a decision by a plurality of five million votes that barack obama would have this power for four years

until january of 2017. and so the president has sent this name, and now it's up to the senate. the committee -- the judiciary committee plays an important role in this decision, and i'm honored to serve on it. in 2001, then-chairman of the committee, patrick leahy, democrat of vermont, joined with ranking republican member orrin hatch of utah. in 2001, they sent a letter to the senate about this issue of filling supreme court vacancies. a bipartisan letter, leahy and hatch, and here's what it said -- "we both recognize and have every intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee and the senate when considering supreme court nominees. we should hold a hearing without delay." now, if that was the case 15 years ago and senator hatch, who was then the ranking republican,

joined with senator leahy, the democratic chairman, what has changed? the only thing that's changed is that we have a president named barack obama. you see, in 1987, there was a vacancy on the supreme court. ronald reagan was president. in 1988, he sent a name to this chamber of anthony kennedy to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. the senate at that time was under the control of the democrats. ronald reagan, a republican president, sends his nominee to the democratic senate, and what happened? did they announce not going to fill this, we'll wait until after the election? no. no. the democratic-controlled senate held a hearing for anthony kennedy, brought him up for a vote and passed him unanimously to serve on the u.s. supreme court. and now look at what we're facing. republican colleagues who refuse to do their job under the

constitution. for what reason? obviously, for political reasons. my republican colleagues say they are standing behind a principle that the president should not get to name to the supreme court a justice in his final year. that principle has no history, no precedent and is virtually impossible to defend. i'd suggest a different principle to my republican colleagues. since judge garland, merrick garland, is unquestionably qualified and you clearly would vote to confirm him under the next president, why wait? why not vote to confirm him under this president? failing to fill this vacancy on the supreme court means that there will be over one year from the death of justice antonin scalia until a successor is chosen. the only time in history where we have had a vacancy on the supreme court for that period of time, one year or more, was during the civil war when we were literally at war with one

another in the united states. if that's the only time that ever happened, there is no excuse for us to let it happen again at this moment in our history. to my friends on the republican side of the aisle, do your job, fill this vacancy, meet your constitutional responsibility. mr. president, i ask consent that the next statement be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. mr. president, on friday, the department of education released its latest proposals for new regulations on borrower relief when a school engages in unfair, deceptive or abusive conduct. the proposals will be debated this week at the third negotiated rule making session as part of a former rule making process. i want to speak about one of the issues addressed in the latest proposal from the department of education, the use of mandatory arbitration in enrollment contracts by institutions of higher education. these clauses, which for-profit

colleges and universities often bury in fine print, prevent students from bringing suit against the school in court as an individual and often is part of a class action. it means, for example, that if a student applying to a school is deceived and misled by that school as to the degree they will receive or the job that they will qualify for, they can't bring a legal action against the school. instead, the student is forced into a secret proceeding where the deck is stacked against him. it allows students to avoid accountability for their -- allows schools to avoid accountability for their misconduct, and it prevents misconduct from coming to the attention of federal regulators. nearly unheard of in not-for-profit institutions. think about public universities and private not-for-profit colleges. mandatory arbitration has now become standard, virtually

standard in for-profit colleges and used by all the majors. the university of phoenix, i.t.t. tech, devry university, just to name a few. it was also used by corinthian. corinthian, another for-profit college, made sure that there are students -- their students if they signed up for a contract with the school signed this arbitration clause which eliminated the student's day in court. i was pleased with the department for including the option of mandatory arbitration by all institutions receiving title 4 dollars. i thank the department for including it in its proposal. i want to take a moment to discuss i.t.t. tech. i.t.t. tech is another for-profit college that is under scrutiny by federal and state regulators. last year the department of education found that the

company, i.t.t., failed to meet its fiduciary duty to the department and failed to meet the standards of administrative capability required of institutions under title 4, and they placed restrictions on i.t.t. the department then required i.t.t. tech to pay nearly $80 million to be kept in escrow to guard against the potential collapse of this for-profit school. the company is under investigation by 18 state attorneys general related to deceptive marketing. this is deceptive marketing of students, college students who are being misled into signing expensive tuition contracts with the school. the new mexico attorney general found that i.t.t. tech placed students into loans without the knowledge of the students, falsely stated the number of credits a student had to take in order to push them into more debt, failed to issue refunds of tuition and fees in compliance

with federal law and a variety of other deceptive practices. if that wasn't enough, the consumer financial protection bureau is also suing the company for predatory lending. this is the exploitation of college students. this is piling up debt. remember, the basics that have to be reminded, we have to remind ourselves of frequently, 10% of the students in college are in for-profit schools: university of phoenix, devry, kaplan, i.t.t. tech. 10 pect of the students are -- ten percent of the students are in for-profit colleges and universities. 40% of students in default are the students in for-profit universities. why? the students go too deep in debt. these for-profit schools are way too expensive. second, when the students can't keep up with the debt they're accumulating, they drop out.

and when they drop out it's the worst of both worlds. they don't even have a diploma from the for-profit school. they still have a debt. and third, if they hang around long enough and finish and get the diploma from these for-profit schools, they find out many times they're worthless. 40% of the student loan defaults from the for-profit colleges and universities. and these schools are coercing students into high-cost loans with interest rates as high as 16% and more. and misrepresenting future job prospects to them. finally the securities and exchange commission is suing the company, i.t.t. and two of its executives, kevin mull day ni, it's c.e.o. and daniel fitzpatrick, it's c.f.o. for concealing the poor performance of their private institutional student loans from investors. behind all this scrutiny by federal and state regulators are students who have been harmed irrepresent -- students who have

been harmed. i.t.t. tech students cumulatively owe more than $4.6 billion in federal student loans. how much is being paid back on this cumulative debt? according to the study, less than 1% of the balance has been repaid in 2014. what does it mean? how can it be a negative number? simple. the interest on this cumulative debt is occurring faster than it can be paid off by the students. individual students often have no chance of paying back this personal debt when they've taken out the loan and end up with a worthless degree from i.t.t. tech. what responsibility do we have as a government when it comes to these schools that are deceiving students, dragging them into debt and then watching as they default? we have a major responsibility. for-profit colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private businesses in america today. you've heard the term crony capitalism. it couldn't apply more aptly to

for-profit colleges and universities. most of their revenues don't come from students and families. only indirectly. most of their revenue comes through the federal treasury and government loans that end up in the pockets of the owners of these for-profit colleges and universities. students who left i.t.t. in 2009, more than half of them are in default of their student loans five years later. half. then there's marcus willis from illinois. he was recruited from i.t.t. tech with phone calls, multiple calls each day. he finally signed up for classes. he graduated in 2003 from i.t.t. tech and he spent months unable to find a job. whep talking about his debt, marcus says it's too much to even keep track of. i will never ever be able to pay it back. he says he wouldn't wish i.t.t. tech on his worst enemy. despite all the lawsuits, the scandal, students like marcus, january was a big month for

i.t.t. tech executives, kevin mulldany and daniel fitzpatrick. both got big bonus checks. mulldany received $515,000, fitzpatrick $112,000. they can expect more. 2014 mr. mulldany was paid more than $3 million. these are the same two that the s.e.c. says violated numerous securities laws in a scheme to hide information from investors. but i.t.t. tech's board looks the other way. instead of penalizing them or dismissing them, they give them a bonus. i.t.t. tech investors have a right to be outraged. current and former i.t.t. tech students are also outraged. federal taxpayers should too. you see, i.t.t. tech receives 80% of its revenue from federal student aid funds, nearly $1 billion a year from the federal treasury. and even more than that, when

they count the money they take in from v.a., g.i. bills and department of defense tuition assistance funding. recently i sent a letter to i.t.t. tech's creditor, the accrediting council for independent colleges and schools asking what they were going to do to respond to the company's misconduct and shaky financial situation. well, they responded last week that they have required i.t.t. tech to submit plans to ensure students can continue their education at other institutions should the company fail. incidentally, the other institutions are probably going to be more for-profit schools. so they transfer the kids from one failing for-profit college to another questionable for-profit college. they also told me that they'll assess i.t.t. tech's financial stability, education quality and program integrity when they get together in april. i encourage the council which accredited corinthian which is now out of business, to make sure they take a hard look at i.t.t. tech. the writing is on the wall.

now the reports that the university of akron may be interested in buying this questionable college. i'll be watching this development carefully to ensure that any potential transaction is in the best interest of the students, their families and taxpayers. mr. president, i ask consent that the next statement i make be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, mental health conditions affect one out of five american adults. yet, this disease continues to be stigmatized, undertreated and reduced to second-class status when it comes to certain health care benefits. just like any other physical health disease, mental health conditions require a dedicated treatment plan and support for full recovery. i still remember years ago in the senate paul wellstone, who used to sit right back there, and pete domenici who sat over there. paul wellstone of minnesota, a democrat.

pete domenici a republican. what an unlikely pair. they came together because each of them had family experiences with mental health. what they tried to do and successfully did was to include in all of our health insurance plans coverage for mental health counseling as well as substance abuse treatment. it became standard. and when we passed obamacare, the affordable care act, it was built in to health insurance policies. so when members stand here and say i'm getting rid of obamacare, we're going to vote against it, make that go away. ask them how about that coverage for mental health conditions? is that going to go away too? how about coverage for substance abuse treatment? will that go away too? this change made a big difference. it was a huge step in the right direction to expand access to mental health counseling. we have to further eliminate barriers to treatment. last week the senate passed the

comprehensive addiction recovery acts authorizing several important programs to help people deal with mental health and substance abuse issues. i support it because it was a step in the right direction. we know approximately 44 million americans experience some sort of brain health and mental illness issue during the year. millions don't receive treatment or support. this need for mental health services is especially dire with one group of americans. how often in your life experience have you noticed a young man or woman go off to college and for the first time ever manifest some serious mental health issues? i've seen it with frequency, and i know that many schools struggle with it. studies have shown that one half of all chronic mental illness begins by age 14 through age 24. college students can face stress in new academic surroundings, new social environments. they are away from home action

many of them -- away from home and many illnesses start to manifest. colleges have little resources to deal with it. colleges and universities are prevented from identifying the most at-risk students. now we're seeing a huge disparity between reported mental health needs and services being provided. in one nationwide study, 57% of students reported having felt overwhelming anxiety. 35% felt so depressed it was difficult to function. 48% felt hopeless. now i remember some bad nights and bad mornings facing a tough test, but we're talking about young people who have gone beyond that. they are facing some serious personal challenges. only 10% of enrolled students seek any kind of counseling. this means that too many students are slipping through the cracks and too many are not receiving treatment for mental illness. this can have tragic results.

while millions of americans suffer from serious mental illness, a very small statistical group engage in violence against themselves or others. but we have examples of what happens when someone dealing with mental illness becomes violent. the horrific tragedy in 2008 on the campus of in illinois in dekalb, six people died from a shooting. their families were changed fremp forever. not all grab headlines. suicides is the second leading cause of death among americans age 15-34. we can't ignore the silent suffering of millions of americans, including many young people. that's why i've joined with senator susan collins, republican of maine; senator michael bennet, democrat of colorado, to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve mental health services on college campuses, tackling

menlts -- mental health illness stigma. i'm happy to partner with jan chacowsky of illinois. our bill will support colleges and universities by giving 24e78 resources to -- giving them resources to better promote the needs of students. it directs grants to provide outreach. our bill will promote peer support, training and engagement with campus groups. it launches a national education campaign to reduce are the stigma, encourage identification of risk and enhance conversation about mental health and seeking help. this bill is sponsored by the american foundation for suicide prevention, the american psychological association, the national alliance on mental illness of chicago and the american college and mental health association. this legislation was adopted by a voice vote this morning as an amendment to the cassidy-murphy

mental health reform act. i want to thank the senators for their effort to pass the bill. i i thank senators cassidy, murray and alexander to work with us to make sure this provision was included in the larger bill. i look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan measure. i know there is a lot of interest in addressing treatment and barricades which is under the finance committee's jurisdiction and i'll continue to push a bill which i cosponsored with senator king of maine, the medicaid care act which expands access to treatment and coverage. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at 12:45 thursday, march 17, the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 375, s. res. 377. further, that there be one hour of debate equally divided in the usual form. further, upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on adoption of the resolution with no intervening action or debate. finally, if passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent that at 5:00 p.m. monday, april 4, the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 355, s. 1890. further, that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. further, that following the use or yielding back of time, the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended with no intervening action or debate.

further, if passed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 1831 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1831, an act to establish the commission on evidence-based policy making, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the burr substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee on armed services be discharged from further consideration of s. 719 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 719, a bill to

rename the armed forces reserve center in great falls, montana, the captain john e. moran and captain william wylie gault armed forces reserve center. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr." mr. mcconnell: i further ask the bill be read a third time and the motion considered be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the senate proceed to s. res. the clerk: 401 designating march 22, 2016, as national rehabilitation counselors appreciation day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 402 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 402 to authorize testimony documentary production, and representation in united states of america v. choka fatah sr. et al. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. mr. mcconnell: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn at 9:30, march 17, following the morning pledge, the proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further that following leader remarks the senate be in a

period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each till 12:45. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following remarks of senator lankford. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. a senator: i awakened this morning like a lot of other people. about midway through the morning, about 7:00 a.m., a bulletin came out that the president had selected a nominee for the supreme court. mr. lankford: it's news worthy. the e-mail came out saying i've made my decision. it's about 7:00 a.m. 7:07 this morning the white house legislative affairs circulated a notification to all those folks on capitol hill, including our office from

president obama that it was sent out and it stated this fact. we've reached out to every member of the senate who each have a responsibility to do their job and to take this nomination seriously. i thought that was very interesting because we hadn't received a notification. at 7:14, 7 minutes later, the white house legislation affairs office e-mailed my chief of staff with an attachment of the 7:07 e-mail from the white house notifying them they had this. so when my counsel called over the white house counsel and said you stated earlier this morning that you've contacted our offices, you've reached out to us was the term, they clarified later in the morning, well, that e-mail we sent after we said we contacted you was really the contact that we meant to send earlier. it's quite a morning for us. it was again the same doublespeak we've received from the white house when he said that they've reached out to all

members of the senate, that actually means they sent us an e-mail after they sent the american people an e-mail saying that they had made a decision but even that e-mail didn't say who it was. here's the challenge. there's a constitutional responsibility here, and it's extremely important that all of this is done right. it is extremely important that article one, the legislative branch, that article 2, the white house, agree on a supreme court nominee because article 1 and article 2 select article 3 judges to the supreme court. a month ago the united states senate, members of the majority party, notified the white house and the american people we want to follow the same historical precedent that's been followed for decades, to say in an election year, we would not appoint someone to the supreme court. it's not a new policy.

it's a policy that's been around for a very long time. in fact in 1968 even when democrats had the senate and a democrat l.b.j. was in the white house, a democrat l.b.j. wanted to be able to appoint a supreme court nominee and democrats in the senate blocked someone from their own party from putting up a supreme court nominee because it was an election year. and they held it. it's happened over and over again. in fact, it's been interesting because on this floor, i heard numerous folks step up and say this is unprecedented. this is new. this has never happened before. the problem is that all of us know the history. it's the same history that all of us look at. "the washington post" this morning even put out a piece identifying this basic thing. they occasionally do what they call the pinocchio test. this morning they identified multiple different democratic senators that have spoken on this floor saying things like republican members met behind closed doors to unilaterally decide without any input from

this committee that it's this committee and the senate as a whole will refuse to consider a nominee. it's a dereliction of constitutional duty. other statements. the senate shall advice and consent by voting on that nominee. that's what the plain language of the constitution requires. over and over again this has come up. so "the washington post" went back and researched and did an extensive piece detailing all the real history here of supreme court nominees and they ended with this statement. the senate majority can in effect do what it wants to do as it has historically unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale and in "the washington post" gave the democrats who made all these statements about the republicans doing something unprecedented and shutting down all this process gave them a whopping three pinocchios in their test in "the washington post" this morning. this is not something new or radical. this is consistent.

quite frankly the constitution article 2, section 2 sets up a 50-50 proposition for the selection of supreme court justices. the white house has the first 50% to make that nomination. the senate has the second 50%. and we have what's called advice and consent. that is choosing the time and the person in the process. is this the right time to do this nominee? is this the right person in this nominee? that's advice and consent. it's not new for the white house and for the senate to disagree on this. george washington even -- couldn't get some of his nominees through the very first senate, and he personally came over to the senate bringing his nominee saying i want my nominee to have a hearing and then the very first senate with the very first president, the very first senate sent george washington away and said no, we're not going to hear it today. it's the wrong time and may be the wrong person. we haven't decided yet. this is an ongoing process. this senate has determined as it

has many times that in an election year, it is the wrong time to have a departing president choose a supreme court nominee. as many folks have said over and over again, this is not only old history of the united states. it's recent history. at that time senator biden who was the chairman of the judiciary committee said on this floor in 1992 this statement. the senate, mr. president, must consider how it would respond to a supreme court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. it is my view, stated senator biden, it is my view that if the president goes the way of presidents fill more and johnson, referring to l.b.j. and presses in an election, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination till after the political campaign season is over. it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way and it's action on the supreme court nomination must be put off till after the election campaign

is over. that's what is fair to the nominee and it is central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me, mr. president, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. others may fret about this approach, said senator biden. and would leave the court with only eight members for some time, but as i see it, mr. president, the cost for such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that would divide the justices 4-4 are quite minor compared to the cost that nominee, the senate, the nation would have to pay for what surely would be a bitter fight for matter how good a person that is nominated by the president if the nomination were to take place in the next few weeks. even senator reid in 2005 said the duties of the shore set forth in the u.s. constitution nowhere in the document does it say the senate have the duty to give the president appointee a vote. it's not new. it's just become politically expedient to bring it up. it was not new in the media.

it was interesting to see a comment from "the new york times" in 1987 when "the new york times" wrote an editorial about what happens if a president in his final term wants to be able to appoint a nominee. but the -- in that time in the previous election, the white house who was a republican, ronald reagan, the senate had changed over to democrats in the previous election, and "the new york times" wrote this about a supreme court selection process. the president's supporters insist vehemently that having the 1984 election, he has every right to change the court's direction. yes, but the democrats won the 1986 election regaining control of the senate and they have every right to resist. that was true then for "the new york times." that's true now and we'll see if they stay consist ernts as -- connest end as the newspaper standing for the exact same principle decades later. it's not new.

it's not different. and the fact is the supreme court is still working, still hearing cases, still going through the argument, still releasing opinions. nothing has changed over there. and the work is still continuing in the united states senate. we're still hearing legislation. we're still voting on legislation. we just voted on a confirmation this week to the department of education. we're still working through nominations. we're still working true legislation -- working through legislation. nothing has changed on that but the decision was made to the benefit of that family that would be nominated by the supreme court -- to the supreme court that this senate will not move during this election year. it's interesting, i had a telephone town hall this monday from individuals across my state with thousands of people on the line. we asked the simple question about what should happen in this process dealing with the supreme court. this was before a nominee was even announced. and 71% of the people on our call said the next president and

the american people should choose who the next supreme court justice is. i would submit we should allow the people to decide this. that when they decide the presidential election this november, they're also determining the direction of the supreme court in the days ahead. i don't want us to lose track of the basic facts here, but i also want us to be able to stay on focus. this senate cannot get distracted with bitter fighting over something we resolved a month ago and that will remain resolved. we're not going to move. we have a lot of budget issues to deal with. we have appropriation bills to come in the days ahead. and i would submit one of the biggest things we can do as a senate is to also reform the budget process, to stay on focus on things that are really going to matter long term for us because this issue is already resolved with the supreme court. we need to find ways to be able to eliminate the budget gimmicks that are in the budget process, to get a long-term view to make sure there's not this playing with the system in this ten-year window, to buy with -- deal with

by enbudget to get a better prediction in the days ahead, that we find ways of -- government shut qlowns do nothing but hurt us. we come work on those and keep us focused. the supreme court issue is settled. it's not going to move. let's find the things we can agree on, we can work on and continue to work on these things together. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent the deanna mitching be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this calendar year. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate standed adjourned till senate standed adjourned till

mr. cole mr. mcclintock. mr. world. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> have all members voted? the clerk will report.

>> eyes are 11, nose or 17. >> the amendment is not adopted. where moving at the request of the minority to amend amendment number 20. >> amendment number 20 relating the student loans. >> a gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we had a debate about college affordability earlier. this will focus on financial aid and refinancing a student loans. this amendment would allow us to have higher interest you won't be able to refinance at a lower rate and restore vital funding into the pell grant funding. the republican budget would cut 202 billion. the program helped a million

college students each year. helped me when i went through college and is something that helps to make sure anyone who can least afford college, if they are smart enough to be able to go to the university. share some comments. having a little voice issue. she does represent michigan, ann arbor. i would urge the majority to consider this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back his time. >> i think the chairman. no secret is generations seems to take on more than the last. as the government gets more involved in how our education is run we need to look at real solutions. throwing more money at students is not the answer.

in fact, it causes large part of increased tuition. higher education budgets will rise to meet the level. schools know the federal government will pay everyone's tuition there is no incentive for schools to budget which is indeed the case we have now. with that ii simply would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment knowing that the authorizing committee education workforce will be taking up these issues in great detail >> recognized from one minute to close. >> i would like to remind everyone, not simply putting more money in. hence the amendment we had earlier.

allergy to support this amendment. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> of all members voted? >> the amendment is not adopted. next up will be amendment number 21. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> we are debating federal budget here at a time we are experiencing an economic recovery. a much lower unemployment rate, lower gas prices, the lowest uninsured rate in the history of the country.

healthy retirement account. real challenges. when it comes to paychecks, boosting wages and income inequality, but looking around the entire world we are fortunate to live in a country that has the strongest economy anywhere. that is at risk if this republican budget passes. it would weaken the recovery. in this budget republicans turn their backs on what makes america grow, great and strong. modern transportation systems and infrastructure. the democrats offering more optimistic vision command we will build on our economic recovery. we want everyone to succeed, not just shower tax breaks upon the wealthiest in the country. that is what my amendment our infrastructure is all about. we passed the transportation

infrastructure bill last year, but that was treading water. goes to what congressman ryan had said. we are simply just doing deferred maintenance and can do better. we can build better airports. we have to invest in our ports. i'm going to turn it over his they're is no better example than what happened here today with the transit system. >> thank you. thank you for this amendment. we discussed earlier the fact that there was a five-year plan in place. most people on both sides of the aisle know that is just a bare-bones current maintenance budget. does not provide for a significant modernization and expansion, and i was just checking out about the

status of the washington metro system which was close down today because of the aging infrastructure, problems with the electric cables. a number of issues, but clearly adequate funding and resources is a continuing problem transit systems as well as road and bridge modernization. you're right, this is badly needed. but we are seeing is an example of how we need to do better in terms of investing in modernizing. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> i thinki think the chair. i would like to yield to my friend also member of the transportation committee. >> i think the gentleman for yielding. is it a joy to -- it is a joy to serve because these are shared challenges

command we have worked collaboratively to deal with them. longest term transportation bill passed by congress in two decades, project you and i have done together. but i have to say, the social contract is user pays in the social contract on transportation is user pays. in the great state of georgia hello tax jurisdiction, just raised 1 billion in new transportation infrastructure money because we have needs that are unsatisfied. george's most conservative county offered $200 million bonding initiative for transportation is that are going unsatisfied. a user pays the system monitored out well intended, brings out the same tired ideas of what the folks who already pay