our way, the american way, values pluralism. it permits descent from dominant, social and political views. it protects the freedom of expression, and the freedom of religion. it defends our shared human dignity. in our society, the value of your life is not determined by your views. here, your life has value because you exist. that's good enough for us. that is not good enough for radical islamism. it's followers do not believe in these things. they impose uniformity and destroy dissent, for the radical islamists, there is no live and let live. their ideology demand obedience. it dough manneds only one way -- it demands only one way to live your life.

people who live differently or pray differently stop living or thinking or praying how they do. radical islamism does not use words to get what it wants. we observe its methods in syria through isil. there, they stone women and they throw men from buildings for violating their code. this contempt for other cultures drives them to destroy historical art facts and ancient holy sites. they are exterminating entire communities of people for participating -- their exterminating entire communities of people for practicing a different set of religious beliefs, and they celebrate it. they are posting gruesome videos of their heinous acts online. they are using this combination of violence and twisted ideology

as propaganda. they are seducing disaffected individuals to join their perverse quest. while the extent to which the orlando shooter was influenced by this incitement is unclear. he clearly identified with isil's barbaric dploarfication of violence. this is why we must unite to ensure isil's lasting defeat, defeat on the battlefield will greatly diminish the rhetorical pall lore of their calls to butch lore, to pillage and defile. however, responding to this terror is a shared responsibility of all americans and not reserved only for the military or law enforcement. this was an assault on our belief in pluralism, an attack against each of us. we all have a role in the

response. our law enforcement and intelligence communities will, no doubt, lead the way. but individual americans can and should answer this attack. so, mr. president, i would like to conclude with a call to action for every american, no matter where they may be. find someone with whom you deeply disagree and let them know you value them. seek that person out. tell them you respect them for who they are, regardless of your deeply held differences. we can do this work at work or at home, in the grocery store, or at the doctor's office. in our day to day lives we can deliver a direct challenge to radical islamists. by treating each other with dignity and respect, we can play our part in responding to this

tragedy. basic human rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly are endowed to all of us. by asserting our value of pliewrmism confidently, we can -- pluralism confidently, we can stand against the forces of hatred and intolerance. thank you you mr. president. i yield. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

mr. shelby: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: is there a quorum call? the presiding officer: there is a quorum call. mr. shelby: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: mr. president, on behalf of the appropriations committee, i withdraw the committee-reported amendment to h.r. 2578. the presiding officer: the amendment is withdrawn. mr. shelby: i offer amendment number 4685, as a committee-reported substitute amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. shelby proposes an amendment numbered 4685. mr. shelby: i ask consent that -- unanimous consent that the reading of the allot be dispensed with -- amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i call up the

feinstein amendment number 4720 to the substitute amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for mrs. feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 4720 to amendment number 4685. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there is second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i calm the cornyn amendment number -- i call up the cornyn amendment number 4741. -- 4749. the presiding officer: the clerk will report -- mr. mcconnell: to the fine sting amendment. the clerk: mr. mcconnell for mr. cornyn proposes amendment number 4749 to 4720. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: notify to commit the bill to the judiciary committee with instructions.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: notion commit bill to the judiciary committee with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment number 4750. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. ÷ the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i send a grassley amendment to the instructions to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for mr. grassley, proposes an amendment number 4751 to the instructions of the motion to commit. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i send a second agree amendment to the desk. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell proposes amendment 4752 to amendment 4751. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for the grassley amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on senate amendment number 4751 to the instructions of the motion to commit h.r. 2578, an act making appropriations for the department of commerce, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be dispense pwepbsed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: i send a cloture motion to the desk with a motion to commit with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the mcconnell motion to commit h.r. 2578 to the judiciary committee with instructions to murphy amendment number 4750 signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent

the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for the cornyn amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment number 4749 to amendment numbered 4720 to calendar number 120, h.r. 2578, an act making appropriations for the department of commerce, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a he cloture motion for the feinstein amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the fine is stein -l amendment 4720 to shelby amendment 4685 to h.r. 2578 signed by 18 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent

the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorums for the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president? i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: -l the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. cotton: i would like to recognize marion fletcher of hot springs arkansas as this week's arkansan of the week for 53 years of service to agriculture and education in arkansas. she recently retired and i'd like to recognize his legacy and impact. arkansas is a rural state and for arkansans isn't just an industry. it's a way of life. over the last five decades marion has been a fixture in the arkansas agriculture community serving in dozens of rules in organizations impacting every person he met. to say he's passionate about agriculture education is an understatement. since 1997 he worked as the state supervisor and program manager of agriculture education

at the agriculture department of workforce education. and before that, 30 years spent in numerous roles with the arkansas department of education, vocational and technical educational division. he also had a three year stint as an ag instructor. locally he's been a dedicated board member of the garland county farm bureau for over 30 years. but his service isn't just limited to arkansas. he's also played an important role in the national f.a.a. where he's been a member of the board of directors, served as national treasurer and been a part of various task force and action force committees. to quote long time friend keith stokes there's not a young person who went through the f.f.a. program that was not influenced in a positive way by mr. fletcher. his hard work hasn't gone unnoticed. he was -p honored award and the v.i.p. award, recognition in the

arkansas agriculture hall of fame. arkansas' service to citizen award, and a litany of others in a long list of well-deserved commendations. the honors, distinctions and accolades earned by him are endless. i am proud to honor his work and legacy. he's an outstanding arkansan and our state agriculture industry is better because he committed his life to agriculture education. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. i'm sorry, there's -- without objection the quorum call is vitiated. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague. in the aftermath of the horrific tragedy in orlando, americans are understandably concerned about whether law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools that they need to keep our people safe. i share these concerns and have for quite some time. in 2013 i proposed that

government be authorized to obtain phone, e-mail and other records immediately in emergency situations, and then after the fact come back for court review. that proposal that i made in 2013 became law as part of the u.s.a. freedom act. it's section 102 of the u.s.a. freedom act. and as of today, that legislation that i authored gives the f.b.i. more authority to move immediately when they believe it's essential to protect the safety and well-being of americans and our families.

so i don't take a back seat to anybody when it comes to supporting efforts that are going to do everything possible to make americans safer in their communities. so right now, and this is so often the case after a tragedy, mr. president, when americans want to be safer and they want their liberties, all too often proposals are advanced that in so many instances really don't do much of either. and it is for that reason i've come to the floor today to express my concern about the sweeping surveillance amendment that was proposed this morning by the senior senator from texas. it's important for colleagues in

my view to see that this proposal would dramatically and unnecessarily expand the government's ability to conduct surveillance of americans without court oversight. in my judgment, it with a not make our country any safer, and the real implications are that it could significantly undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans, largely to save some paperwork for law enforcement officials. as was described on the senate floor this morning, this amendment would authorize individual f.b.i. offices -- field offices to demand americans' e-mail and internet records simply by issuing what's called a national security letter, which means that there really is no court oversight whatever. this authority currently exists

for phone records and law enforcement officials have repeatedly suggested that it would be convenient for e-mail and internet records to be collected in the same way. the f.b.i. has not suggested that they are currently unable to obtain these records in counterterror investigations. law enforcement officials have simply been arguing that it would be more convenient to operate without judicial oversight. i find this position very troubling because i don't see anything in the writings of the founding fathers that said convenience alone should justify a dramatic erosion of the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. it's important to understand that this sweeping expansion of surveillance authorities is not necessary. if f.b.i. officials have reason to suspect that an individual is

connected to terrorism or espionage, they can already access that person's e-mail and internet records by sumly obtaining -- simply obtaining an order from the foreign intelligence surveillance court. these orders can be issued in secret, require relatively little evidence. the f.b.i. just needs to assert that the records are -- quote -- "relevant to an investigation" and that is not a difficult thing to do. but requiring the approval of an independent judge provides an important check against the abuse or misuse of this authority. by contrast, national security letters are not reviewed by a judge unless a company that receives one attempts to challenge it. so, as i indicated in my first comments this afternoon, i appreciate the f.b.i.'s interest in obtaining records about potential suspects quickly, but

my view is, foreign intelligence surveillance court judges in the typical situation are very capable of reviewing and approving requests for court orders in a timely fashion, and that's why i made mention, mr. president, if the government thinks that it's an emergency situation, if the government thinks that time is so critical, the government can use that section of the u.s.a. freedom act that i authored, section 102, to obtain records immediately -- immediately -- in an emergency situation and then go seek court review after the fact. and as i indicated, i have been supportive of this for quite sometime, but i think giving the government the authority to move in emergency situations,

mr. president, is very different than giving the government brand-new, substantial new surveillance authorities just because some officials don't like doing paperwork. if the f.b.i.'s own process for reviewing court orders is too slow, then the appropriate solution is administrative reforms, not a major expansion of government surveillance authorities. while this amendment would not apply to the text of e-mails, it would allow the f.b.i. to demand a wide variety of information, including records of individuals' exchanges of e-mails, with whom they did and when they exchanged these e-mails, as well as individuals' log-in history, i.p. addresses, and internet browsing authority. this sort of surveillance can clearly reveal an extensive amount of personal information about individual americans, and

our founding fathers rightly argued that these kind of intrusive searches ought to be approved by independent judges. now, i'd like to state at this point, mr. president, that president george w. bush's administration reached the same conclusion that i have described this afternoon. in november of 2008, the justice department's office of legal counsel advised the f.b.i. that national security letters could only be used to obtain certain types of records, and this list did not include electronic communications records. the f.b.i. has, unfortunately, not adhered to this guidance and has at times continued to issue national security letters for electronic communications records. a number of companies that have received these overly broad national security letters have

rightfully challenged them, as i've indicated, as improperly broad. broadening it to include communications records, would be a significant expansion of warrantless surveillance authority. unfortunately, the government's track record with its existing national security letter authorities includes a substantial amount of abuse and misuse. these problems have been extensively documented by the justice department's inspector general in 2007, 20 0rb8gs 2010 is and 2014. in my judgment, it would be reckless to expand this particular surveillance authority when the government is so frequently -- has so frequently failed to use its existing authorities responsibly. in 2013, president obama's surveillance review group took a look at the national security letter statute. this group included a number of

distinguished national security leaders, including former white house counterterrorism advisor richard clarke and the former acting c.i.a. director mike morrell. they determined -- i think this is what's so noteworthy, mr. president. at a time when the president assembled a practically n.b. agroup of counterterror leaders, this group determined that national security letter authority ought to be narrowed, not expanded. so they were making a judgment that, counter to the senior senator from texas, they felt you ought to be going the other way and be more cautious about how it's used. they stated, these leading national security officials, the names of which i've just given, they stated in their report that

national security letters have been, in their view, highly controversial and noted there have been -- quote -- "serious compliance issues on part of the government." they concluded that for all the well-issued reasons for requiring neutral and detached judges to determine when government investigators may invade an individual's privacy," their words, not mine, "there is a strong argument that national security letters should not be used by the f.b.i." national security letters was what the -- the description of the issue was all about. in the judgment of these experts, the government should seek the approval of a judge the way our founding fathers intended. so i want it understood, mr. president, i would strongly oppose the surveillance amendment that was filed this morning. my view is it would erode our core constitutional rights without making our country

safer. so all over the country right now, mr. president, americans are asking what can be done to make our country safer? so this morning, for example, we had the c.i.a. director, mr. brennan, in the intelligence committee, and i pointed out that one of the things that does help americans be as safe as possible is strong encryption for their smartphones. those smartphones have people's life and their transactions, medical, financial. their whole life is in those smartphones. so if you weaken strong encryption and require companies, as several of our colleagues want to do, require companies to build back doors into these digital products, americans are going to be less

safe. for example, a number of the smartphones have a location tracker, so that a parent can keep tabs on a youngster. well, you weaken encryption, you weaken the location tracker, you're pretty much giving a gift to pedophiles, because it'll be easy to track youngsters as a result of weakening encryption. and so had a discussion this morning about it, and in particular the comment i was concerned about this morning was when i said, hey, the reality is, if we weaken encryption in the united states, the reality is terrorists and hackers and others are just going to go overseas, where there are hundreds of products with strong encryption. and it was the view of the c.i.a. director, well, that was -- quote -- "theoretical." so i was forced to correct that

later in the course of the day, mr. president, to say some of the leading experts in cybersecurity said, this is not theoretical. the reality is there are hundreds of products, hundreds of products overseas with strong encryption. so think about that one. what we would be doing if we weaken encryption is we would be adopting a policy that would leave our people less secure, -- less secure and their liberties more at risk, right at the time when they're saying, after the horrific tragedy in orlando, that they want better policy to protect their safety and make sure their liberties are kept. so this is a debate that we're going to have in several forums. we're going to have them in committee rooms. we're going to have them on the floor of the senate.

and i just want it understood that the reason that i am opposing what the senior senator from texas talked about today is that i think it flies right in the face of what i've described. it does nothing to make us safer, and it puts at risk our liberties, much as the distinguished panel put together by the president, all these outstanding counterterror officials, said when they expressed concern about the whole future of national security letters. there's a way to do this right, and i would submit, mr. president, that's what we did in section 102 of the u.s.a. freedom act. and it was something i had talked about with the president on several occasions. i'm willing to say what i said, not what the president said. but i've said repeatedly to the government, if the government

doesn't have enough authority in emergency situations to protect the american people, i will use my ability as a senior member of the intelligence committee to make sure that they have that authority. we did that in the u.s.a. freedom act. the government can move immediately to collect the phone and e-mail records, come back later to go through the court review process. that's the kind of model that we ought to use, not what we heard about this morning from the senior senator from texas that would expand government surveillance authority, put at risk our liberties, not make our country safer. this will, i'm sure, be a topic of extensive discussion on the senate floor next week, mr. president. i just wanted to take this opportunity to outline my views. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, and i note the example after quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk -- and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: is quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that two members of my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i'm coming to the floor today to join so many of my colleagues who have spoken in the last day to urge, to encourage bipartisan cooperation on commonsense legislation, to address the gun

violence epidemic that plagues our nation and my home state of delaware. i want to thank my colleagues, senator murphy and blumenthal, for their persistent, their unwavering commitment to addressing this very real national crisis. in the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting in orlando, i have been filled with many emotions, as have so many of my colleagues. grief for the victims and their families, concern for the city of orlando and grief for the greater lgbtq community across our nation and world. anger towards the perpetrator and the extremists that spread hatred, violence and fear around the world. and a powerful, deep-seated frustration that our government, our congress, this senate has not taken needed steps to keep dangerous and unstable individuals from getting access to guns. the atrocity that took place at the pulse nightclub in orlando, florida, was more than just a

cowardly act of terrorism and a despicable, violent rampage of hate against our lgbtq brothers and sisters. it was also an attack on our very freedoms on our way of life. from the brave first responders and law enforcement officers who rushed to the scene to the hundreds, even thousands of floridians who have lined up in the days since to donate blood, tragedies like these so often showcase the very best and worst of humanity in the same heart breaking moments. this mass shooting, this worst mass shooting in american history should force us to confront a number of powerful but unanswered questions. are we going to be a nation that celebrates our diversity or one that stokes fear, division and hatred? are we going to engage the american muslim community in pursuing our shared goal of defeating the scourge of

terrorism, or are we going to malign and alienate 1.6 billion people from one of the world's great religions? and are we together going to pass commonsense safety measures addressing gun violence, or is this senate yet again going to accept the status quo? our nation, my state, my constituents, my neighbors are crying out for the members of this body to have the courage of our convictions and to address this moment. regardless of the orlando attacker's intentions or his background, congress must act to prevent known or suspected terrorists from having the unfettered ability to purchase high-powered military grade weapons. that means ensuring that we have a universal system of background checks when a firearm is purchased. it also means ensuring that the united states department of justice gets notified when a known or suspected terrorist goes to buy a gun so that the

department can investigate or stop a transaction that might immediately endanger citizens' lives. today an estimated 40% of all gun sales are sold by unlicensed dealers who are not required to conduct any criminal background checks under federal law. in the aftermath of the atrocity in orlando, deputy attorney general yates noted that the justice department, and i quote, would have liked to have known that omar mateen had gone to purchase an assault rifle. our constitution protects the fundamental individual right to bear arms but no freedom is absolute and no one amendment can subvert all the others. orlando deserved to have the security of a functioning universal background check system that keeps guns out of the hands of people known to be dangerous. so, too, do the people of my hometown of wilmington. earlier this week, late tuesday

night, in my hometown of wilmington, less than a block away from a business owned by one of my treasured staff members, four young teenagers were shot, ages 12, 13, 15 and 16. the 15-year-old boy remains in critical condition at christiania hospital. he was shot in his stomach, hand and leg. even earlier this week in wilmington, a 15-year-old girl was shot during an argument at a party. there have been so many instances of gun violence on the streets of my hometown in the weeks and months of this year and last year and the year before that we have become numb to it, we've almost lost count of them, yet this daily carnage continues, in my hometown, in towns all across this country. orlando deserves the amount of attention it has received as one of the worst mass atrocities in american history, yet we cannot

forget the week in, week out tragedies where one, two, three, four individuals are shot in what now seems to be sadly routine gun violence all across this country. and we've heard in speeches given by my colleagues about incidents all over our country, from orlando to san bernadino to newtown, from wilmington to chicago to los angeles. americans fall victim to gun violence each and every day. it doesn't have to be this way. americans are 25 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than people in any other developed country. we can and we must do more to prevent senseless acts of gun violence. so today, this week we mourn the lives taken from us too soon in orlando, and i mourn and many of my neighbors and constituents mourn the lives lost in

wilmington. but we all pray that the families and friends grieving the loss of their loved ones will find strength in purpose in the -- strength and purpose in the days to come and will bring encouragement from actions by this senate. tragedies like these don't just draw our attention, don't just hold our gaze, don't just break our hearts. they also challenge our values as a nation. in response to the atrocities in orlando, america's message to the world must not be one of fear and anger and isolation as some proposed. instead, i think we can and should take action to protect all of our citizens, any ethnicity, any faith, any sexual orientation with commonsense gun legislation. i am encouraged to know that there have been filed bills that this body will take up and act upon next week and that my

colleagues, senators murphy and senator feinstein, have been able to submit for consideration by this body bills relating to background checks and to closing the terror gap that i look forward to supporting next week when we return. i'd like to thank all of my colleagues of both parties who advanced proposals or have come to the floor to participate in an important effort to show the people of this country that we can work across the aisle, that we can listen to each other and that we can, i hope, legislate. and i'd like to specifically thank my colleague, senator murphy, for his discipline, his engagement and his work in an important filibuster to show the people of our country that we are listening, we are paying attention, we are working and we will soon take action. with that, thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call: .

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from nebraska. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that jason bast, a defense legislative fellow in the office of senator cochran be granted privileges to the floor for the remainder of the calendar year. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 499 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 499, congratulating the pittsburgh penguins for winning the 2016 stanley cup hockey championship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent 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. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 500 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution

500, designating june 19, 2016, as juneteenth independence day in recognition of june 19, 1865, the date on which slavery legally came to an end in the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent 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. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 465, s. 28808 -- 2808. the clerk: calendar number 465, s. 2808, a bill to amend the john f. kennedy center act to authorize appropriations for the john f. kennedy center for the performing arts. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. sasse: i ask consent that the bill be read a third time

and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11:00 a.m. friday, june 17, for a pro forma session only with no business being conducted. when the senate adjourns on friday, june 17 it next convene at 3:00 p.m. monday, june 20, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2578. finally notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the pending cloture motions ripen at 5:30 p.m. monday. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sasse: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senators stabenow and carper. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. sasse: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i come here with a solemn message today. i come here remembering a republican colleague who served in this body for 12 years, george voinovich, former governor of ohio, former mayor of cleveland. i think he was in his time i believe county auditor. he was lieutenant governor, i believe, mayor of cleveland. he was the chairman of the national league of cities. two-term governor of ohio. he was also chairman of the national governors' association. i had the privilege of serving as his vice chairman and later

on as the successor as chairman of the n.g.a. he came here, was elected in 1998, took office here in the senate in 1999. served for to terms. as i'm sure remembered by everybody that served with him as smart, kind, principled, hard-working, straight talking. he was i think everything that an elected official should be and could be. he and i went to ohio state together, not at the same time but he was in law school a year or two older than me. and i was an undergraduate. so i never got to know him at that point in time, but we shared a lot of bonds. i got to know his family well, his wife, janet, and my wife, martha, we were governors together and they were spouses together and good, close friends

there. i liked him -- you know when you meet somebody and you like them right away. he was not -- i think -- i don't believe anybody in ohio history ever won all eight counties with almost two-thirds of vote and he did that. that was in 2004. i think in 2006 i won every county in delaware. we have three. he has 80 or so counties in ohio. i would joke with him we both won every county in our state. it was a little hard for him. but impacted this place as i think relative few people do. we served together on a committee called environmental public works. it was initially called governmental affairs. later homeland security and governmental affairs. he was one of the leaders in each of those committees.

he was one of the people who had the courage to keep out of step when everybody else was marching to the wrong tune. as a republican at a time we had a republican president. by 2007, the war in iraq was not going well. he very -- bravely within his own caucus called on president george w. bush to be in a face of withdrawal with our troops and basically said the iraqiings ought to be do more for themselves -- iraqis ought to do more to themselves. we'll help them. he's one that believed we needed to match revenues with expwendz turs, and he -- -- expeendz turs and he was -- owe dispend turs and he was a guy for knew how to squeeze a dime. he was very responsible and a big believer in states should be face cally responsible. cities -- he became mayor of cleveland when they were basically bankrupt and helped guide them to prosperity and to rekindle the economy there,

helped to foster an extremely strong economy. in ohio that's how he won everybody single county. but he was a guy who would actually vote againsta tax break when he thought it was not face cally responsible to do it. further a revenue base and enlarge our budget deficit. he was a very courageous elected official. and someone that you just liked. sometimes you meet people and it's all about them and it was never all about george. and a guy who had ever reason to be pompous and proud, he was not that way at all. how do i describe this, mr. president? he was -- he had the heart of a servant. he understood his job was to serve, not be served. he was humbling, not haughty. he came from a humble background and never had a lot of