sometimes a higher sentence than the judge wants to give. but a judge is equally required to reject a prosecutor's failure to oppose unjustified reductions. but this is, frankly, mr. president -- frankly, this is president obama's policy. and the attorney general who he's appointed, loretta lynch's policy. and eric holder before her, to basically cut people's sentences that have been lawfully imposed throughout this country, and it's impacting public safety, in my opinion, and will continue to do so in the future. judges must protect the rights of the accused absolutely and give them a fair hearing as they are required. but they must give the rights of the people a fair trial also. and the police and the prosecutors a fair trial. these kinds of cases cause

concern about who's protecting the public. would judge xinis be more likely to follow the pattern of joyce roy lambreth and say no or go along with these other cases? over the past year our law enforcement officers across the country have been shot at, assaulted and murdered too often simply because they wear a badge. in the last year we've lost 123 police officers, 35 in the first four months of 2016. violent crimes and murders have increased across the country at alarming rates. let me just share with my colleagues some of the things we're seeing in the trends in violent crimes. recently the major cities chiefs of police association, a long-established group called an emergency meeting to deal with

the numbers i'm going to share with you today. the numbers i will quote represent the percentage of increase in total murders in the first quarter of this year -- 2016 -- over the first quarter of 2015. las vegas, 82% increase. dallas, texas, 73% increase. chicago, 70%. jacksonville, florida, 67%. newark, new jersey, 60% increase. miami dade, 38%. los angeles, 33%. atlanta, 20%. baltimore, 10%. these are substantial increases in crime. now the f.b.i. director, mr. comey, long-term, experienced law officer, served at the top of the department of justice as a prosecutor, he recently said he believes the push-back on police officers, this trend of attacking and

blaming police officers, has caused some draw-back and reluctance of police officers to take on situations like the guy at the store standing out front that was cursing the police officer. properly handled, those kind of things reduce crime. they help violence not to start. and once they get started, bad things can happen, often somebody gets killed. it's not like on television where somebody punches somebody and they get up and walk away and laugh about it. a good punch breaks teeth, jaws and can kill. so i will just say this kind of increase in murder rates is really significant, and we've got to be aware of it. lives are at stake. many innocent people. if we get off the right path,

we'll lose their lives as a result of criminal conduct, and you think about some like kate steinle in california with her father murdered by a multideported illegal immigrant. so judges have to, judges have to know this isn't a game. we don't want to put anybody in jail. but if you don't maintain order in cities, chaos can result, innocent people will die, prosperity will be reduced. according to the f.b.i. statistics released just this year, the number of violent crimes committed across the country was up in the first half of 2015 compared with the same period of 2014. the number of murders, rapes and assaults and robberies were up all over the first six months of

2015. there was a 6.2% increase in murders, violent crime across america rose 5.3% in large cities. and overall, violent crime increased 1.7%, an increase that followed two consecutive years of decline. what i'm seeing is, in my judgment is that this is a long-term trend. i think we're going to continue to see this increase. i wish it weren't so, but i'm afraid it is. according to statistics released friday by the major cities police chiefs association, the number of homicides increased in the first months of 2016 in more than two dozen major cities. "the washington post" reports -- quote -- "the numbers were particularly grim for a handful of places, like chicago, los angeles, las vegas, dallas, where the numbers increased

dramatically. the article goes on to quote f.b.i. director comey. and this is what he said,-- quote -- "i was very worried about it last fall, and i am in many ways more worried because the numbers are not only going up, they're continuing to go up, and most of those cities faster than they were going up last year. something is happening. i don't know what the answer is, but holy cow, do we have a problem." he also said before our committee one time that he remembered the last crime wave in the 1970's and 1960's and how enforcement brought it down dramatically. he said we don't want to forget the lesson we learned previously. director comey has further suggested that a possible explanation for this spike in violent crime included gang and drug violence. he has also suggested that

greater scrutiny of police as they do their duty had possibly changed the way officers and communities interact, something he calls the -- quote -- "viral video effect" which he believes leads to less aggressive policing. less aggressive policing means more crime and more deaths. on mother's day weekend in chicago, more than 50 people were shot between friday afternoon and early monday. during a 3.5 hour period early saturday, one man was killed and 14 others wounded, as the "chicago tribune said -- quote -- "the equivalent of someone being shot every 14 minutes." according to the "tribune" police superintendent eddie johnson, -- quote -- "saved his harshest criticism for a criminal justice system that he said isn't putting away the

city's most dangerous offenders for long enough periods." -- quote -- "until we have real truth in sentencing and hold these offenders accountable, this will be the unfortunate reality in the city of chicago." close quote. according to a second article in "the washington post," april 2 of this year, violence is occurring at levels unseen for years in chicago. in the first quarter of 2016, 141 people were killed, up from 82 last year. the number of shoot -gdz surged to 677 from 359 the year before. the city's on track to have more than 500 killings this year, which would make this just the third year since 2004 that chicago has topped that figure."

well, now some say we have too many people in prison. you've heard that. it certainly is our responsibility in part inngresss that are smart, that protect the public, don't put too many people in jail, and strike the right balance. in the early 1980's, mid-1980's, congress passed in a bipartisan overwhelming vote mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines. they allowed dangerous people to be denied bail on appeal. they allowed people who make frivolous appeals, the judge to assert that there is no substantial basis for the appeal and leave them in jail while they do their appeal. because too many people were

filing for appeal just to stay out of jail and commit crimes while they were out. all those were great reforms. now they're under systematic attack. and during that entire period of time the crime rate in america went down. the murder rate in the late 1990's was half what it was in 1980. how many good people are alive today because of this improvement in law enforcement? we ended the revolving door so people were arrested again, arrested, released, committed another crime, arrested, they murder somebody. it was happening all the time and we didn't have jail capacity to put the people in jail. we didn't have enough people to deal with this surging crime rate. when you have 20%, 30%, 40% increases in crime, you're talking about doubling the crime rate, the murder rate in america

in two or three years. after we spent 20 years bringing it down by half. we've got to be sure what we are doing here, colleagues, is smart. and we're not signing death warrants for thousands of american innocent citizens. well, what is the prison situation today? population is going up. according to the bureau of justice statistics, the rate of imprisonment in the united states is at its lowest in a decade -- ten years. the federal prison population, 199,914 as of may 12, at its lowest level since 2006. since 2013 the federal prison population has decreased by over 20,000. it is projected to continue downward rather dramatically actually. according to the federal bureau

of prisons, the population is expected to drop another 10,000 this year, which will bring it to its lowest levels since 2005. the bureau of prisons, who house prisoners -- quote -- "projects that the inmate population will continue to decline for the next couple of years, particularly as a result of the retroactive changes to the sentencing guidelines." close quote. indeed, the 46,276 federal drug trafficking inmates made eligible for early release comprise 25% of the current prison population. admissions to federal prisons have declined every year since 2011 and will likely decline further due to the obama administration's policy directing prosecutors not to charge certain significant

offenses. well, i don't think that this congress has a duty to confirm everyone that is supported by the president. we know that the president has hostility to prisons. he's directed his attorney general to reduce prison population, and that's happening. he's directed the bureau of prisons to participate in this. he has directed the attorney general and the attorney general has agreed and issued policies that reject attorney general thornburgh's policies when i was a united states attorney. basically the thornburgh policy was if a person used a gun during a crime, a bank robbery or drug dealing, they're required under the law to get an additional five years penalty in

addition, because the goal was to deter people from carrying guns during criminal acts. therefore, having fewer people killed in this country. it actually worked. it was part of the declining murder rate, in my opinion, clearly. and you were required to charge because a lawsuit, if you carry a gun, you must get five years in addition to the other penalty. and so the other attorney general basically tells everybody, you prosecutors, you don't have to charge that. in fact, we don't want you to charge too much on these kind of cases. as a result, the prosecutions are down, drug prescriptions drugs -- drug prosecutions are down 21% and the sentencing is down too. when i asked the attorney general why are your prosecutions of these cases down so much, she said they're prosecuting bigger cases, which i've got to tell you, for the last 50 years that's the excuses

prosecutors use for having declining statistics. they say, well, we're working bigger cases. but regardless, if you're working bigger cases, why are sentencings down? presumably she is saying we're prosecuting more severe criminals but the sentencings are going down. we're seeing from the prosecutorial end here a significant retrenchment or backing off of strong prosecution policies. the judge gets a lifetime appointment that's no longer accountable to the american people or anyone else, for that matter. he is not entitled to confirmation if we have doubts about the ability over the years to treat police fairly, protect the public from serious

criminals. it certainly does not send a positive message to the police and to the community in baltimore where she will hear cases, if confirmed. last year was the deadliest year in baltimore's history, 344 murders and countless crimes against persons and property. i believe miss xinis' record demonstrates such a lack of understanding of the reality of law enforcement and the duty by our whole criminal justice system to protect the public as to disqualify her from the federal bench, and that's why i will oppose her nomination. i don't believe that she has -- that she lacks the personal qualities or the integrity needed to be a judge, to be a successful person throughout her life and whatever job she holds. she certainly has many admirers,

and i'm not questioning that, but her record as i have discussed indicates that approach to law enforcement does not justify this important lifetime appointment. mr. president, i would thank the chair and yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, over the past few months, the zika virus has not only spread across the caribbean and latin america, it's become a matter of grave concern here in the united states. although many of the symptoms are relatively minor, the zika has been found to cause severe birth defects in children if the virus is acquired by a woman of child-bearing age who is, in fact, pregnant. and places where the virus has been especially active, experts have found alarming rates of

infants born with something called microcephaly. in other words, they have basically a shrunken skull, obviously a profoundly damaging birth defect, and this is due to the mothers being infected with the virus while pregnant. as the weather continues to warm, more and more texans are rightly concerned about the continued spread of the virus in our state because it is transmitted primarily by mosquitoes but not just any mosquito but those that are known to be present in places like texas, florida, louisiana, some of the warmer areas, but we don't know whether that will always be the case, whether they will expand their range or just exactly how this could unroll. in fact, cases in 11 texas counties have already been confirmed, including austin, houston and dallas. one important distinction is these cases are tied to people

traveling to latin america or puerto rico or central america right now. in other words, there have been no confirmed case, i believe, by the center for disease control of anybody actually being bitten by a mosquito in the united states having acquired the zika virus. but that doesn't mean that it's not potentially dangerous. in fact, for the reasons i've mentioned along the fact that we now have at least a couple of cases of confirmed sexual transmission of the zika virus. fortunately texas -- texas' top research and medical facilities have been working on ways to prevent the spread of zika virus and to protect all americans from its symptoms. a few months ago i visited with some of those at the university of texas medical branch at galveston where they told me about their work in brazil studying this virus, and as the world leader in mosquito borne

viruses, that i research is continually groundbreaking. in fact, recently the brazilian health care ministry announced a collaboration with researchers at the university of texas medical branch at galveston to help them develop a zika virus vaccine. they've also had experience when it comes to tackling other large-scale viruses. last year utmb was named one of the first regional ebola treatment centers in the country, and utmb researchers went on to develop an effective quick acting ebola vaccine. so when they stressed the urgent need for the united states to approach this virus in a careful and deliberate manner, i listened to what they were telling me. i heard a similar message when i visited the texas medical center recently in houston. they, too, are medical pioneers and are working to create a rapid test for the virus and to

strengthen mosquito control in potential hot spots. interestingly, this is one of the most important components of dealing with the zika virus, and that is mosquito control. and indeed we'll hear more about some of the e.p.a. regulations that are currently in effect which discourage or inhibit the ability of local public health units in places like houston, galveston and elsewhere to actually control the mosquito population. we'll talk more about that lat later. but like the researchers in galveston, these folks at the texas medical center urge congressional action so that our country can be better prepared to handle this potential health crisis instead of having to react after the fact. i remember very clearly when the cases of ebola were confirmed in dallas, how people felt overwhelmed by the fast developing situation on the ground, so much that they really did not feel like they were

totally prepared ahead of time to deal with it. we don't want to make that mistake twice when it comes to the zika virus. conversations i've had with these texas institutions as well as the secretary of health and human services and the director of the centers for disease control c.d.c. have underscored to me the need to act with urge si to avert what -- urgency to avert would could become a major health crisis in this country. because states like mine boast a warmer climate and are closer proximity to where the mosquitoes that currently carry the zika virus are located, we will likely serve as on the front line really in dealing with this response nationwide this summer. so congress can't afford to sit back and do nothing. i don't hear anybody say do nothing. i hear everybody saying we need to act clearly and with dispatch and without unnecessary delay,

but part of what we need to do is make sure we have a plan in place and that we are executing a plan in a way that maximizes the effectiveness and combating not only the mosquitoes that carry this virus but also the virus itself. we've got to make sure that our public health officials on the front line of research and prevention have the resources they need to get the job done, too. so fortunately tomorrow the senate will vote on several pieces of legislation designed to provide additional federal funding so public officials can handle this crisis, this impending crisis head-on. the first probably is from the president of the united states, president obama. president obama has made a spending request of nearly $2 billion that isn't paid for. it's emergency funding meaning the funding would be deficit increasing and debt increasing, and also the president's proposal to spend $2 billion

comes without very much in the way of a plan about how to the administration would use the money. i guess they're asking us to trust them, but frankly i think we have a greater responsibility to make sure that the money will be put to good use and that we've appropriated an adequate amount of money but not more money than is necessary to deal with this potential crisis. the second piece of legislation we will vote on is a compromise package that was negotiated between the chairman and the ranging member of the labor and health and human services appropriations subcommittee in a bipartisan and common sense way, and i congratulate senator blunt and senator murray for working through this in an orderly sort of process, and i commend them on reaching an agreement. this bill is really -- their compromise bill is basically for $1.1 billion.

in other words, it's not the didded 1.9 billion the president has requested. they thought the $1.1 billion was more accurate and justifiable number. unfortunately the legislation that has been negotiated with the chairman and ranking member of the labor and health and human services appropriations subcommittee is not paid for either. so what this would do essentially is borrow from our children and grandchildren to meet the exgeneral sis of this crisis. the good news is we have a third option which i want to talk about briefly and that's a third piece of legislation that i've introduced which is nearly identical to the blunt-murray proposal, the appropriations subcommittee proposal. it would also provide a compromise of $1.1 billion in federal funding targeted toward health care professionals across the country. but my bill has a key distinction. it's fully paid for, and you

might ask where does that money come from. well, back when the affordable care act or obamacare has it's now become to be known was passed, it included a provision for prevention and public health fund. this again was part of the affordable care act. and the purpose that was stated in the legislation was to provide for expanded and sustained national investment and prevention -- in prevention and public health programs. in other words, it could have been tailor made to deal with this potential zika crisis. so what i would propose is that we deal with the problem without delay, we appropriate the right amount of money which both democrats and republicans at least in the appropriations committee have agreed is $1.1 billion, but that we take available funds and funds that will be available under the

prevention and public health fund and we pay for it. you wouldn't think that that would be particularly revolutionary or novel around here, but unfortunately i think too often what we do is we act in an emergency or to avert an emergency and we don't follow through in a way and do it in a fiscally responsible sort of way. so the fact of the matter is we do need to address the zika virus. there is no doubt about that. there's no difference among us here in this chamber or in congress about the need to deal with that. as a matter of fact, the house of representatives has proposed a version of their response today i believe. but we need to do this responsibly. there's no reason why we have to put our country deeper in debt to protect ourselves against this virus. we don't have an endless supply of money and the federal treasury can't just keep printing money, and we can't just keep imposing on our

children and grandchildren the responsibilities to pay the money back that we continue to borrow, particularly when we have a fund available to offset this expenditure. our growing debts a the presiding officer well knows is and of itself a threat to our country, its future and way of life. he and i have listened, for example, the senator from georgia, senator perdue talk about what impact it has, not only to withstands another financial crisis but simply to fund such essential functions like the federal government like significance defense, particularly as the interest rates are going to go up, more and more money is going to be paid to our bond holders like china and others instead of paying for essential functions of the government like national defense or safety net programs

-- programs we all agree are worthwhile. so if we can deal with this potential crisis and do so in a fiscally responsible way without growing the debt, then we ought to do that. this should be a no brainer. so we should take this opportunity, mr. president, tomorrow to give our public health officials and local officials back home the resources they need to protect our constituents, the american people, against the spread of the zika virus but we ought to do so without adding to our mounting debt. fortunately this legislation also includes a provision that would waive provisions of the clean water act. i referred to those a little earlier and permit state and local officials to spray to protect against mosquitoes year round. unfortunately, this particular legislation, the clean water act, has provisions in it which essentially ties the hands of public health officials when it

comes to mosquito eradication which is one of the essential components of a strategy to defeat this potential crisis. so we all agree that the zika virus is a real threat with real public health consequences. it's already impacted a generation in brazil and other latin america companies. it's apparently rampant in puerto rico and haiti, we're told, and there's no question it's coming our way. and with the summer months ahead of us, the potential for this virus to spread to the united states is a major concern that we ought to address with dispatch. so we have to give those on the ground the tools and support they need to address this threat, but we have to do so in a responsible way. so i urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the legislation which funds the -- funds the zika prevention program at $1.1 billion but pays for it out of the prevention and public health fund as apparently

this fund was created to do, to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention in public health programs. i urge my colleagues on both sides to support this legislation when we have a chance to vote tomorrow. the time so act is now. mr. president, i yield the floor. i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:# quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, paula xinis of maryland to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 60 minutes for debate only on the nomination with time equally divided in the usual form. mr. portman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i rise today to talk about the zika virus. we'll have a vote on this tomorrow. tonight i want to talk p the need for us to move forward with emergency funding with regard to this virus. we need to combat it. it's spreading. it poses a threat to the safety of women, children and the elderly. it's particularly important that we keep it from spreading because there is no known zika vaccine or treatment. a lot of my constituents have been asking about this back home, and this is a virus that has spread from africa to asia

to latin america and now coming into our own country. it's spreading so quickly because it's insidious. it's difficult to test for it because it's easily confused with other viruses like denge. it can only be detected in a few days after you get it in the blood. many of its symptoms in older adults are similar to other viruses such as influenza, so it's tough to know whether you have it or not. it's typically contracted simply by being bitten by a mosquito. two kinds of mosquitoes, both of which are in the united states are the problems. it can also be transmitted we now know by sexual activity. we're told that men may be able to sexually transmit the virus for months after the initial infection based on some experiences. so again, this is a difficult issue. some people may not even know that they have it, and yet they might be spreading it. it's accelerating, this spread. it took 60 years for zika to make it out of africa to the pacific. just eight years after that, it had reached the western

hemisphere in latin america. today it's infected people in 62 countries, including the united states, and 34 other countries in the americas. so pretty much every country in the americas is now infected with it. hundreds of americans have been infected. we know of nearly 500, including 48 pregnant women, 12 people in my home state of ohio, in fact. thus far, it looks like all of the americans who have become infected did so by traveling overseas, being intechnicalled by the mosquito or by sexual contact with someone who has zika. the world health organization calls it -- quote -- a threat of alarming proportions because it's spreading so quickly and because it has such serious consequences for the most vulnerable in our society, particularly the elderly. an older gentleman in puerto rico recently died of zika. children. babies in the womb, which we'll talk about in a second and pregnant women. as zika has spread, health officials have reported an increased incidence of babies born with this birth defect,

horrible birth defect where a baby's head and brain are abnormally small. the consequences of this birth defect are absolutely tragic. these kids have seizures, slow development, intellectual disabilities, often loss of hearing and vision. the consequences last a lifetime and there is no known cure for this disease. so we don't want any child to have to suffer through that. it's in all of our interest to protect more babies from this syndrome. in brazil there have been more than 900 confirmed cases since zika arrived, another 4,000 suspected cases. these are conservative estimates. it is a 600% increase year to year. officials also t*el -- tell us that zika can cause guillain-barre syndrome which causes the body's immune system to attack its own nerves. in bad cases it can cause paralysis, loss of sensation.

this can happen to anyone, not just newborns. we're talking about adults as well, of course. these are two of the neurological side effects that can result. like zika they are thought to be incurable. for most adults, zika is not fatal. but for the most vulnerable like the elderly or unborn it can be a sentence to a life of suffering and disability, even death. i mentioned the gentleman in puerto rico, 70 years old, died just last week after having been infected with zika, a fellow american. his immune system began to attack the platelets in his blood so they couldn't clot. that was the effect for him. as zika spreads it becomes clear that our response has to be aggressive internationally and nationally. it has to be aggressive and therefore it has to be funded. that's why i think it is important we move forward with emergency funding for what is truly an emergency. i thank my colleagues for the steps they have already taken to improve our response. mr. president, in march, you may remember this body passed and

president obama signed into law bipartisan legislation which i cosponsored led by senator al franken that would give accelerated priority review at the food and drug administration for new drugs and vaccines that could possibly treat zika. this is very important and i applaud the senate for moving quickly and the administration for that. it is a critical step. right now there is no cure, no treatment. president obama signed that into law. i'm grateful for the administration for redirecting more than $500 million of residual ebola funds originally appropriated by congress to deal with ebola and were not necessary. they stopped using those for ebola and shipped those over to zika to stop it from spreading even faster. so i applaud them for that as well. again, we've got more work to do. again, it's my view we ought to move forward with emergency funding. there was a proposal that was finalized, i believe, just last week, thursday or friday, from senator blunt and senator murray. it goes a long way toward dealing with this issue. the majority of the health

funding is here in the united states while the rest would go to international immigration purposes so we can keep zika from crossing our borders again. a lot of -p funding goes to c.d.c., i think the majority of it right now in their proposal. this is the centers for disease control and prevention to enhance mosquito control programs, enhance infrastructure for testing of zika and assess pregnancy testing risk. this is emergency funding. some of the funding would provide health services for pregnant women in puerto rico right away and invest in scientific research for a treatment, for a vaccine. this may be the most important thing that we do. these are critical priorities. we have maintained the hyde protections in this. protecting innocent babies from these birth defects. we want this funding to be used to preserve life and help the vulnerable and should be targeted toward that end. we need to ensure adequate funding. we have tools at our disposal already that we could be using

more aggressively. i've remained in contact with the secretary of the air force as this virus has spread to make it clear that in ohio we have reservists at youngstown air station who are ready to help. this is in youngstown ohio, the home of the 905th airlift wing. it's used by the military all over the united states. they have played key roles in other public health emergencies including spraying millions of acres in louisiana and texas for mosquito abatement after hurricane katrina. i believe they should play that same role now and they're ready to do it but frankly they need an upgrade in their equipment to be able to do it. as rear admiral and dr. steven redd of the c.d.c. told me in the homeland security and governmental affairs committee there could be a role for a lot of enterprises. he said one of the things that we really need to look at that's important is that the zika virus

outbreak is pointing out the need to revitalize these mosquito control efforts. end quote. i couldn't agree with him more. we need to revitalize these efforts to make sure we have them and again to use tools that are at our disposal right now. if zika were to spread around the country it is incredibly important that we have this control effort. so, mr. president, i hope we'll move forward on this, even in the next couple of days, send this legislation to the president for his signature and get moving on dealing with the zika emergency that we have before us. people all over ohio ask me about it because they're worried about it. we need to keep our constituents safe, need to give them peace of mind. adopting the amendment which i think we're going to again have before us in the next couple of days i think is the best action we can take right now to achieve those goals and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support emergency funding for this purpose. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time.

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. hraeup lay mr. president, it's been -- mr. leahy: mr. president, it's been five weeks since the senate last confirmed a judicial nominee. in that time judicial vacancies continued to increase. unfortunately the republican leader repeatedly rejected to unanimous consent motions made to overcome the obstruction of 20 judicial nominees. these are nominees that were unanimously voted out of committee awaiting a confirmation vote. paula xinis who we'll vote on today was nominated more than a year ago to fill an emergency vacancy, not just a regular vacancy. emergency vacancy. nominated a yearing a. -p emergency vacancy in maryland. the a.b.a.'s standing committee and the federal judiciary unanimously rated ms. xinis well

qualified to serve on the district court. they gave paula xinis its highest rating. after we vote on paula xinis' nomination today there are still 19 executive nominations pending on the calendar waiting for confirmation vote. every single one of these nominees was voted out of the judiciary committee unanimously. instead of allowing a vote on these nominees on a regular basis, the republican leader objects to the senate being able to do our job. after today's vote next in line for consideration is a district court nominee from new jersey and then a district court nominee from nebraska. i know the senators from new jersey are pushing for a vote on the nominee to serve from their state and i know the senators from nebraska are urging the leadership to schedule a

nomination on robert rossiter. that vacancy has been pending for over a year and a half. there is no good reason for votes on these nominees to be further delayed. i was heartened to hear the majority leader last week make the point that election year is not an excuse to not do our work. i couldn't agree more. that is why in the last two years of the george w. bush administration, when i served as chairman of the judiciary committee, we confirmed 68 of president bush's judicial nominees. that's compared to the handful the republicans have allowed president obama. we confirmed 68 of president bush's judicial nominees and we confirmed right up to the time we went out for the elections in september. not in june or july or may, but

in september. we've also confirmed more than dozens of supreme court justices in presidential election years. many in this senate served, the last one of those we had of course was during president reagan's final year in office. we did so because we knew the supreme court should not be held hostage to election year politics, and yet they're being held hostage in election year politics because we're not doing our job, and they had a couple more voted for opinions today. so i urge the majority leader toed his own add -- to heed his own advice. i urge the chairman of the judiciary committee to follow suit by scheduling confirmation hearing for chief judge garland, again, so we can do our job. and i would ask also unanimous consent that a statement of mine

regarding reauthorization of key elements of the act first enacted nearly ten years ago and talking about the work i've done with john walsh and others. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: thank you. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise to speak in support of the nomination of paula xinis to serve on the district court of maryland. i know senator cardin will be coming to the floor shortly to also comment on ms. xinis' nomination. senator cardin and i recommended ms. xinis to president obama with the utmost confidence in her abilities, talent, and competence for the job. she is a brilliant litigator, a

dedicated public servant. the judiciary committee agreed with us because they also voted her out of the committee unanimously. i want to thank senator mcconnell, the majority leader, for scheduling this vote and for senator grassley for moving this nomination, and to my very good and dear friend, senator leahy, the vice chairman of the committee, who's been a strong advocate not only for this nomination but for moving all nominations forward as voted out by the committee in a prompt way. as i talk about ms. xinis, i want you to know, mr. president, that i've recommended several judicial nominees for district and appellate courts. and i take my advise and consent responsibility very seriously. when i recommend to the president a position on the district court, i have four criteria. absolute integrity, judicial competence and temperament, a

commitment to core constitutional principles and a history of civic engagement in maryland. ms. xinis exceeds h these expectations over and beyond. thee has dedicated her career to the rule of law, achieving equal justice under the law and also being an advocate for the underdog. she's truly an outstanding nominee. a long history of public service, 14 years as a federal public defender, handling from the simple most misdemeanors to very complex white-collar crimes. she's also taken on extra duties, training staff and also been to the attorney supervisor for research in writing, proving time and time again how committed and dedicated she is. she worked as a clerk for the distinguished and esteemed judge diana gibbons, a well-respected judge on the fourth circuit. she also has been a member of

the private sector as a senior trial partner in a private law firm in baltimore taking on complex civil litigation and protecting those who have been harmed by lead paint or carbon dioxide poisoning. judge motz in recommending ms. xinis to me said she is so intelligent and generous in terms of working very hard, in terms of knowing the law and practicing the law, but she also commented on her work ethic, praising her skill in the courtroom, her service to the community. she's men toward children -- mentored children, provided legal advice to communities in baltimore, served on numerous bar associations. she has a deep appreciation for the law and everything that it means. i do believe that she will be an outstanding judge. now there have been criticisms raised of ms. xinis, and the criticisms have centered around the, her support within the law

enforcement community. flashing yellow lights were raised by one of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, is does she have an impartial attitude towards police officers. well, mr. president, i have six letters here from retired police officers in baltimore city, all atesting to that. i would like to ask unanimous consent that i submit these letters. one is from someone who is a 20-year veteran working in western district. if you know western district, that's where they film "the wire." rough, tough, hard scrabble. this former police sergeant said, in closing, as a 20-year member of law enforcement, i know firsthand the need to have judges that are well balanced, fair and a great listener. that is why i proudly recommend ms. xinis to the position of district judge. i won't go through every letter. the record will speak for itself. but when you have retired police

officers, those who are not on -- who have worked with her hands on, who know the way she works with law enforcement, the way she engages with them when she was a public defender and soen 0, i think these letters -- and so on, i think these letters speak for themselves. again, each one of these is there. so i ask unanimous consent that these letters be submitted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: let me just say this. in my job as a united states senator, my job to recommend someone to be a judge is an enor news responsibility. i take it very, very seriously, and i would only recommend somebody who way is truly equal tied to render impartial justice and bring the compensatecy and the temperament to do that. i believe that ms. xinis

supposes the judicial temperament and competency an. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i join senator mikulski, the two senators from maryland, in strongly recommending the favorable consideration of paula xinis for the district court judgeship of maryland. i just first want to acknowledge the leadership of our senior senator from maryland in developing a process in which we screen the most talented people for opportunities to serve on our federal bench. this is a professional process that we have gone forward with under senator mikulski's leadership in order to try to get the very best on our courts. it's not a partisan issue at all. it's strictly looking for those who have the judicial temperament, the experience to be able to be an outstanding member of the bench.

we've done that on previous nominations that have been considered on this floor, and paula xinis follows in that tradition, and i thank senator mikulski for the process that we went forward in making this recommendation to president obama. i might tell you, president obama then forwarded the nomination to the united states senate in march of last year. in march of 2015. it took six months for the judiciary committee to make its recommendations to the full floor in september of 2015. it was not a controversial nomination in the committee. the committee reviewed all of ms. xinis' background record, everything she has done, and on a very strong voice vote brought her forward to the full flew floor. so this is not a controversial nomination. because of the delay, this was originally to fill the vacancy of deborah chasnow, who took

senior status, it is now a judicial emergency. the people of maryland are in a des prate situation to have an adequate number of judges to handle the workload in our district. and it is critically important that we fof forward in the -- we move forward in the confirmation of this nominee. senator mikulski has pointed out how qualified this person s i could tell you, over the last several months, i have been stopped on numerous occasions by attorneys and non-attorneys in maryland saying, why isn't paula xinis confirmed by now? she is a wonderful person, we've had experience with her. i've heard just glowing comments about her dedication to our community, her professional competency, and her quftions to serve -- her qualifications to serve on the u.s. district court. it is for that reason, the a.b.a. gave her the high of the ratings in their review of her qualifications. she has been in private practice of law at murphy, fail korntion

and murphy -- at murphy, falcon, and murphy. she's been an assistant federal public defender, showing her compassion to represent some of the most difficult cases in our criminal justice system. she was a law clerk for judge motts on the 4th circuit court of appeals. she has devoted her life to understanding our legal system to carry out its major charge to make sure we have equal access to justice under the law. she got her j.d. from yale law school, a b.a. from the university of virginia. but what i really appreciated in et going to know paula xinis better during this confirmation process is to know her family background. she represents the american story. her father was an immigrant from greece, came over with very little resources, able to take advantage of the opportunities in this country as an immigrant family and now paula xinis has been nominated by president obama to serve on the district

court for maryland. quite a success story. paula xinis has never forgotten her background. she's always been giving back to our community. she is known for her pro-bone no work, for her -- for her pro bono work, for her church members. what she has done in working with the house mentoring program, she has taken on some of the most difficult challenges that affect the lives of people who are less fortunate. she has the whole package. she's make a great district judge. senator mikulski meptioned the comments made on the floor with regard to her support for law enforcement and police officers. i hope in anyone has any question at all about that read the letters that senator mikulski put into the record. i know of some of these records,

the case of timothy john longo, who was -- who served in the baltimore city police department, the former -- now the chief of police for charlottesville, virginia, when he said, i have sliewt absolutely no doubt that plawl will bring the competence and objectivity to discharge the duties of such a position. she has my unfettered support. or thomas schmidt that ms. xinis represented when he was accused of wrongdoing as a police officer. she represented him in the most challenge and as mr. schmidt said, that throughout the entire ordeal, i spent countless hours with paula and her team. they worked diligently seeking evidence needed to exonerate me. although it was an extremely dark tomb for me, she always made me feel confident that she had my back and that she was dedicated to seeing that i was vindicated. thankfully, as a result of her

tireless efforts on my behalf, all the charges brought against me were dismiss earlier this year. she's been in the forefront of defending those who are defending us as first responders. and there's other letters that have been written by police officers indicating that paula xinis contains what they want to see in a judge, someone who is fair, impartial, and that will carry out the rule of law in an objective manner. so for all those reasons, mr. president, we bring you a nominee who is imminently qualified, deserves the support of this body and we'd urge our colleagues to support this nomination. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today the senate will vote on the nomination of paula xinis to be judge for the district of maryland, and i will support that nomination.

i come to the floor at this time to also talk about judges generally. i've been hearing the usual complaints from members of the minority party regarding the pace of judicial nominations i'd urge my colleagues to step comeback and look at the bigger picture. the relevant number to consider is the number of confirmations during an entire presidency. at this point in his presidency, president george bush had 303 judicial nominees confirmed. after tonight's vote, so far in his presidency, president obama will have 325 confirmed. that's 22 more nominees than bush had. so as we continue to hear complaints about how many judges are being confirmed, we should put these claintses in context -- these complaints in context. the simple fact is that president obama has had quite a

few more nominees confirmed than president bush did. further, i'd note that as chairman, after this wednesday, i will have held hearings for the same number of nominees this congress has had as the last chairman of the committee did to this point during the last two years of president bush's presidency. at this point in the 2008 congress, that would be the 110th congress, the former chairman held hearings on 43 nominees and at the end of may this year, we'll have held hearings on 43 nominees thus far in the 114th congress. mr. president, i see one other member on the floor, and if that member doesn't -- or two members i see on the floor. if none of those members seek recognition, i'd like to speak for five minutes on another subject. but i won't do it if anybody else wants to speak.

mr. president, today -- this would be to be placed in morning business. today i introduced a bipartisan resolution to commemorate national police week, which this year began on sunday, may 15, and ends sunday, may 21. senator leahy and 52 others have joined me as original cosponsors of the measure. the theme of this year's police week is -- quote, unquote -- "honoring our heroes." national police week is dedicated to the brave men and women in blue who selfishly protect and serve our communities. every hour of every day of every week and in every community across the united states. the week affords an opportunity to honor those who have made the ultimate matter sacrifice while striving to make our neighborhoods safer and more secure.

multiple events have taken place in washington, d.c., over the past week to not only remember those officers who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty but also to honor outstanding acts of valor and service by many others. tens of thousands of police officers as well as their friends and family members have gathered in our nation's capital for these events, which includes the annual blue mass, a candlelight vigil, and a police unity tour arrival ceremony, among other events. yesterday was national police officers memorial day and thousands gathered on the west front of the capitol for the 35th annual national peace officers memorial service. this solemn service offered an opportunity for all of us to pay our respects to fallen officers and the families and communities and law enforcement agencies

that have been permanently altered because they paid the ultimate sacrifice. we owe these brave men and women our utmost respect and gratitude as we honor their noble professional this week. each of the officers killed in the line of duty this year started their shift with the same goal: to do some good, back up my fellow officers, and return home safely. some of these officers had dedicated decades of their lives to protecting their communities. one of these officers was murdered mere hours after being sworn in to her oath of service. at the national law enforcement officers memorial, the names of some 200 iowans are inscribed mongt their law enforcement officer, carved into the memorial wall are the names of more than 20,000 men and women who have been killed in the line

of duty throughout u.s. history. each are unique in their own personal stories, but they are uniform in their fidelity to justice and truth. the individuals are heroes, not because of the manner in which they died but because that time and again they answered a call to do right, impervious to the constant lurking of danger. regrettably, 123 new names of officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 will be added to the rolls this week, and we know that they will not be the last. mr. president, men and women of law enforcement make sacrifices, both big and small, frequently missing family celebrations and holidays because they believe in

serving something greater than themselves. the work of law enforcement is not a job; it is a calling. that calling and those officers' devotion to duty merit our admiration, and we're deeply indebted to them. i call on all americans this week to pause and contemplate the safety and security they enjoy. we all must recognize that such peace is the result of sacrifices made by brave men and women of law enforcement. i also want to take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to support this year's resolution designating national police week. mr. president, i don't -- mr. president, i yield back all remaining time. the presiding officer: without objection. all time is yielded back.

the question occurs on the xinis nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will now call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 35erbgs the nays are 44. the exftion is -- the nomination confirmed. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's, a the senate will resume legislative session. the senator iowa. mr. grassley: i ask permission to put in the record following my remarks a copy of a newspaper amplet. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: income inequality has been a hot topic this campaign season. it has become the rallying cry

of the left to support their economic agenda. whether it's taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, combating global warming, or any other number of policies. if you listen to secretary clinton or senator sanders on the campaign trail, you would get the imfrom eggs that income inequality -- impression that income inequality is the fault of republicans. they contend these two candida candidates -- these two candidates contend that their preferred policies will close the gap between the rich and the poor. however, the inconvenient fact is that inequality rose considerably more under president clinton than it did under president reagan. further, it has increased more under president obama than it did under president bush.

for any of my colleagues wondering how this could be the case, i would encourage them to read lawrence lynnsing's op ed piece that ran in "the wall street journal" now almost two months ago in march. i put -- that's the article that i'm putting in the record. mr. lindsey's article titled "how progressives drive income inequality" details how liberal policies have not only failed to reduce income inequality but may in fact be contributing to it. for instance, my colleagues on the left all too frequently look to ever richer and more expensive transfer payment programs as a solution. however, too often our existing transfer programs meant to help

the less fortunate act as an anchor preventing americans from climbing up the income ladder. this risk creating a permanent underclass of citizens that are dependent on the state for their basic needs. that may be the dream of european style social democrats, but it is most certainly not the american dream. the congressional budget office looks at this effect in terms of marginal effective tax rates on low and moderate income workers. this refers to how much extra tax or reduction in government benefits is imposed on an american worker when he or she turns just one additional dollar of income. congressional budget office

estimates that in 2016 those under 4050 -- 450% of the poverty level will face an average effective tax rate of about 41%. now keep in mind that is just the average. c.b.o. demonstrates how a substantial number of workers could experience marginal effective rates exceeding 50%, 60%, or even 80% which is far higher than the top statutory rate of 39 and 6/10 percent paid by the highest income americans. the end result is a worker facing these rates may just decide as common sense ought to tell you that it doesn't make much sense to take on extra hours or put in the extra effort to learn extra skills to

increase their earning potential. historically, this has impacted married women in the work force most of all as they are more likely than men to drop out of the work force completely as a result. federal government policies discouraging individuals from entering the labor force, taking on more work hours, gaining extra experience, or learning new skills is a recipe for stagnant incomes and increased income inequality. why discourage workers from productive enterprise but far from seeking to address these work disincentive programs, president obama has made it worse for millions of workers.

take the premium tax credit enacted as part of the affordable care act. c.b.o. estimates that it will raise the marginal tax rates by an estimated 12 percentage points per recipient. secretary clinton and senator sanders also have provided no indication that they would reverse this trend. in fact, they appear to only be interested in exacerbating this problem through richer transfer programs, increased cost unemployers and increase take roll taxes. the scapegoat of the income inequality debate on the left has of course been the much top 1 percent. here we're told if we just tax the rich, we can solve all of

the problems and address inequality in one fell swoop. but if increased taxes on the wealthy is the solution to income inequality, why, as i pointed out at the start of this -- of these remarks did income inequality grow faster under president clinton than under president reagan? and why has income inequality grown faster under president obama than under president bush. the fact of the matter is that taxing the wealthy to reduce income inequality at best is a fool's errand and at worse could be a blow to our economy, potentially harming individuals at all income levels. a recent research paper by

liberal brookings institute looked directly into the question of whether substantially increasing taxes on the wealthy would reduce income inequality. to quote their findings, an increase in the top tax rate leads to an almost inperceptible reduction in overall income inequality even if the additional revenue is explicitly redistributed, end of quote. raising taxes might be successful at generating revenue to fund greater well -- wealth of transfer of payments but it does nothing to rectify the gap. policies did not create greater opportunity for low income individuals. in fact, wealthy -- wealth transfer policies often have the

reverse effect of trapping their intended beneficiaries in sole crushing government dependency. moreover, because of their negative effects on economic growth and capital formation, they can reduce opportunity for all americans. you do not have to take my word for the antigrowth effects of increasing taxes. research by christina roamer, president obama's former chief economist found a tax increase of 1% of g.d.p. reduces economic growth by as much as 3%. according to this study, tax increases have such a substantial effect on economic growth because of the negative effect of tax increases on investment. in effect, what those who pursue

wealth destroying redistribution policies are really saying to quote margaret thatcher is that they -- quote -- "would rather that the poor were poorer provided that the rich were less rich." that may result in less differences in wealth between americans but at the expense of making us all worse off. our goal must be to create wealth and opportunities for all americans. we should reject the notion that in order to improve the lot of one individual, someone else must be made worse off. the leadership of the other side has become fixated on redistributing the existing economic pie.

the better policy is to increase the size of that economic pie. when this occurs, no one is made better off at the expense of anyone else. this is best achieved through pro-growth policies aimed at growing the economic pie, not by taking from some and giving to others. instead of seeking to reduce inequality by knocking the top down a few peggs on the in-- few pegs on the income ladder, policies should be focused on helping individuals climb upward by tearing down barriers that stand in their way. we all agree with the need for a sound safety net to protect the most vulnerable among us, but when that safety net begins to act like an anchor holding people back, we need to be brave enough to chart a new course.

this is what we sought to do with welfare reforms in 1994 to work requirements and incentives. it is once again time for us to review and reform programs so as to minimize as much as possible the current built-in work disincentives from transfer programs that i discussed oarlier -- discussed earlier. another often overlooked issue is the burden over regulation imposes on low income individuals. dr. mclaughlin in testimony before the senate judiciary committee subcommittee hearing earlier this year discussed two negative impacts regulation can have on low income households. first, while it is well

recognized that regulations can increase transaction costs for business, it's equally true that consumers feel the costs in the form of higher prices. since low income hospitals tend to spend rather than to save, a much larger share of their income, they are the ones hit hardest by regulatory costs. in this regard, regulation acts much like a regressive tax on the consumption of those that are the least well off. a second point made by dr. mclaughlin is that regulations can often create a barrier to entry setting out on one's own to start a business is american as apple pie is american. it is an avenue that americans

throughout history have taken to climb from the poorhouse to the penthouse, but the cost imposed by entry regulations can too often stand in their way. this directly limits opportunities for lower income individuals who are the least likely to be able to cut through the red tape and have money on hand to afford associated costs. research by dr. mclaughlin directly links entry regulations with income inequality. his study looked at the relationship between regulations and income inequality across 175 countries and found that stringent entry regulations are correlated with significantly higher levels of income inequality. on the campaign trail we have

heard senator sanders sing the virtues of denmark in his crusade against inequality. now, interestingly enough, denmark scores very well in the world's bank ease of doing business ranking which looks at the cost, time and overall red tape in starting and running a business. in fact, denmark is ranked third while the u.s. lags behind in seventh and has been consistently falling backwards since 2008. while senator sanders points to denmark as a model for the u.s. due to its tax and social reform policies, it's denmark's regulatory inefficiency that deserves our attention. in addition to reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers and built-in disincentives, there is no question that we need to do a better job ensuring

individuals have the skills necessary to compete in the 21st century economy. there has been considerable research demonstrating that the widening wage gap it skilled and unskilled labor has contributed to growth of income inequality. i consistently hear from employers in my home state of iowa who cannot find enough skilled workers to fill well-paying jobs. if we are to reduce income inequality, we must first reduce opportunity inequality. we have an excellent system of community colleges in my state that train iowans for jobs that are available in iowa, but those who are chronically unemployed tend to lack the so-called soft skills that are necessary to hold down a job. in order to eliminate

opportunity inequality, we must get back to the notion of the inherent dignity of work and ensure that hard work pays off. now, these are just a few areas that we should be able to work together to increase opportunities for those least well off among us. increasing opportunity should be our focus, not pitting americans against americans based on their socioeconomic status. if we make increased opportunity our focus, no one is required to be made worse off to benefit someone else. in fact, by tearing down barriers standing in the way of hardworking americans, all americans will benefit from higher productivity, higher wages and higher economic growth. my colleagues on the other side who are truly interested in

reducing poverty and inequality should abandon the divisive politics of envy and class warfare. instead, work with the republicans on an agenda focused on economic growth and opportunity so that we benefit all americans. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: what is the pending business? the presiding officer: h.r. 2577 is the pending business. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 138, h.r. 2577, an act making appropriations for the departments of transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes.

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, we are working very hard on both sides of the aisle. senator reid and i have been discussing a package of amendments which we hope ultimately we will be able to approve by unanimous consent. we're making sure that it's a balanced package reflecting both republican and democratic initiatives. these are amendments that are acceptable to both of us as managers of the bill, but we are waiting for the process to work its way through. my hope is that we might be able to do this this evening, but if not this evening, then perhaps we will be able to turn to it first thing in the morning. thank you, mr. president.

mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine.

ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number. the presidinheitkamp 3903, barr, mikulski-shelby 3919, feinstein-portman 3922, franken-tillis 3921 as modified. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendments by number. the clerk: the senator from maine ms. collins proposes amendments en bloc numbered 3903, 3909, 3917, 3919, 3922,

and 3921 as modified. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now vote on these amendments en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. no further debate? ms. collins: i know of no further debate on these amendments. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. those opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendments are agreed to en bloc. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i now ask nawx that -- unanimous consent that the cornyn amendment number 3899 be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment is modified. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the blunt amendment number 3900 be

modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection the amendment is modified. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, that allowed us to move forward on the appropriations bill that we are now considering. i'm very pleased and thank the ranking member for working so cooperatively and thank all of the sponsors of these amendments for working with us so that we can start to make some real progress on this appropriations bill. i now ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4957 which

was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4957, an act to designate the federal building located at 99 new york avenue northeast in the district of columbia as the aerial rioss federal building. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. collins: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the environment and public works committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to senate resolution 387. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 387 congratulating the historic columbia river highway on its 100th year. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is

discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. collins: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 403. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 403 designating the week beginning april 24, 2016, as national industrial assessment center week and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 467 national nurses week submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 467 supporting the goals and ideals of national nurses week to be observed from may 6 through may 12, 2016. the presiding officer: without objection the senate proceeds to the measure. ms. collins: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on tuesday, may 17. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed

expired, the journal of 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 resume consideration of h.r. 2577 with the time until 12:30 p.m. and from -- 2:15 until 2:30 p.m. equally divided between the managers or their designees. further, that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. llanso >> the senate will work on more bills this week. watch more live coverage when the senate returns here on c-span2. >> congratulations to the class of 2016. today is your day of celebration. >> your choices will make all of the differences to to you and to all of us. >> don't be afraid to take on cases, or a new job, or a new issue, that --

>> internships are going to be your greatest ern. >> throughout the month, watch commencement speeches through the classes of 2016 in their entirety by business leaders, politicians and white house officials. on c-span. >> joining us now to talk about the state of roads, bridges and other infrastructure in the united states is casey from the american society of civil engineers and he is the senior manager director. can you talk about your organization and what role it plays when it comes to the transportation projects we will talk about? >> sure. afce is a professional organization that has been around since 1852 and has 150,000 members who work in the private sector, government,

research, and academics. it is mostly a technical organization. we moved out of our head quarters in new york city about 20 years ago and came to washington to have more of a policy initiative. >> one of the things you do is keep track of federal spending particularly when it comes to roads and bridges. your latest takes a look at gaps of what is being funded and what is being needed. what did you find on the latest analysis? >> this is the latest in our failure to act economic series reports. we have done a number of report cards where we grade the nation's infrastructure and it is a not a very favorable card. it is c's and d's and policymakers are asking why that matters. we always thought there were economic issues related to the infrastructure. this is the foundation of the

platform upon which you build a modern economy. if you look at the upcoming ten years, 2016-2025, if we continue as we are investing at current levels, the u.s. can expect, each family can expect to lose $3400 a year and the u.s. gdp will under achieve by 3.9 trillion. business sales will lapse by 7 trillion, 2.5 million jobs are at risk by the year 2025. so this is a big economic issue for the united states. infrastructure is always a safety issue and that is the primary consideration civil engineers have but this a profound economic issue. >> you may think of things like bridges and pot holes.

is it just that when it comes to the current state of the roads and bridges or is there more to it and what you are talking about as far as the funding needed to fix these things. >> if you look at the roads, bridges and transit, and that is what we mean by surface transportation, we have looking at an annual funding gap of somewhere around a hundred billion a year. the nation is investing about half of what it should be in the transportation area. we are not saying this is just a federal issue. the feds, the states and the local governments are all involved in this and to a greater extent you are seeing more private sector infrastructure with a number of new toll roads and high occupancy toll lanes. we are investing about a hundred billion a year and we should be

investing twice that. people are saying a hundred billion, but when you look at the economic consequences we just considered and the size of the u.s. economy, $18 trillion is our annual gdp. so a hundred billion, we should be able to figure that out. >> is it fair to say the p projects exist on a state level and should be a state level when it it comes to funding and execution? >> not completely. the states and local governments have a big role. about half to two thirds of the spending on transportation occurs at that level. but this is a partnership if you will. the interstate highway system which is one of the modern marvels of engineering in this world. i just saw dave mccolic highlight the interstate system. it is a partnership and to build on the interstate highway system there is about 80% federal

funding and a 20% match from the states. so there are different types of roads. if you get down to the county level over millions of miles of roadways that the counties and local governments oversee. try to imagine the united states in this economy without an interstate highway system. >> the american society of civil engineer representatives and the topic is federal funds for bridges, roads and transit projects. we have the democrat and the republican line and independent line. there is someone at george mason who writes on these topics of funding issues and here is what she said about projects and in fustruck spending: she writes research shows the political process shows a tendency to

overestimate the benefit and underestimate the cost of infrastructure projects. it is fair to assume for the highways to be federally funded but many are local projects. what about her part about the planning process? >> in terms of there being an overestimate? i have not heard that critique before. i think it is considered, only both sides of the aisle on capitol hill, these investments are always considered good for the economy. i don't know if we are splitting hairs about saying there is a slight over emphasis on the benefit side versus the cost side. we are looking at this latest report a 3-1 benefit cost analysis. we are saying right now that the current state of the infrastructure is costing each household nine dollars a day. that is what is being put at risk.

we are saying if we put up three dollars we can avert those economic losses. >> hosost: congress passed a the billion deal last year? >> guest: that is a five year deal. the three hundred billion might have been the most we could expect out of this kind of politically divided congress. it is called the fast act. it doesn't move fast enough in our view or invest enough in terms of the overall good of the nation. there are some increases for surface transportation, roads, bridges and transit and flexibility if states and communities need to do more on the transit side there is flexibility for that.

people need to think about it as holeistic as they can. transit plays a big role allows in -- infrastructure to function. i think the big question is how are you going to pay for that? this town has a hard time having discussions about the federal gas tax that hasn't been raised since 1993. it is still at 18 cents a dw gallon. i will say 16 states in the last few years have raised their gas taxes. this is red states and blue states and they are starting to index the tax to inflation so the tax will not lose purchasing power over time. >> we have viewers wanting to ask you questions.

tim is in baltic, ohio. republican line for our guest. >> reporter: i am superintendant of the water system. in 2010, we built a water treatment plant, pretty much had to. the cost on that was 1.3 million dollars. but on the idea of looking at the price of it, i figured without prevailing wage we could have gotten that in at 700,000. i think the prevailing wage is the biggest knock on how we get infrastructure done. >> you are hitting on a wage issue. i am sure if you had a guest from labor sitting here they would talk hard on the issue. that can be an issue in the northern states. that is not an issue in the

southern states and other parts of the united states. i have heard other projects in the midwest and northeast where that really wasn't an issue. where the true wages that had to be paid on these projects would have been paid anyway regardless of prevailing wage loss. so that is not always the case although i have heard this issue come up. let me say this is national infrastructure week. it runs from today to may 23ered. part of the coalition we have on this includes not only labor but the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers and other business groups in the united states. there is a very broad coalition that is supporting this issue. if you look at all of the polling across the political parties there tends to be strong support. >> host: democratic line, james, hello, go ahead. >> caller: i am looking at many

things, ohio is what i am familiar with. i travel around the country and traffic jams are terrible in virginia. all day long. but in ohio, the gentlemen just said about prevailing wage. in the beginning of president obama's term, we were supposed to do a rail system here. everything was approved and it would have created 30,000 job in ohio and governor kasich came in and said we could not afford that and canceled it. we have done well with jobs in ohio but with the infrastruct e infrastructure, roads, and rail system our unemployment would be down to nothing and wage wasn't the issue at all. it was a matter of the people that benefit the most from these roads and transportation seem to be the people that don't want to pay for it.

the poor people want to pay for it because we have terrible roads to travel on. i don't understand why. and this is my question to the gentlemen there. why haven't congress passed laws to allow us to take care of this infrastructure. it doesn't make sense. >> host: thanks for the call. >> guest: i agree with the caller. infrastructure should be a bipartisan issue. i am looking forward to both candidates engaging in this issue. we heard both of the candidates and i will add senator sanders peaking on this. you mentioned the high speed wail rail system. it was national system with about ten regions that would be

tide together but there wasn't enough political support for that. rail is part of our surface transportation. a list of options, if you will. but if you look at the history of the united states there has been much more emphasis on rail and roadways. we kind of look at mass transit differently as part of the roads and bridges system when afc does its analysis. railroads are a separate category we graded in our 2013 infrastructure report card. the freight rail system across the united states, the grade on that, went up from a c-minus to a c-plus between 2009 and 2013 and the main reason is lots of those systems are privately held and the private sector showed its ability to adapt to situations and saw is the downfall as a big opportunity to

invest. that is why the rail grade actually went up the most in our last report card. >> host: mr. dinges, a guest asked about the funds we spend on infrastructure what was accomplished? >> guest: wow. the stimulus was about $800 billion back in early 2009. of that amount, only about 150 billion at the most was spent on infrastructure. there was a little bit of misunderstanding that the whole stimulus came together during the initial phases and infrastructure was one of the keywords you were hearing. if your main objective is to put people to work having a shovel aspect makes sense. but huge chunks of the stimulus were tax cuts, about 250-300 billion, then another several

hundred billions in transfers that went from the federal to the state government where they made the decisions about the money. there wasn't much left for in infrastructu infrastructure. >> host: mark is next from massachusetts on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: thank you. i always end up with you pedro and you a great moderator. your guest, thank you. i work construction, moved to new orleans worked there and moved back to the northeast. i definitely believe we need more funding but it is these white whales that sometimes the government, mainly i would say states and cities chase whereas, and i use specifically the big dig which is the biggest white

whale in infrastructure history. on a smaller scale i did a research project of my own looking at two separate projects. one was the scott river bridge in maine which was built in just about a year. it was a cost of about $64 million. a huge undertaking and i think it has over a thousand foot stand, observetory at the top. it is like the nathan bridge where with the die wires. i forget the specific type of bridge. exhibit b is a bridge in boston they built at grade level which is just basically like across a river. it ended up costing $56 million and it was -- the long short of it is this $56 million bridge had a draw bridge to nowhere. and in the case of maine it was an efficient use of funds.

but the one in boston, the alfred street bridge, it seemed ridiculous. >> guest: there are 600,000 bridges in the united states. so i am not sure about the exact bridge in relation to the big dig. 10% of the bridges, roughly 60,000 bridges in the united states are structurally deficie deficient. they could have weight restrictions posted on them so certainly trucks won't be able to use them -- certain -- certain lanes can be closed down. we saw that on the memorial bridge, we had the outer lanes shutdown. the bridge may have to be shutdown in five years unless major rehab or replacement occurs. the grade on bridges in our last report went up. there has been more emphasis and focus there.

but engineers keep a close eye on these things. something like a bridge collapse, as shocking as that is, and people remember the minneapolis bridge collapse, it is highly unusual for something like that to happen. what happens is bridges get closed or posted for weight restrictions and that has an economic impact, okay? trucks have to do workarounds, it takes longer for goods to get there and that happens on a drip-by-drip bases. if you see that rippling throughout the economy, that is why you get some of the big economic impacts that afc has been talking about in these reports. >> what do you estimate is the federal money needed, specifically for bridges, to bring them up to par? >> guest: the story is not that dire on bridges. the last analysis i am thinking of, the numbers -- we are spending about, let's see, i think somewhere between 10-12

billion a year on bridges and need to be spending about 20. the gap is 8-10 billion a year. very doable for the united states. >> host: dave on the republican line for casey dinges. >> caller: down here in north carolina they don't even have inspectors on the job half of the time. they already pulled it and then it heats out in the center and they come along and these pot holes are patched a little and then it dries out and the steel is showing in the bridges down here. it is eating up for the concrete.

>> guest: a couple issuess. one is the type of chemicals we are using to treat ice and climate road conditions. there is research going on there to use less corrosive materials. but assuming you cannot move fast enough on that side, you are people looking to put codings on the steel reinforcements in these concrete constructions. there is a lot of research going on to that issue. safety has to come first and we have to get ice off the bridges. >> host: from washington state, democrat line, janet, hello. >> caller: hello, i want to talk about whatever we need money for; roads, bridges, or whatever it might be depends on what politics since it is election time -- what party gets in. and i have seen there is a lot more money when the democrats are in. it seems when the republicans

are in we go broke like reagan infrastructure had no money and senior bush and then clinton got 123 million people jobs and paid back the social security and took the people off welfare that reagan put on welfare. we have trillions of dollars when we are done. then bush junior got in and he had a war that should not have been. he lied to congress to have it. and then he was spending trillions of dollars, borrowing trillions about every other day for the war and put us in the biggest deficit we are still trying to pay. >> host: janet, thank. her point is this is a bigger issues because it is an election year. would you say that is a fair point?

>> guest: i hope is a big issue this year. i want to the candidates debate this issue thoroughly. i would love to see a debate on just this issue. i think this issue is big enough i would like to see what the candidates have to say on this. back to the perception, the political perception that will calling was drawing upon. it was a republican, eisenhower, who brought the highway infrastructure and saw the limitations of trying to move military equipment across the country during this military career and once he became president he felt like it was the best national interest of the nation. it it was during the reagan presidency that the gas tax went up. you mention president clinton that was the last gas tax

increase we saw and it was only 4.3 cents. the federal gasoline tax is only 18.4 cents a gallon. okay. you might be paying $2.20 for the gallon and only 18 cents is the federal gasoline tax and states have a gasoline tax on top and that can be as low as 20 cents a gallon and i think some states go up to as high as 50 cents a gallon with an average of 30-35 cents a gallon. when you buy a gallon of gas the tax you are paying on it is a small percent of the overall cost of gas even with gas relatively cheap in the united states. we have been affray -- afraid nation to take on the tax increase. eventually cars will be powered by electricity and gas will not

make sense. eventually we will have involve a vehicle miles travel approach and that is where you are charged for the miles you drive. there is a lot of transponders in cars now so it is easier to keep track of the information. i think we will have to have a comfort level with our governmental agencies knowing that information; how much driving we have doing. >> host: driving is not only done by the citizens but trucking industries and businesses. >> guest: i think people do it because they have to. if a truck has to be on the r d road, it can stop at the port and deliver to a transshipment point in the united states, i don't think trucks will be d

disswayed. the american truck association was supporting the gas tax increase. >> host: here is scott, independent line. >> caller: good morning. i had a couple questions. i would like to know what happened to the first 817 billion that was ear marked for the shovel ready projects? also i just toured the united states for two months and 20 miles at a time orange barrels. just a handful of times i have seen people working there. it is just like they block the roads off to make it look like something is being done and nothing is being done. i talk to other truckers when i am on the road and they told me they see that a lot. i would like to know what is going on with that. >> guest: okay. two things. the orange cones, well sometimes

they have to setup a safety zone to work and it can take a while to get that setup before the work starts so you might have driven by at the wrong time. it is certainly disruptive for the driving public but we are encouraged to see maintenance happening in this country. keep that in mind. these are importance maintenance projects happen. this is the second reference to the stimulus. you mention 817 billion and that was what the entire it cost of the stimulate but only 150 billion max was spent on infrastructure. >> host: do you get questions about why the projects have to take place in the middle of the day when people are trying to get around? >> guest: that is a careful consideration for folks. it will cost more to speed up the time table on the projects to work all night you are paying

more for labor but in major met met met metropolitan areas the work is done at night. >> caller: is the law still in effect that the states don't spend all of the money they are allotted they lose it to next year? they built the 495 in massachusetts and repaved it every year just to save the money so they didn't lose it for next year. >> guest: we do want to be careful in government to not have preverse incentives if you will. we want to -- perverse --

maintain things properly and not a situation where governments at the local level would let something to fall into disrepair so the feds would step in with 80% of the money for a brand new projects but the locals are manage up with the 20% match. it is not like it is free money. you want to be careful working in government between the levels that you don't create disincentives or perverse incentives on what would seem like unnecessary projects. >> host: is the money front loaded or do they complete the projects and bill the federal government? >> guest: it is a complex system and there are variations. we are in the low 40s. 42 billion a year will come out of the highway trust fund every year. that is the 18 cents a gallon people are paying into the

highway trust fund. there is a complex formula that distributes the money to the state. that is based on how many miles of interstate you have. there is a complex formula. there is another ten billion a year that is paid for by the highway trust fund. that is going to the state's for a transit project. then there is flexibility that states can have to move money from the highway side in the transit projects. so -- i am forgetting how the money is distributed and whether it is monthly or whatnot. >> host: casey dinges is here. democrats line, texas is where johnny is. >> caller: hi, thank for taking my call. back in the early '70s a plastic

was developed and offered to the states for the highways and they guaranteed the highways would last 50-100 years and we were told they rejected the offer because it would put too many people out of business. but as large as texas is, and the whole country is, they don't have to keep going over these roads over and over again because they could be building new ones. i am wondering if you knew anything about that. >> guest: i don't specifically know about that. but the caller, you put your pinger on an interesting issue -- finger -- and that is the role of research and develop in this infrastructure space. that is an important issue and role for the federal government. that kind of research used to happen at the federal level. it is tricky. once you have innovation how quickly can you push something like that out in the marketplace?

there are obviously in the united states interest there. big industries are involved in this. so if an industry, whether it is steel or concrete, feels threatened by an innovation that is certainly understandable. there are innovations occurring in technology and it may not seem like that but concrete is getting stronger and pounds for square inch and the strength of concrete is going up, there are new coatings going on steel. there was an engineer who made a hybrid bridge beam made out of composit material. it was very light weight, incredibly strong, reasonably cost. so there are innovations but it is tricky to develop something new and have the 50 states adopt it immediately. we are developing a new technology.

you want to see that thing get used as widely as possible. and sometimes it takes a while for the sates to catch on. >> host: are americans still driving solo in their cars? if people are group sharing, less cars on the road, less wear and tear. are americans patterns changing as far as how they drive their cars? >> guest: i am not sure i can sandy hook elementary the nation as a whole. i know in the washington region people are resourceful when the comes to getting to work so there is a lot of ride sharing. we have the slug lines in locations where people can drive up and have complete strangers jump in their car and they are driving in the hov lane. for those people not familiar with the traffic situations here, hov, high occupancy lanes, are here and there are just going to be more of them in the future. it shows you how important our transit and metro system it.

there is a classic example of under investment. here is a 40 year old transit system that is about 13-14 billion under invested. so we have just deferred maintenance and we will now pay the cost of having major disruptions to the systems. >> host: the president brought up the transit system and talked about why he doesn't think there is enough money to pay for infrastructu infrastructure projects. here is what he had to say: >> the problem we have is the republican congress has been resistant to really taking on this problem in a serious way. the reason is because of an ideology that says government spending is necessarily bad. and i address this when i was in flint, that mindset, that

ideology, has led to us not investing in those things that we have to do together. >> guest: we are seeing some of what the president is talking about in the house of representatives. you see in the u.s. senate, they are able to come together on major infrastructure bills whether it is water, aviation, you see very good bipartisan movement there. even in the house in the end they got the fast act, the three hundred billion bill which had increases. there is increases every year but it is just not enough. >> >> host: 202-748-8000 for republicans, 8001 for democrats, and 8002 for republicans. brooklyn new york, john, you are next. >> caller: how are you doing? thank the lord for c-span.

i want to make two or three points. when you talk about congress won't pass infrastructure bill everybody says if the democrat or republican congress so i can know who to vote for. when they talk about the problems with the infrastructure they say congress and when you say congress i don't know who you are talking about. number two, the president asked for 25% increase in gasoline. gasoline used to cost almost five dollars a gallon. what would be the harm in adding 25 cents to it? he just said a little while ago that if you don't spend the money the government takes it away. you are so smart in congress, why don't you make a plan, make some laws that that won't happen? what about the states spending money first, and then the

government reimburse them? >> host: thanks, tom. >> guest: a few things there. you mentioned the president proposing a 25 cent, i think you are referring to the president's last and most recent budget submittal to the congress did include, and i am forgetting how he did this, it might have been a tax on oil at the wholesale level. but the net effect, the caller is correct, it would have meant about 25 cents a gallon on gas tax. we support that. we supported a major in the gas tax and indexing it to inflation. for the next few years the gas tax will serve us well in this country. in the long run, we have to go a vehicle miles approach where people are charged for the miles they are driving regardless of

how they power their car. i hope people don't too hung up on the big brother aspect of the technology here. they are doing a pilot program on this in the state of oregon and it worked out pretty well for folks. people had the option. if they didn't want a transponder on their car, people in the northeast have transponders because they are trying to get through toll plazas, if people can get over that and look at this as a fair way to distribute the cost opposed to the government knows i drove 14,000 miles this year. >> host: foreign companies that operate over seas being repaterated is another thing. is your company on board with that >> guest: we will support any method of paying for this stuff that can get enough political support in congress or state

houses or wherever the debate is. a vehicle miles traveled approached is a direct user fee. some argued about the other taxing mechanisms. repatriating profits that are offshore is a way to do it. that is not what why recommending but could we support it in the end? we could. >> host: from conway, massachusetts, david is up next. independent line. >> caller: good morning. a comment and then question. first, it is my opinion that people who make a profit driving down the federal highway system should be paying more than those who are driving to work. that is the comment. the question is: do you, and should we, be looking at repairing some of these bridges

and roads in different ways? for instance, in this area, about 50 years ago, the interstate came through and now a lot of the bridges are needing repair. should we be looking at different scenario for replacing bridges such as the 25-year bridge, 50-year bridge, a 100-year bridge, a 1,000-year? thank you. >> guest: interesting comment on if you are making a profit you should pay more. different trucks do pay more. they are working for companies trying to make a profit. part of your point is addressed already, i think. but either way users should pay whether you are traveling for pleasure, whether you have a business, and again, i like the essence of your question because it does bring up the point of

how important this roadway system is, not only to our quality of life, but for business in the country and development of the economy. those are the kinds of issues that planners and engineers don't have one in existence. i haven't heard about too many requests for 25-year bridges. 50-years is about the minimum. in this day and age, some of the signature structures going up have design lives of over a hundred years. >> host: from bristol, virginia, republican line. >> caller: thank you for c-span. just a quick comment and a quick

comment. i think many infrastructure projects in the country, particularly the interstate transportation system was funded primarily because it was defense related not only evacuation but there use of planes, runways in world war ii in germany the ought bon was used for nat. i want to get the guest opinion on the keystone pipeline because we are moving toward the insight and the second, little bit different related but the hundred year tunnel in baltimore impacting your ability to have high speed rail in the northeast corridor, and last but certainly not least, i wanted to get his opinion on the use of money to build this wall donald trump is walking about along the southern border. >> guest: we have 150,000 members and many work in the

transportation space, as an organization we don't take positions on specific projects. we don't say this one should be built and this shouldn't. those types of decisions have to be made at the community, state sometimes federal level. but you have a lot of different groups with projects and you need to take all of that into consideration. in fact, going forward people need to think about projects, especially with the kind of climate issues we are dealing with in the united states, people need to think about projects being sustainable and that means economically justifiable and mitigate or limit damage to the environment and have social support. sustainability a three-legged stool. then there is an issue of resilience. can the project withstand the storm surge? if you are defining in a coastal environment you have worry about sea level, storm intensity and a number of issues. so sustainable and resilience

are key words. i will make a general comment about pipelines. as a general rule, people should be more concerned about the age of pipelines in this country being addressed as opposed to brand new -- i am a little less concerned about a brand new pipeline than the aging systems. and again you mentioned the wall on the border that candidate trump proposed. we do not take positions on specific projects. >> when considering the roads and changes do you consider driverless cars? ... i think the main motivation for these technologies, some of the other efforts going on, it is

safety. the united states, we lose over 32,000 lives a year to traffic accidents in the united states. about 10,000 of those fatalities are related to road conditions where they are a contributing or a primary factor. 10,000 lives is a lot. that is the motivation, to make it safe. >> contributing a primary factor in the excess. 10,000 lives is a lot. that is the motivation that google and others have going into this technology is to make it say. in other words when there is having technology for that huma. error. the second is proficiency. is there a way to squeeze five links of cars into four lengths of cars because we have this