rossiter to be a nebraska district judge. live coverage, as always, of the senate right here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, the way, the truth and the life, shine your light upon our lawmakers' path as they begin a new week. illuminate their minds with your wisdom

that they may know what to think and do, refusing to become weary in well doing. keep them from straying from your precepts, as they remember that those who walk with integrity walk securely. lord, teach them the lessons they need to learn so that they will not repeat the mistakes of the past. may they serve this land with competence and faithfulness, never forgetting their accountability to you. cause them to hear your words and to follow where you lead.

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

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: combating the spread of the zika virus should be a priority for both parties. we worked hard to forge a compromise solution that made $1.1 billion available to fight this virus. that compromise plan already passed the senate with unanimous

support of democrats. we now have a bicameral agreement that provides the exact same compromise level of funding. the house did its job and approved the legislation. the senate can now do its job and send that legislation down to the president. democrats joined democrats in sounding the alarm about zika, but now we're at the finish line and suddenly our friends across the aisle are changing their tune. here's what the fourth ranking senate democrat recently said -- quote -- "families are looking to congress for action on zika. it is well past time that we delivered." so will she help the senate deliver tomorrow or play partisan games? here's what the third ranking senate democrat recently said -- quote -- "every day we wait, every day is increasing the risk that we will have problems with zika." so will he help the senate take action tomorrow?

or play partisan politics? here's what the second ranking senate democrat recently said -- quote -- "the mosquitoes carrying this deadly virus are on the march." so will he help the senate arrest that march before the fourth of july? or play partisan politics? here's what the democratic leader recently said -- quote - "every day we wait is a bad day for america and the world." so will he help the senate pass this $1.1 billion zika control funding compromise or play partisan politics and delay action for weeks? and here's the white house which recently called for congressional action on zika by july fourth. the time to prepare before zika begins to spread in the continental united states is rapidly closing. we need some congressional action. we need a sense of urgency, and we need it now. democrats are trying to claim

they weren't involved in the negotiations over this legislation but they were from the beginning to end and the house agreed to the funding level that democrats supported unanimously. democrats are trying to trot out the -- quote -- war on women playbook but this legislation actually provides more resources for women's health services through hospitals, health departments, community health centers and other public programs. democrats have even tried to claim this zika legislation would endanger clean water protections, but it won't. it contains a temporary targeted compromise that will allow experts to actually get at mosquito control, the root cause of zika in an effective way while we wait for a vaccine. the agreement before us is a compromise with input from both parties, and it represents the last chance we will have to address zika for weeks. the c.d.c. director testified that the $1.1 billion funding

level will allow him -- quote -- to do the things we need to do in the immediate term. the sooner we get a bill, he said, the better. senate democrats have already unanimously supported the $1.1 billion in funding to combat the virus. voting to block this bill now will delay zika control funding well beyond the white house deadlines. so look, there is no reason democrats should reverse course now and block funding for zika control in the midst of mosquito season. there's no reason they should put partisan politics above the health of pregnant women and babies. and there is no reason they should block support for our veterans either. this legislation before us will honor commitments to the men and women who have served -- who serve and protect us. it includes a significant increase for the v.a. to help improve the quality of health care services and benefits that our veterans have earned. it will enhance oversight and

accountability at the v.a., and it will help improve quality of life on military bases for soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and their families. our men and women in uniform make sacrifices daily on our behalf. sacrifices like missing special moments with their families, like being stationed in distant places far from home, like suffering physical wounds they carry with them long after their service is over. sadly, too many of our service members are also burdened by wounds that cannot be seen like traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. we're reminded of their daily sacrifices on this national ptsd awareness day. we know that too many of our veterans and their families are unfortunately all too familiar with the challenges and sorrows this condition can bring. we know, too, that while our

warriors may return home from the battlefield due to effective medevac and trauma care, there's a generation of warriors who will need treatment and support literally for decades to come. we owe this support to the service members who drove al qaeda from afghanistan and offered the iraqis an opportunity for a better future. we owe it to each and every veteran who has sacrificed to help keep us safe. we have an all-volunteer force in this country, the young men and women who sign up to defend our nation don't ask for very much, but our nation certainly asks a lot of them. they deserve the benefits, care and treatment they have earned. we need to pass the veterans and military construction funding bill before us as soon as possible. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: just a few brief words

on the milcon, v.a., zika funding matter. this conference report is full of poison pills. i'll give you just a few of them. again, the house republicans can't help themselves, and of course republicans over here join with them. they have to do anything they can to whack planned parenthood, and that's what they do in this conference report. they restrict funding for birth control provided by planned parenthood. can you believe that? and the zika problem, who does it affect? women. and especially pregnant women. it exempts pesticide spraying from clean water act prohibitions and protections. it cuts veterans funding by $500 million. it cuts ebola funding by $107 million. it cuts obamacare by

$543 million. now, listen to this one. why would they do this? they stick a provision in this that prohibits -- that strikes a prohibition that we have placed in the legislation displaying the confederate flag. under what they have done, any veterans facility can fly the confederate flag. why would they put that in this bill? of course it sets a terrible precedent offsetting emergency spending, and it's missing $800 million. what a shame. it's like we're being dared to oppose this legislation. we have no choice. mr. president, last week the voters of the united kingdom stunned the world by voting to exit the european union. the vote was close but ultimately the electorate decided to sever the united

kingdom from the european union, an entity which it had been part of for 40 years. i was disappointed by that decision, but it was their decision. in the aftermath of last week's referendum, i was pleased that president obama reaffirmed the united states commitment to our special relationship with the united kingdom and our strong ties to the european union. regardless of what happens with the so-called brexit, the united states will continue meeting its strong alliances with britain and europe. on another subject matter, madam president, this morning the united states supreme court issues its final -- issued its final set of rulings for the year, for this court term. i was pleased with two of the court's decisions especially, one pertaining to women's health and keeping guns away from dangerous individuals. in the court's 5-3 decision, whole woman's health was the

name of the case, the court affirmed the constitutionally protected rights of american women. the justices struck down a texas law that limited women's rights and restricted access to health care. infringing upon the rights of texans has become all too familiar for the government of texas. it's a theme they have, and they play that theme all the time and they march to it. the state has pushed laws to restrict people's right to vote. the last general election -- in the last general election, 600,000 texans couldn't vote. they didn't have the right i.d. the state has pushed laws to restrict people's right to vote, to limit victims' ability to recover deserved damages after accidents or medical malpractice. the law restricting women's care was just the most recent example of texas trampling on the rights of its people. so i'm pleased that the supreme court struck down texas' unconstitutional attempt to deprive women of health care.

and another ruling today, the united states supreme court also whacked the national rifle association. by a 6-2 decision, the justices upheld a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from buying guns. while the supreme court did its job today, i must note the many other missed opportunities from the court the last few months. due to republicans' historic obstruction of judge merrick garland, the united states highest court is often deadlocked. the court has been unable to provide definite rulings on some of the most important cases of our time because they have not nine justices but only eight, due to the republicans' obstruction. for the first time in the history of the country, in a year right before an election, the republicans have decided no, we're not going to allow a vote on a supreme court nomination.

it's never happened before. by denying president obama the chance to fill this vacancy, republicans have infected the supreme court with the same gridlock they have infected the united states congress for seven and a half years. eight supreme court justices are simply not enough to properly serve the american people and the rule of law. as one drake university law professor wrote recently, and i quote -- "with just eight members, the court cannot resolve certain controversial cases. it can split 4-4 which means there is no uniform rule of law." close quote. all tolled the supreme court is deadlocked on seven important issues. employers request ken i -- deny women who are working access to contraceptive coverage because of senate republicans, companies can misuse the private information of consumers, and because of senate republicans, lenders can discriminate against married women. there are others. the most glaring example,

though, is from last tuesday -- i'm sorry, last thursday when the court was unable to reach a majority decision on an important immigration case. it issued a one-sentence ruling that i quote -- "judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court." as far as solicitor general walter dellinger wrote and here's a quote, "seldom have so many hopes been crushed by so few words." these immigration programs would take millions of people out of the shadows and allow them to work and pay taxes. today it also happens to be the third anniversary of the senate passing a bipartisan bill to fix our nation's immigration system by a heavy vote of 68-32. it was bipartisan in nature. three years ago after the bill passed the united states senate, the republicans used their obstructionist ways to -- today

the same republicans are obstructing a ninth supreme court justice in order to kill the president's executive action on immigration. latino immigrant families across this nation are watching. who stands with them and who stands against them? it's pretty easy to see. it's appalling that republicans are willing to prevent the court from doing its job as they wait for a donald trump appointed nominee. that's startling. just yesterday the republican leader refused to say if donald trump is qualified to be president. his silence speaks volumes. republicans continue to block our justice system from functioning so this unqualified bigot can reshape the supreme court in his image. it's time for republicans to stop forming partisan and gridlock. america deserves a fully functioning supreme court. mr. president, just last month we marked the 70th anniversary of president truman's historic

promise to mine workers. president truman promised to provide lifetime health benefits to coal miners in exchange for their continuation of backbreaking work. today tens of thousands of miners and widows are in imminent danger of losing not part of their health benefits but all of them, a hundred percent of them. their modest pension benefits are also at serious risk, a promise that has been kept for 70 years is about to be violated, broken. we shouldn't let that happen. there's a bipartisan solution that would avert this crisis. -- wants the senate to vote on the mine workers protection act and so do i. it's -- if it's up to senator mcconnell we will not be given a chance to vote before the recess despite the gravity of the situation. mr. president, more than 3,000 miners and their supporters rallied in lexington, kentucky -- i'm so sorry. 3 thown miners -- 3,000 miners

gathered. it was a big rally in lexington just two weeks ago urging congressional action. the senate should vote on the mine workers protection act before we recess for the political conventions that will be held this summer. a promise made by president truman is a promise we should keep because a promise made should be a promise kept. as we work to help these families, we should not forget the many west virginians who are fighting the devastating flooding that's ravaged that state. 25 died. our hearts go out to the victims and the families of those affected by the devastation. i've spoken several times to the senior senator from west virginia. it's just hard to comprehend in the sparsely populated state. the storm could take 25 people, men, women and children and still there are people

unaccounted for. so i express on behalf of the whole united states senate the care, the feeling that we have for west virginia. i want to be available here to do everything that i can to help the people of west virginia. senator manchin is a great advocate and we'll listen closely to follow his direction and guide yanls. i would also thank -- guidance. i would also thank the many brave police officers and firefighters, e. m.s.'s who worked hard to prevent further loss of life. many came close to dying. we've seen it all on television. we've read the stories. it's really frightening that something like that could happen. i was told by senator manchin, this is a thousand years storm. nothing like that has ever happened before. 9 inches of rain in just a matter of hours. madam president, it's a

devastating thing for the people of west virginia but also for our country. would chair be good enough to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: first, i want to thank senator reed, all my cool -- senator reid, all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the outpouring of love they have given to our state and have expressed that to me. i want to thank senator reid also and my democratic colleagues for their commitment to the miners protection act. also to senator capito, my colleague, counterpart in the senate. she's committed working on that. there's a promise that was made and basically the miners kept their promise. they've kept the country

supplied with energy that's been needed by their hard work. this is mostly the widows who are depending on these pensions. they're modest pensions but basically their health care which they'll get a 90-day notice july 15 if we do nothing. we just can't do that. we just can't do that to any part of this great country, and especially those who have worked so hard and given so much. i thank him for that commitment and i hope my colleagues, all of my colleagues, my republican and democrat colleagues will help me keep this commitment and this promise to our miners. with that being said, let me tell you a little bit about what's going on in my state of west virginia. i came back last night. i was driving home thursday night so i was driving. i got caught in virginia driving on 81 and this deluge of water started. the rains i've never seen before started while i was on 81.

and getting into lexington and -- lexington, virginia that i cross over to 64 to come in and then from 64 i go through clifton forge and covington. and the river -- i've traveled quite a bit that way and i've never seen water like n. the river started coming across the road. we were able to get through that. and i was asked what was my first impression coming into west virginia. i was driving in and you come into west virginia on the greenbrier county side in white sulfur springs and the beautiful greenbrier is right there as soon as you come into our state. i came in and the exit you get off to where you go to the greenbrier and go into white sulfur springs, i looked down and it was totally under water. all the stores i used to stop and see people, the filling stations. but the earriest -- eeriest thing i've ever seen is all these cars were under water and their lights were on. you know if the lights were on, someone was driving. for the water to come up that

quick that you couldn't even turn your car off, you just jumped out or tried to swim out or tried to get out the best you could, that gives you an idea of how fast this water rose. no one has ever seen anything like it. then i see a trailer, a person's home floating down the road in the middle of the road. and i'm thinking, what happened? and then i drive on in and get into charleston and so as senator reid said, 9 inches. we had up to 10 inches of ra inin some parts -- of rain in some parts. 9 to 10 inches. all counties got hit pretty good but really a few of them really got inundated. but if you could imagine 9 to 10 inches of rain happening between -- within a 2 to 6-hour period, 2 to 6-hour period. that would almost be like turning all the hoses you have on your house, put them in the house and trn them on -- turn them on full force and let them

run that period of time and see what happens. it's just unbelieve annual. so things that we -- unbelievable. so things that we saw, first of all people didn't have insurance because they didn't think they were in a flood plain. next, people couldn't afford insurance that were in the flood plain. next, most of our state, the beautiful mountains that we have, most of the people over the years, last 100, 200 years have built in the valleys because that's where the river and meandered and kind of cut out the flat, level places. so they are saying why would they build? this is where they've always been. but over the years they've either dredged the rivers, done different things, built flood walls, dams to hold back. now we need to think about how to do this. we need the army corps of evening nears and the term. i want to thank president obama. his chief of staff, denis

mcdonough, i called dennis and i said, if we've ever needed help we need it now. he said, senator, i can assure you the president is ready to help as quickly as you put your declaration in. never have we had a detion cla ration signed -- declaration signed and turned around. so i thank the president and dennis and the entire white house staff for the compassion they've had for my state and all of the people in my state as hard as it's been hit. so we have three counties with a declaration. that's nick colson -- nicholson, canoya and greenbrier which was hit hard which is where the greenbrier resort is. those three counties are getting immediate relief. we have 500 national guardsmen coming in. i flew over the area. i visited all the areas by car on friday. i flew over on saturday. i have never seen an entire town, entire city inundated in water, the entire town.

there wasn't a dry spot in the town. so everybody got caught. someone says about the warning, why -- we did give warning. there's never -- if you've lived all your life and your parents and grandparents before you, never have you heard stories about water coming this fast and this quick, let me give you one example and you can imagine. i went to white sulfur springs yesterday down in the little town where you've seen the pictures on television, the house that was floating on fire. i was there right where it happened. before i got to that house, i'm walking down and there was a lady standing there. and there is foundations after few homes but no sign of a home anywhere. and there was -- she had flowers in a cross, and that's where her husband who is the grandfather and her, but her husband, her daughter, and two grandchildren were in the house. they got clear to the attic and

the house left. one of the kids was saved but one little child, the mother or the daughter, their daughter, the mother and the grandfather were lost in the flood. and she's standing there looking. what do you say? there's no words to replace that. so you see these types of tragedies. then i walk across the bridge and this gentleman, he came and got me. he said come on. he said joe, i want you to come over and see. i walked up across the bridge where another little -- not a large stream comes out of the mountains, but it had become a raging river. that's where it forks and they basically join. when it happened, sometimes the lie drolg will back up and -- hydrology will back up and the water creates a dam of itself. i walk in there and it looked like a bomb had gone off and there was three or four homes just completely burning. it had exploded. he lived in one of them. he said when this all hit and the water, he ran as quick as he

could with his wife and hid up in the cavern on -- cave on the hillside. they thought everybody had gotten out. a lady did get out and she came back into the home. when the house shifted it broke the gas line. when the gas lines broke, it filled up the homes with natural gas. when the house is shifted, then the power lines broke loose. the sparks from the power line hit the gas and it was like explosion, going off. the woman was in the house. she got caught. she went back in to get something. this he was in the attic. she got burned over 07% of her body. -- 70% of her body. she jumped into a tree. i understand she passed away yesterday. we've lost 23 confirmed dead. we thought there was 25 because two people got swept away and they reported them missing. they found them alive. so we're 23 but we still have five or six or seven unaccounted for. the tragedy continues and people

are outpouring their love. i want to thank first of all fema. fema is on the job doing unbelievable. the national guard. its a going to take everything we have to put our state together where the people can have some infrastructure. maybe we can change some streams to the point where they'll move differently and be able -- water will flow a little differently hopefully. but this is where you need yore federal government. no state -- your state, beautiful state of iowa, couldn't do it by our self. we couldn't do it by ourselves. we've got the red cross and everybody in. if people want to know how they can help, i've got people saying, off-any money, but we we need yore money. if they wnts to send good, he we need that, too. people have lost everything. to give an example, jim justice, the owner of the greenbrier

resort, the green briar is closed indefinitely rate now, and this big golf tournament was planninged, the greenbrier classic, is canceled. the golf course is pretty much ruined to some extent. but they will come back. so jim has opened up the greenbrier to anybody who is homeless now that lost their home. he says, we'll give you a place to stay free. come to the greenbrier. we don't have hot water, because all of their boiler systems -- but they have water. that's what they're able to do. he has been gracious to do that. if people can get on my web site, manchin.senate.gov, at the front of our web site you can see anything you want to do and it'll take you right to a site that you can get in contact with the pooh emthat you can help our state -- with the people that you can help our state. again, i know the love and compassion that people v i have watched people come together. our little state has always taken care of itself. if you ask people, do you have a

place to stay in they say, i'm staying with my neighbor. that's been fantastic. the outpouring of love and compassion from around the country is unbelievable. we have a lot of famous west virginians. bras paisley, he has called -- brad pacely, he has called -- brad paisley, he has called and wants to do a benefit for the state. so many people have stepped up to the plate. from the bottom of my heart, i want to say thank you to everybody for reaching out. it is not oamplet i just called home and it is range again. and now we have flash flood warnings out for the same areas again. but i've talked to the weather channel. we're not supposed to get anywhere near, so we'll be able to handle this, we hope. but it just basically stops the cleanup. and it's just devastating to see what's happening. so i say thank you to all of my colleagues, everyone who has sent their sincere -- heartfelt, sincere condolences for our

state, the people who lost their lives. that's the first and foremost thipg. we can replace everything else. we can't replace those dear little kids and the parents and grandparents. it is unbelievable. so with that, madam president, i say thank you from the great state of west virginiament, on behalf of my colleague, senator capito. we have both been on the trail trying to get the relief we can. just keep us in your prayers. were that i notice the example after quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: madam president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, this week the senate is going to consider legislation dealing with the crisis in puerto rico. the legislation that is before us, the puerto rico oversight management and economic stability act, it's already

passed the house by a vote of 297-127. and that's because and why we're taking it up this week is because puerto rico needs help. now they've needed help for quite awhile, but now we are running out of time to help that island territory of the united states. three and a half million american citizens live there. last week i spoke to the governor of puerto rico, governor alejandro garcia padilla. he explained just how dire the situation is in puerto rico. on july 1, a $2 billion debt

payment is due. that's just a few days from now. there is no way that puerto rico can make that payment. they don't have the cash. when they don't make that payment, it will be a race to the courthouse to see which hedge fund will sue puerto rico first and squeeze out whatever money is left on the island, even if it comes at the expense of 3.5 million american citizens living there today. hedge funds have already filed for injunctive relief in the southern district of new york. in their court documents, they state that they should be paid first in times of skaterty,

ahead of -- in times of scarcity, ahead of even what the government needs for essential services. essential services means things like schools, hospitals, law enforcement. the governor in our conversation told me that if they are granted this injunctive relief for the hedge funds, then he's not going to be able to pay the salaries of law enforcement and other first responders. now this isn't abstract. this is real. hospitals have already closed. the secretary of the treasury, jacob lew, has cited in a letter earlier that hospitals can only order dialysis treatments for

premature newborns intensive care. how? only if they pay cash on demand daily. let me repeat that. that they are so strapped that hospitals can only order the dialysis that is essential for life for premature newborns who are in intensive care, can only order it if they are paid in cash for that dialysis on a daily basis. this legislation that the house has crafted is certainly not the bill that i would have crafted, but it's the only bill that we

have before us that could get by the tea party element in the house of representatives. it's not ideal, particularly with regard to the labor provisions in the bill and the way the oversight board is organized. and you'll hear that bipartisan attacks against the bill in the senate, well-meaning and well-felt but this legislation is needed to get puerto rico out of this immediate crisis. so there are a lot of us who would like to see more in the bill to address the health care disparities in puerto rico and the lack of economic growth on

the island, but as governor padilla has said, if someone is holding you up at gunpoint and said your wallet or your life, you're going to hand him your wallet because the alternative is worse. and so that's where we are. we have to compromise. that's the nature of congress. that's how the framers set it up. that's how we get things done. we don't get the perfect, the ideal. we have too many other opinions to consider when we put together legislation. and so if we go on and pass this legislation, once we then get out of this immediate crisis, then all of us must work as hard as we can to push for solutions

to some of the other long-term problems that puerto rico has. this isn't the end. it's just the beginning. at the same time we should not look pass the achievements in this bill. and this is, at the end of the day, why this senator comes down on the side of supporting this legislation. it provides for an orderly process for puerto rico to adjust all of its debts, including its general obligation bonds. those are the bonds that are held by those hedge funds, looking now asking for injunctive relief that they be the ones to get the money first, looking to squeeze the life out of the territory.

they are the ones that ran all those ads saying that this bill was a bailout. have you seen those ads? isn't it trug that they are the the only ones that have the money to run ads saying it's a bailout. who's paying for the ads? the hedge funds that hold the bonds because they want their money first to the exclusion of the essential services on the island. well, this is not a bailout. it doesn't spend any taxpayer money. but it has the hedge funds on wall street running scared because they know that if this passes, they won't be able to get special treatment and they won't be able to starve puerto rico of its vital resources.

now just considering -- just consider the suffering that is going on in puerto rico. nearly 200 schools have closed. public transportation services have been cut. payments to gasoline suppliers have been delayed, causing vendors to stop supplying gasoline to emergency vehicles, like ambulances and fire trucks. schools have had to cut services to special needs kids. and 80% of the businesses in san juan's main business district have closed. this isn't something that we can continue to debate ad infinitum. real people are suffering now.

every day we go without providing some sort of relief, the more harm is done to the people of puerto rico. we're out of time. we need to act. and this bill is the only bill moving. i stk my colleagues -- i ask my colleagues to support the bill and send it to the president as soon as possible because, as the governor said, the alternative is worse. now, might i also add, since this senator comes from a part of the country -- florida -- and from a section of florida -- central florida, the orlando area -- where there is such a concentration of citizens that have moved from the island.

it's one of the highest con -- concentration of puerto ricans right there in the u.s., right there in the orlando area. what is happening? as the island deteriorates in all of its essential services, where doctors can't get paid, where the people do not have the essential services for life, the health, welfare and happiness of the people, what's happening is the professional people are picking up roots and moving to the mainland u.s. and a good part of them are coming to my state. we're gad to -- glad to have th, but look what's happening. the very people that will help puerto rico come out of this

financial and health care crisis, by the way, with zika piled on top of it, with huge percentages of the population already infected with the zika virus, it just is all the more come pounding the problems of the people of the island. this is why we've got to act. now, madam president, i am going to insert in the record a letter from the department of the treasury to our majority leader here from the secretary of the treasury that outlines some of the island's medical woes talking about the island's doctors in the neonatal

intensive care unit in order to get the drugs for dialysis. they have to get cash every day in order to deliver those services. i'd also like to introduce into the record governor alejandro garcia padilla's letter to me stating why he supports it, and i might also say that another member of the government, the delegate to the u.s. house of representatives, who we call congressman pedro pierre luisi, of a different party than the governor, and he likewise strongly supports this legislation. i would ask consent, madam president, that these two be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i'll close by saying that we can't let these people be dangling there anymore. we have got to come to the aid of our fellow american citizens, and let's remember that when it comes to time of war, puerto rico provides some of the bravest military people that we have. let's remember that they served this nation honorably. now let us try to help them. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, we will soon vote on a bill that would provide funding for a coordinated response to the zika virus, a virus that has already ravaged many parts of latin

america and places like puerto rico. over the past few weeks, our democratic friends have repeatedly stressed the urgency of this matter, and of course with the summer months coming, they're likely to bring us more mosquitoes, which of course is the primary vector of -- that carries this virus. thankfully, in the united states, no one who has contracted the zika virus has done so through a mosquito. it's been from people traveling to central and south america who have been bitten there. at least that's according to the most current statistics from the center for disease control. but we know they're coming, and we need to act with dispatch. i know many of our friends across the aisle were very eager to get this done because they came down and made unanimous consent requests for $1.9 billion, but as you will recall, madam president, the senate passed an appropriation for $1.1 billion, and the only

difference between the house and the senate was whether this will be deficit spending or whether it would actually be offset or paid for, which was the house position. i think the house had the better argument. if we could pay for it, that would be ideal, but i think everybody agrees that we need to get moving quickly to protect our communities, and of course the most vulnerable people for the zika virus are women of child-bearing age. if a mosquito carrying zika were to bite me, i'm told you might not even notice it or you might feel like you had a little flu symptom for a day and then it would go away, but we simply don't know enough about how long the virus is retained in the body, and so even if a woman isn't pregnant when she is bitten, the fact that she is bitten and is of child-bearing age and what that might mean is really an unknown, and so it's pretty frightening stuff, particularly if you're a woman

of child-bearing age. and so i hope we will act with dispatch. it's not fast enough for some of our colleagues who wanted us to do this without the usual conference committee with the house to try to reconcile differences, but we need to get this done. so it's surprising now to hear some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they actually plan to filibuster this legislation, and the president apparently is indicating he might veto it. i'm really interested to hear how they arrived from point a to point b, taking the position that we ought to do it immediately several weeks ago, and now it's come to fruition to say well, we can simply blow it up, it's not good enough and not complete our work here. it really is unfortunate. i hope cooler heads prevail. this country is on the edge of a public health crisis, and i know talking to governor abbott in

texas and also to the public health officials there, they are very concerned about what this means, and i'm sure like the preceding speaker from florida, louisiana and texas being some very temperate, warm weather regions of the state are particularly vulnerable to this particular type of mosquito and this virus, but it could well spread to other parts of the country, too, unless we act with dispatch tomorrow to approve this conference report and to get this bill to the president's desk and to get the money to the researchers and the people trying to develop a vaccine which ultimately may be the ultimate tool in the toolbox so that people can be vaccined so that -- vaccinated so that, for example, women who are of child-bearing age don't have to worry about the possibility of acquiring this disease or what it might mean to their unborn child. we need to make sure that the doctors and the researchers and

the other public health officials on the front lines get the resources they need. now, the good news is that taking some advice from the senate and the house, republicans in particular, the president decided to reprogram $589 million left over in the ebola account. they did that a few weeks ago. and as of earlier this month, only $40 million of that $589 million has been obligated. so there is a cushion there, but i think we should be careful about acting complacently when it comes to dealing with this particular crisis, or impending crisis. so for the president and some of our colleagues who have been insistent that we act on this now to say we're going to filibuster it or the president will actually veto it is really pretty hard to get your head around, unless, of course, you

conclude that it's completely disingenuous and irresponsible. but i'd like to give our colleagues a little more credit than that. i'm anxious to hear how they have changed their position so dramatically from just a few weeks ago. so we will vote on this proposal tomorrow, and i hope that, as i said, cooler heads will prevail and our colleagues will vote to support it, so we can quickly get the urgent resources needed to those public health officials who are studying the virus, working on prevention, including mosquito eradication, which is an important part of this, as well as creating a vaccine. the minority leader in particular has spent a considerable amount of time on the floor stressing how dire the need is to fund zika prevention efforts. he and the rest of his caucus will have a clear choice. they can either play politics at the expense of the mothers and the children across the country or they can simply decide to do the right thing and support the bipartisan zika bill.

madam president, on another matter, in the aftermath of the orlando shooting, the senate has been discussing the need to respond to terrorist threats within our own borders, and just to recap, this isn't about people traveling from the united states to the middle east and returning or people coming from the middle east to the united states -- it is about that, but primarily what we're worried about in orlando is the radicalization of the american citizen by propaganda, poisonous propaganda being issued by the islamic state, and that falls in a fertile field with particularly susceptible individuals like the shooter in orlando. but that's one reason why it's so important we complete our work on the commerce, justice and science appropriation bill. it keeps many of our counterterrorism efforts going like funding those who are on the front lines, like the f.b.i., for example, and other law enforcement.

so i hope we can get that legislation completed, too, and in so doing underscore our commitment to those public servants who defend the homeland. but we can't lose sight at the heart of the problem. a lack of any coherent ploon to defeat isis and a foreign policy missing direction and leadership from the commander in chief, the president of the united states. over the past few days, it's become even more clear that not even those in the obama administration are on board with his shortsighted and reckless policies. first, more than 50 diplomats set an in-- sent an internal protest memo to harshly criticize the president's syria policy. you can find that draft version of the memo online. it's four frank pages decrying obama's failed wait-and-see approach to syria to some of those who have been most involved with the policy. "the new york times" was forced to admit that the number of signatures on it, 51, was --

quote -- extremely large if not unprecedented. i wish i had time to read the full memo aloud here, but let me just quote from a few paragraphe final paragraph. it says the status quo in syria will continue to present increasingly dire if not disastrous humanitarian, diplomatic and terror-related challenges. for five years, the scale of these consequences has overwhelmed our efforts to deal with this conflict. the united states cannot contain the conflict with current policy. we firmly believe it is time for the united states, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, to lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict. what an indictment of the leadership of the white house. by people who are part of the obama administration.

i am grateful that these diplomats that have opted to stand up and to be counted and to tell the truth for our own security as well as those in the middle east who are suffering so much. the administration's policies really their inaction have languished for five years with all signs pointing to a much-needed course correction, but still even after the red lines were crossed by a serious murderous dictator and as the supposed j.v. team of terrorists are exporting deadly violence into our own country, the white house still views its policies in a positive light. but of course it's not just these diplomats working in the state department of president obama who are raising red flags. recently, the c.i.a. director agreed with them while testifying before the senate intelligence committee. he admitted that we are further

away from a diplomatic solution in syria than a year ago, largely because of russia's involvement in propping up the regime of bashar al-assad. and he confirmed that isis, the islamic state, is preparing to conduct further attacks, in part by training and procuring its followers to carry out attacks in their home countries like the united states of america. contrary to the narrative that the white house is selling, director brennan called isis a -- quote -- formidable adversary that's building a global terror network, and he stressed that libya in particular is a growing hotbed of islamic extremism. recently, i traveled to tunisia with the members of the house homeland security committee, and we met with the libyan country team, the u.s. ambassador to libya, and the other members of that country team who had not even been able to go to libya because it was so dangerous, so they were actually working in

exile in tun asia next door. well, director brennan called the isis offshoot in libya the most developed and most dangerous branch of the terrorist group. how did we get here? president obama and secretary of state hillary clinton failed in their efforts to stabilize the country after toppling qadhafi. didn't we learn anything in iraq? apparently the obama administration did not. they had no plan for what to do once qadhafi was gone. evidently, president obama opted to lead from behind during the military campaign and then not lead at all africa daffy fell. -- after qadhafi fell. unfortunately, recent testimony from the president's nominee to lead the u.s. forces in africa or africom, suggested the forces

hadn't learned any lessons after this disaster. when asked whether there was a strategy in place for dealing with all the threats emanating from libya, the nominee, the marine corps general who was testifying, said he wasn't aware of any strategy, even though he agreed that isis has a significant presence in libya and constitutes an imminent threat to our country here at home. just a few days ago an article in the "washington post" highlighted the difference it what our military leaders believe is necessary to accomplish the mission and what the white house wil begrudgingly agreed to give them which is less than what they need. according to the article u.s. commanders on the ground in iraq are readying a request to the white house for more troops so that we can help the iraqi army secure fallujah and eventually take back mosul. the article also notes that military leaders have been regularly highlighting the need for more troops in the region

and quickly, but are concerned that the administration will be reluctant to commit more. that's because the president has instituted an artificial troop cap for iraq and syria. it's about the numbers. it's not about the mission. just like he did in afghanistan and he doesn't want to add to that, no matter what happens. apparently this foolish -- the foolish campaign promises that the president made when he was running are more important to him now than actually defeating isis abroad. and as it stands, his legacy will be leaving iraq more unstable and more dangerous to u.s. interests than it was when he came into office. this should be a no brainer. we don't succeed on the battlefield when we ignore the counsel of the experts, our uniformed military leaders. and we can't succeed on the ground in iraq when the

president won't provide the resources necessary to carry out their operations that he's asked them to perform. we don't need a band aid. we don't need more calls for diplomacy and other hollowed talking points on libya. what we need and what the world needs is american leadership and a commitment from the white house to root out and annihilate isis where it lives and breathes. i doubt the orlando shooter would have pledged allegiance to the leader of the islamic state if we had done what our military leadership believes we should have done already which is to crush isis and to defeat it. i doubt the orlando shooter would have pledged allegiance to a movement whose leader -- to a leader whose movement had been crushed and destroyed, but he did because he feels like they're winning. when the watching world sees that we lack the will to defeat

isis, isis sympathizers around the world sense weakness and they're emboldened in their plan to carry out attacks including on u.s. soil. there is a direct relationship between the battlefield in iraq and syria and our neighborhoods and communities here in america. what matters there -- what happens there matters here. so when the request from our military leadership arrives at the president's desk asking for more resources, he should remember orlando and he should grant the request. if he refuses or dithers, any resulting failure in iraq and syria or further attacks in the homeland will be part of his lasting legacy. from our diplomatic core to the intelligence community to the leaders of our military all have directly or indirectly challenged the president's

foreign policy in just the last few days. it's really remarkable if you think about it. it takes courage and real strength of conviction to buck the leader of your political party or the administration, and i hope the president willens to them because -- listens to them because they are really trying to help him make the right decision and they are the real experts here. but if the president won't act decisively against our adversaries abroad, congress must do all we can do to guard against the enemy here at home. passing appropriations bills that provide the resources for federal, state and local law enforcement are part of our responsibility to make sure that our first responders and law enforcement community have the resources they need, and i hope we get that done soon. madam president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. a senator: i ask unanimous

consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president, we're going to be voting on wednesday on something significant. it's had a lot of discussion recently. i want to put a little different perspective on the problems that are in puerto rico right now. puerto rico has $90 billion of detroit now, $90 billion. it says it can't repay it in full. i think a bunch of guys have done a good job at establishes a solution for that. on july it's scheduled, puerto rico is scheduled and it's going to be missing another debt payment which is going to put it up over $90 billion. the senate this week will consider legislation that will impose an oversight board that will set up the bankruptcy restructuring process. it's important that the citizens of puerto rico and the residents of ver vieques realize they hava

role in the nation's defense, a role that could bring in economic investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to puerto rico. in april of 1999 following an accident on the range of vieques, vieques is a little island off of puerto rico, the training range that resulted in the death of a navy civilian employee and all training activities at that range were suspended. now, they've been training on that range for 60 years, and they suspended them. despite the efforts of congress and the department of defense leadership to include approving additional funding to hold a referendum on vieques as well as increasing funding per year if vieques remains open, the navy was forced to end all training operations in 2003. after 60 years of that arrangement, they had to suspend

it. when that happened we had to close radios vement -- i remember when -- roosevelt roads. i remember when they were considering and i made the comment that they are. you guys will rejoice that you have the benefit of that because roosevelt roads is only there to support vie yay ces. -- vie yay ces. it took with them over 2500 military, uniformed personnel, over 2,000 family members and impacted more than 25 is a ilhavian employees. the total impact from the navy was estimated to be over $300 million a year in 2003 when navy entered its operations. i recall when that happened, that i was there and i was making the statement that you're going to have financial ruin in the -- on the island and it's all starting right now with the problem that we're having and not allowing us to continue what we've been doing in vieques. today as in 1999, our military

is facing a readiness crisis and needs ranges like vieques to train if they're going to have a full spectrum joint operations. on the 2nd of september of 1999, the chairman -- i was the chairman at that time of a subcommittee of the senate armed services committee called the readiness subcommittee. and i held a hearing on the military requirement for vieques and the assessment of alternative sites that could replace vieques. during the hearing admiral william fallon, now he was then the commander of the navy's second fleet and general peter pace. peter pace was the commander of the marine corps at that time, they testified that -- before the committee that i chaired that vieques is quite -- is a unique facility, the only one located in the atlantic where realistic combat training can be

conducted in a combined and coordinated matter. the only navy live fire land complete with day and night capabilities am bibious landing -- amphibious landing beach maneuvers ranging in areas of low-traffic air space and deep water sea space with underwater and electronic warfare ranges, the only one. the only one in the world. the navy marine corps study examined 18 alternative sites evaluating availability of an air-to-ground live ordnance range with realistic targets and aerospace for high altitude deliveries and for a naval surface fire support range which permits training of ships, forward spotters and fire coordination teams, the ability for combat arms, amphibious training and nearby naval and

air support. we looked everywhere for this. 18 alternative sites. the study concluded that no single site evaluated was able to accomplish all the training conducted at vieques. the study also considered apportioning the training to various alternative locations but included the piecemeal approach, this is using their language now -- quote -- "significantly degrades training to support the effective integration and coordination of all combined -- what we're talking about is marines in the navy, the marines going in. they're bomb pg. the navy has -- bombing. the navy has their planes up there and it's all taking place at one time. to fully understand the capabilities of vieques and to the potential to conduct vieques training at other training sites, i visited vieques and i visited all 18 alternative sites around the world and additional training sites used by the

department of defense that were actually here in the united states. sites i visited included cape wrath in northern scotland, sardinia, moonland island in the caribbean, dog island in the caribbean, in texas, piern castle, avon park, pensacola, algin in florida, cherry point in camp lejeune in north carolina, towson in georgia and san clem meantee in california. that's a lot of sites and i went to all of them. none of the locations had the capability to meet the training requirements of the navy and marine corps and would have placed additional restrictions due to lack of training availability, training days, sea space and air space restrictio restrictions, approximately or large population areas, live fire restrictions, weather and inability to conduct operations, air, land and sea operations simultaneously, no place.

i also visited the john f. kennedy battle group learning that fire training -- live fire training is essential for our nation's ability to safely and effectively conduct the combat operations. but by now allowing our forces to train using live ordnance in a realistic combined operation, we're putting our military personnel at risk during actual combat operations. numerous d.o.d. officials have testified before our committee that the loss of training at the vieques range has resulted in the loss of critical combat training essential to the nation's navy and marine forces and would increase the riivelg to our sailors and -- risk to our sailors and marines. these people, the top military officials talked about how many of our troops, how many of our

americans had to die as a result of the loss of that training area. rear admiral kevin moran, he was the navy commander who oversaw operations throughout the caribbean, compared combined live training to practice for a football team explaining that coaches could routinely do basic training for quarterbacks separate from the defense and they could train everybody individually but you have -- at some point, and this is his quote, he said "at some point you have to bring them together before the big game." vieques is the only place that we can do that. secretary richard danzig who was then the secretary of the navy says only by providing this preparation can we fairly ask our service members to put their life at risk. admiral johnson, then the chief of naval operations and general jones who was a combat commander

of the marine corps says vieques provides integrated live fire training critical to our readiness and the failure to provide for adequate live fire training for our military forces before deployment will place those forces at an unacceptably high risk during the deployment. admiral ellis -- well, captain james stark jr., at the time commanding officer of the roosevelt roads naval station, he said,ings when you steam off to battle, you're either ready or not. if you're not, that means casualties, that means more p.o.w.'s, that means less precision and longer campaigns. you pay a price for that you will, and that price is blood." admiral murphy, then commander of the sixth fleet in the navy said the loss of vieques would

cost american lives. on the 12th of march, 2001, five people died in kuwait when u.s.a. aviator dropped three 500-pound bombs off of target. they missed their target and some comments in the report on the incident point to a lack of live-fire training. the commander and deputy commander stated that think actively -- that they actively sought opportunities for that training but the limiting factor was range availability. in other words, they took away the live-fire capability at vieques, and we have five dead soldiers. what we're talking about then is true today. we put americans' lives at risk unnecessarily and if they're not fully trained prior to combat operations, the success or failure of the military when sent into combat is a direct function of the degree of realistic training they receive before combat. their ability to conduct live joint operations is critical to

battlefield success and preservation of the ranges, our military trains and ensures that success. we've got to ensure our military is prepared for the next fight against a near peer competitors. we have more near peer competitors now than we've of ever had in history or that will demand the full force of our joint forces. vieques is still the only range with land and sea and airspace that can accommodate naval surface, aviation and artillery live ordinance delivery with amphibious landing supported by naval fires. all conducted in a realistic joint training environment. i understand firsthand both the importance of both the significance of having a range in your home on the -- on may 3, i was -- there was a program once -- i keep forgetting the name of it

-- called "cross fire" where they have two different people, a liberal and a conservative. i was on this a long time asmght i was debating a congressman from new york who was wanting to close the -- vieques the training site. as we went down through the end of that, he said, well, look, senator, how would you like to have a live-fire training area in your state of oklahoma? and i said, let me tell you about fort sill. fort still, we have 320 days out of the year, 24 hours a day, we have a live range going. it is within a town of about 100,000 people. and nobody complains about it. in fact, they talk about the explosions, the ordinance that are going off all the time. they say, it is the sound of freedom. i tell you something kind of interesting, madam president. it wasn't long ago that they built down in lawton, the city that's right next to the live-range force.

he built the best -- it is declared to be the best elementary school in america and it was just -- quh when you walk through it you can't believe there could be a school like that. but anyway, there is. they named it freedom elementary school after the sound of freedom. you know, there is places where people in this country really want to do things that carry their end of t that was so significant. anyway, fort sill has a live range that's -- that operates 320 days a year. nobody complains about it. so, i think we have an opportunity to help puerto rico. we can do that, help them as a nation. the program they put together forrence with dpai is pretty decent. it is something that can be done. but at the same time -- and i've talked to the individuals who put together that plan. i said, as soon as we vote on that, let's go back and tell -- since puerto rico has had a shock treatment with the economic problems that they've had, tell them, look, if you guys really want to make a

contribution, you can do it. you can make a contribution if something that'll save american lives. we've had people testify that when we went into bosnia and into kosovo, in both bosnia and kosovo, we lost lives, american lives, because we didn't have the training that only a vieques can give us. i've been all around the world. one of the governors came in and he was complaining and all of the environmentalists said, we're going to close vieques as a range. he said to me, since i was pushing it so hard, he made the statement, don't ever go into puerto rico because you won't come out alive. and i went there the next day. and i am alive. so anyway, that's a serious thing and i really do think that we can go ahead and support the bill on wednesday. and then after that talk to them in a very reasonable way and let them know what kind of a contribution they can make to the training and the training of their people as well as our

people to offset what we lost way back 15 years ago. i believe that that's something that we're now trying to talk to them about. they ought to be ready after all of this. and so that's something to come. and i'd like to have anyone thinking about the vote that takes place, which i will support on wednesday, that now you have an opportunity to pass -- to actually provide a service that is going to save american lives. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. fischer: madam president? the presiding officer: the sphror nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. i rise to spheek in strong support of bob rossiter. the presiding officer: tbher a quorum call call. mrs. fischer: request that the quorum call be vitiated, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: i rise today to speak in strong support of bob rossifer, who has been nominated to fill the vacancy on nebraska's federal district court. the judiciary committee approved the nomination of bob rossiter without objection last october, and i am extremely pleased that

the senate will be voting on his nomination this evening. the u.s. district court for the district of nebraska has a tradition of fairness and of justice. this court owes its reputation to the well-respected judges who have served on it. with only three judgeships, nebraska's federal district bench is relatively small. nebraska's federal bench is an example of the efficiency and also integrity. it also has one of the busiest dockets in the country. for example, during the 12-month period ending march 31, 2016, nebraska had the most per judgeship waited filings among eight states that have only three authorized judgeships and a single federal district. with the small bench and a full

docket, it is important that nebraska's federal district court operate at full capacity. as soon as judge battalion announced that he would be taking senior status, i began working with senator mike johanns to select a highly qualified candidate for this very important position. through an open process, we considered many applicants with excellent credentials. approximately 20 individuals asked to be considered for this position, and we had each of them fill out the judiciary committee's lengthy questionnaire. the questionnaire and the reams of supplementary materials were then carefully reviewed. having reviewed the qualifications and the materials of these applicants, i can tell you that nebraska has no

shortage of principled and sharp legal minds. so narrowing that list was challenging. after weeks of thorough consideration, we agreed to recommend bob rossiter to president obama for this judgeship in august of 2014. although senator johanns retired from the senate before the president nominated mr. rossiter in june of 2015, i know that he was pleased with this nomination. i thanked the president for listening to my advocacy for mr. rossiter and for his support for him. for even among the many fine candidates that we interviewed, bob's accomplishments stood out. bob has an impressive list of professional achievements. after graduating cum laude from

creighton university school of law, bob clerked for u.s. district court judge c. arlen beam on nebraska's federal district court. currently he is a partner at the law firm of frazier striker in nebraska. whether bob is working on federal and state employment litigation or administrative agency investigations, he always demonstrates an admirable commitment to integrity and to the rule of law. over the years he's gained the respect of his clients by handling a variety of important issues with excellence. he's listed in the best lawyers in america and in "chambers u.s.a." america's leading business lawyers. perhaps the strongest testament to bob's aptitude and intext as

well as the admiration of his colleagues is the fact that he was previously selected to serve as president of the nebraska bar association. though bob never assumed the bar presidency due to this nomination, this honor, which is not bestowed lightly, is a reflection of the trust placed in bobby those who know -- in bob by those who know and work with him. for these reasons, i am confident that we have found a truly remarkable and qualified person to fill the vacancy on nebraska's federal district court, and i urge my colleagues to support bob rossiter's nomination so that he can put his outstanding intellect, skill, and judgment to work for the american people. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a

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

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: i would like to recognize corporal jason chester and sergeant jay dupuis of the jonesboro police department for this week's arkansans of the week for heroically saving the life of a 13-year-old boy trapped in a storm drain. last month, the 13-year-old was swept away during a flash flood in jonesboro. jacob was washed to the city's drainage system underneath the parking lot where he held on for several hours. initial search efforts by police, fire, e.m.s. and other volunteers to find jacob were unsuccessful, but corporal chester and sergeant dupuis wouldn't give up hope. they returned to the area where

jacob was first swept away and searched again. sergeant dupuis leaned toward a storm drain and heard a faint cry for help. that's when the two officers jumped into action. they removed a heavy manhole cover and were able to pull jacob to safety. the entire state of arkansas is grateful to corporal chester, sergeant dupuis and all the first responders for their heroic efforts. we don't hear news stories with happy endings be often enough these days, especially when the circumstances seem so grim, but because of the persistence and quick thinking of these two officers, jacob hunter is alive and well today. i'm honored to recognize corporal jason chester and sergeant trey dupuis for their efforts. their determination and commitment to finding jacob is a reflection of the true spirit of arkansas, and they remind us we owe a debt of gratitude to all first responders and emergency personnel across the country for the work they do to keep us safe. mr. president, i yield the

floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: morning business -- we are in a quorum. mr. sullivan: i ask the quorum call shall vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under morning business -- the 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, robert f. rossiter jr. of nebraska to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes for debate only on the nomination equally divided in the usual form. mr. sullivan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, one of the great things about being able to come down here and preside as you are and something that i have had the opportunity to do a lot is that when you're in the chair, you get to hear a lot about other members of the senate, their home states.

a lot of people like to come down, as they should, to talk about their constituents, talk about so many different things that are happening throughout our country. we just heard the senator from arkansas talk about some local heroes in his state. he came down here on the floor and talked about them. and i have had the opportunity of presiding to hear many great stories, vietnam veterans in north dakota, great basketball from the presiding officer's state of indiana, proud members of our military who live in texas, tight-knit communities responding to disasters in states across our nation, and these are great stories and they are in many ways what make our nation great. it's what makes our nation strong. hearing about all of the different wonderful communities that we have. and i certainly have learned a

lot from listening to these speeches, and i encourage my colleagues to come down and talk about their states, do a little bragging, and that's what i'm going to do for the next couple of minutes, mr. president. my state, the great state of alaska, has certainly captured the country's imagination in a lot of ways. it's hard to turn on cable tv without seeing a new show on alaska, and for good reason. there is so much in the great state of alaska that's awe- inspiring, that captures the imagination of the american people. our mountain ranges, hundreds of them literally seem to go on for miles and miles, forever like waves in the ocean. the color of our glaciers is unlike anything you have seen before. our rivers and streams, particularly this time of year are choked with salmon, millions and millions of salmon. we have moose and bear and wolves and caribou, musk ox, but

one of the very best things about alaska, one of the things that makes us unique is our mix of cultures and the extraordinary lengths people in alaska go to keep these cultures alive. today i would like to speak specifically about the culture of whaling and would like to honor our alaska eskimo whaling captains, heroes in our communities and the communities that support these brave americans. in alaska, 11 communities in northern alaska, what we call the north slope, participate in two whaling seasons -- neixet, little diamede, whales, point hope, these are the whaling communities of my state. there is the spring whaling season and the fall whaling

season. both correspond to the migration patterns of the great bow head whale. the spring has ended now and it's time for celebration. nulukatuk season is upon us. this is when the communities get together to celebrate the harvest. it's like a summer -- it's like a summer vic nick on the top of the world, but without hot dogs. families eat whale and muktuk. mr. president, let me spend a few minutes to talk about what it takes to harpoon a whale. now, i've never done it, but a lot of my constituents have. amazingly, today's whaling captains and crews still hunt using handheld harpoons as their ancestors have done for thousands of years. during the spring harvest, many of the villages, also as their ancestors have done, go into the

icy waters of the arctic and hand -- in hand skin boats that are built using wooden frames and hand-sewn walrus and bearded skin seal skin. when a bow head whale is landed, to spread the good news, the people exclaim yay hey hey across the north slope. the v.h.s. radios that sit on dining room tables and kitchen counters all across alaska begin to buzz. when a whale comes ashore, the entire community comes out to pull the giant in. it's an exciting time for these communities. it's exciting because every time it happens, a piece of this culture, this important culture is re-enacted and honored. the whales are honored and every part of the animal is used.

these are subsistence communities, meaning they use this whale, all of it, so whale mete is necessary to feed these communities. a whale can produce between six to 25 tons of food on average, and i should point out, mr. president, that we have no road system in northern alaska, so these communities are only accessible by air or seasonal barge transport and some can only be reached this way at certain times of the year. in other words, these communities need their food, they need these whales. the annual bow head whale migration provides the largest subsistence resource available in these remote areas of our great state. even so, when a whale is taken, the sharing does not stop simply with the residents of the community. the food is shared with other subsistence communities and

family members throughout our state. this is yet another amazing example of the resourcefulness that have enabled humans to survive in the arctic for millennia and that's shaped the character of alaska to this day. yet, throughout the years, it's sometimes been a struggle for the first peoples of alaska to get their quota of whales. back in 1977, the international whaling commission tried to shut down the subsistence harvest for alaska's native people. it was relying on incorrect population estimates provided by western scientists, and they were ignoring what we in alaska call traditional knowledge. the alaska eskimo whaling captains organized and started the alaska eskimo whaling commission, which is alive and well and thriving today. here is a great story. back in 1977 when the i.w.c.,

the international whaling commission attempted to shut down the harvest in alaska for alaska natives, our whalers told the western science you don't know how to count the whales because you're looking for them from the air during the spring migration, and they're swimming under the spring ice. you have to listen for them under the ice. when one of the scientists argued that the whales wouldn't swim under the ice because it's too dangerous, harry brauer sr., the father of some of today's prominent whalers, took the scientists to the ice edge, put an oar in the water and told the scientist to put his ear to the oar. what the scientist heard was an entire world of marine life invisible to the eye. from that, a research program

using both traditional knowledge, alaska native knowledge and western science was born, and that is used today, still today to monitor the size of the western arctic bow head whale population. this research program still combining western science and traditional knowledge is considered the gold standard, the most accurate and sophisticated way in which marine biologists measure whaling populations. the bow head whale population is healthy and growing. currently it is estimated that there are about 20,000 bow head whales, up from about 10,000 in 2001, and our communities in alaska do an enormously important part in terms of making sure there's conservation of the bow head whale. the current catch limits for alaska natives is no more than 67 whales a year, a fraction of

a percentage of the total population. now, that limit was set in 2013 and will last until 2018 when the i.w.c. meets to establish new catch limits. mr. president, every time a new catch limit, a new quota comes up, there's a fight between the alaska es company whaling commission and the countries that don't respect that tradition and want to stop all subsistance whaling, including from my constituents. and what i am hoping these kind of talks do is that they will make all the members of the senate understand how important this is, this tradition is, for americans, for aalaskan natives and that they can learn more about this important tradition. and i will do everything in my power to work with my colleagues here in the senate to ensure that when the quota comes up in

2018, they have their fair share. this is a vital tradition. it's vital for subsistance and it's vital to keep a cultural -- a culture live and to respect a great group of americans who bring uniqueness and strength not only to alaska but to our country. here's how one of our alaska es company whaling captains puts it -- quote -- "to our people the bowhead is more than food. it keeps our families together. it keeps our children in school. it allows our elders to pass generational knowledge to our youth. it teaches us patience and perseverance. it teaches us generosity. it strengths our -- strengthens our communities. it provides wisdom. it provides insight. it gives us hope.

it is our way of life. the spirit of the whale lives within each of us." let me repeat that last line. the spirit of the whale lives within each of us. these are some of the people of my state. these are my constituents. and as i've said before, mr. president, alaska has bragging rights right now. our whalers and their cultures and their take decisions are certainly worth bragging about. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, this morning the supreme court reaffirmed that women, women, not politicians should make their own health care choices. it's an important decision for women's health and women's constitutional rights. but the fight to protect women's

health continues. it's going to continue tomorrow here in the senate. we have the first vote on the conference report to provide emergency funding to combat the zika virus. now, we're voting on emergency funding, whether it's flooding in the south, wildfires in the west, ice storms in the winters or hurricanes in the summers, congress has always responded to crises with emergency funds. no offsets are required. now despite the overwhelming need for funding to fight zika, when the threat of zika is real and here, when the threat is of great risk to pregnant women, women, when the world health organization is urging women in

zika impacted areas to delay pregnancy, house and senate republicans want to cult other programs -- cut other perhaps. house and senate republicans decided on a conference report that continues their attacks on women's health. the report restricts zika emergency funding for family planning services. just after the supreme court reaffirmed a woman's right to make her own health care decisions, republicans in the senate and the house want to take that away. so it should come as no surprise to anyone tomorrow when i vote against this needlessly limiting response to what is a public health crisis. stop taking crises and use them to make attacks on women. let's be honest about what we do here in the senate. we've seen this misguided

leadership. we saw what the republicans' misguided leadership with regard to the vacancy on the supreme court. the high cost of that obstruction was unfolded when the court's eight justices deadlocked twice in one day. since february the court diminished by republican inaction in this body has been unable to issue a decision on the merits of a total of seven cases. i cannot remember a time in my lifetime where that has happened in that short period of time. the supreme court's inability to serve its highest function under the constitution has left millions of families across the country waiting for justice and they're uncertain of what the law is. this is the devastating reality for vulnerable immigrant

families who are wondering whether they're going to be torn apart or the parents will be taken out and deported leaving sometimes infant children behind. an immigration case demonstrates real harm of this republican obstruction. three years ago today after an extensive process in the judiciary committee where hundreds of amendments were debated, the democratic-led senate backed up by a number of republicans passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill on a vote of 68-32. and even though a majority of the house of representatives were to pass that bill into law, the republican speaker of the house blocked the bill from even receiving a vote. apparently it would violate what they considered the revered dennis hastert rule.

some republicans opposed it even though it passed overwhelmingly they had to show their reverence for the dennis hastert rule so we did not get an immigration bill. and because the speaker refused to act and because they would not allow it to come to a vote, the president who would not have had executive actions if had been voted on, he was forced to use executive action. his executive action deferred to deportation of parents and children to prioritize the deportation of dangerous criminals. before that executive action could be implemented, however, an appointed district court judge in texas issued a nationwide injunction, not just for texas but for the whole nation blocking the order. after blocking immigration

reform, republican obstruction continued in the senate with the unprecedented refusal to consider the nomination of chief judge merrick garland for the supreme court. and this left a court of eight to consider this crucial immigration case. from legislation to executive action, the republicans are responsible for creating these crises points. why can't we go to back to the days, responsible republican leaders like one of the greatest he served with how wshed baker -- howard baker or bob dole or others who would say we should at least do our job. now the supreme court has finished its term. we can see the full scope of the damage caused by republican obstruction. in addition to the nondecision, nondecision in the immigration case, there have been six other cases where the court could not reach a final decision on the merits.

as a result the senate republicans' refusal to do thair job and provide -- their job and provide a hearing and a vote on chief judge garland. failure to schedule a hearing for this impeccable nominee, republicans are holding his nomination hostage in their hope that the republican party will nominate donald trump and republicans can then have donald trump make a different nomination. of course their nominee is the same candidate who has accused a sitting federal judge of bias simply because his parents were mexican born. come on. it is -- to me that senate republicans would -- rather than

give chief judge garland a fair and public hearing. that's exactly what they're doing. no leadership in this senate, republican leadership or democratic leadership has ever done this. in fact, the last time we had a vacancy, last year of a president's term, it was president reagan and the democrats controlled the senate and we voted unanimously to confirm president reagan's republican nominee to the senate. the democrats moved that nomination. you know, it's the senate's duty to ensure that independent judiciary can function but based on deadlocks and delays we've seen, it is clear that unlike -- whether democrats -- when democrats controlled this body and we made it possible for president reagan to move his nominees, senate republicans will not act responsibly.

i would say the senate republicans should act on chief judge garland's nomination as well as the 25 judicial nominations been passed out most by voice vote from the judiciary committee and they're languishing on the senate floor day after day after day. these are men and women who are prepared to do their job before giving them a vote, but they can't understand the -- the american public can't understand that why won't the senate republican leadership let us do our job. after all, we're paid for it. mr. president, that's -- i ask that my whole statement be made part of the record and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. all time is yielded back. question occurs on the nomination. mr. cotton: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will now call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? any senator wishing to change their vote? on this nomination the yeas are 90, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader of the senate. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair to lay above the body -- before

the body the message to okay company -- the presiding officer: the chair lays above the senate the following message. the clerk: resolved bill from the senate s. 2328 entitled an amendment to reauthorize the college program act and for other purposes do pass with amendment. the presiding officermr. mcconno concur the house amendment to s. 2328 and i send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to concur. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell moves to concur on the house amendment to s. 2328. cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur on the house amendment to s. 2328, a bill to reauthorize and amend the national sea grant college program act 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 move to concur on the house amendment to s. 2328 with a further amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell moves to concur on the house amendment to s. 2328 with an amendment numbered 4865. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur with the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 4866 to amendment numbered 4865. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to refer the house message to the committee on energy and natural resources with instructions to report back forthwith an

amendment number 4867. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, moves to refer the house message on s. 2328 to the committee on energy and natural resources with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment number 4867. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there is you have second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are order. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 4868, to the instructions of the motion to refer s. 2328. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on mew amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 4869 to amendment number 4868.

mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the conference a company h.r. 2577. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following conference report. the clerk: conference report company h.r. -- an act making aeption pros for the departments of transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up it ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title for the first time. the clerk: s. 3100, a bill to ensure that state and local law enforcement may cooperate with federal officials and so forth. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the t the calendar, object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

the bill will receive its second read on the nextologicallive day. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 518, s. 1479. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1479, a ail about amend the comprehensive environmental response, compensation and liability act of 1980 and so forth and for other purposes. officer snrer objection to proceeding to the amendment? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, june 28. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, 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 the conference

report to accompany h.r. 2577, with the time until the cloture vote equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senators toomey, wyden, and brown. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. fume too many thank you, mr. president. -- mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. by friday, a lost american families are going to be packing up the car and the kids and

going somewhere to celebrate the holiday or gathering in the backyard to fire up the barbecue and celebrate the 4th that way. but one father will be marking the day quite differently. for jim steinle, friday marks the one-year anniversary of the murder of his daughter. it was july 1, 2015, that jim steinle was walking on a peer in san francisco with his daughter kate. the gunman opened fire, shot kate, and she bled to death in her father's arms. her last words were "help me, dad." as outrageous as this is, one of the aspects that particularly maddening about this, mr. president, is that the shooter never should have been on the peer that day. the shooter was an illegal immigrant. he had been convicted of seven felonies, and he'd been deported five times.

but what's truly maddening, three months prior to his murdering kate steinle, he was held in the custody of the san francisco police department. they had him. and when federal immigration officials learned that the san francisco police had this guy, they asked them to hold him until they could get somewhere there because they knew he was here illegally, they knew his background, they knew how dangerous he was, and they wanted to deport him. so what did the san francisco police do? they refused. they did not cooperate with the federal immigration officials. instead, they released him onto the streets of san francisco. now, why, mr. president, would the san francisco police department do a thing like that? why in the world would they do a thing like that, with a seven-time convicted felon, five-time deported person that federal immigration officials were asking them to detain?

they did it because san francisco is a sanctuary city. that's what they are. and that means that it is the legal policy of the city of san francisco to forbid their own police department from cooperating, from even cooperating with federal immigration officials, even when the police would like to. they can't. it's against the law in san francisco. so think about that. even when president obama's administration and the local police are in complete agreement that this person is dangerous and they want to work together, they want to remove this person from the threat he poses to their community in a sanctuary city, the local politicians override that and they decide that it will be illegal for the local police to cooperate. and so the san francisco police, they had no choice. they were forced by their own

city government to release the man who would go on to kill kate steinle. if federal officials had called about almost any other kind of crime -- if it had been about bank robbery, a trademark violation, car theft -- then it would have been perfectly legal for the san francisco police department to cooperate with the federal authorities. but, because this involved an illegal immigrant, the san francisco police department's hands were tied. they were forced to release kate steinle's eventual killer. mr. president, as a father of three young kids, i can't even imagine what jim steinle and his wife have endured and what they're going to go through this friday. but, sadly, the steinles are not alone. according to an internal department of homeland security memo, during an eight-month

period in 2014, sanctuary jurisdictions, cities, and counties and towns that have chosen to be sanctuaries, they've released over 8,000 illegal immigrants just during this period in 2014. 1,800 of those released later were arrested for new criminal acts. it included two cities that released individuals who'd been arrested for sexual abuse of children and, not surprisingly, these individuals were later arrested yet again for sexually abusing additional children because that's what these monsters do. now, let me be clear. this isn't about immigration. this is really not about immigration. the vast majority of immigrants to this country would never commit hane arks violent crime -- a heinous, violent crime against anybody. but any large group of individuals is going to have some bad actors, and with roughly 11 million people here

illegally among them, there's absolutely violent criminals. it's completely unavoidable. it makes absolutely no sense to insulate those violent criminals from capture by law enforcement. and i should point out, the dangers posed by these sanctuary city laws are not limited to just domestic crimes, as appalling as they are. obviously, the sexual abuse of children and murder, that's more than sufficient reason to make sure that we're not conferring a special benefit on these people, but the fact of the matter is, sanctuary cities are impeding our ability to prosecute the war against terrorists. i'll give you a case in point. last month president obama's secretary of homeland security, secretary johnson, took a trip to philadelphia with a modest request, because, you see, philadelphia has a very extreme

and radical sanctuary city policy. so president obama's homeland security secretary went to philadelphia and he asked the mayor of philadelphia to make very narrow exceptions to the sanctuary city policy of philadelphia. specifically, he was asked that the philadelphia police department be permitted to cooperate -- just sharing information; that's what they were asking for. -- with the d.h.s. if they were dealing with a suspected terrorist or someone who had been convicted of a violent felony or someone who had been convicted of a gang-related offense. just those cases. just those. the mayor confused. the city refused, made no change whatsoever to their sanctuary city status. and so, as we gather this evening, the philadelphia police department are absolutely

forbidden from cooperating with federal officials unless the federal official can prove that the person in question has already been convicted of a violent felony and they have a warrant for their arrest, which, of course, since the police are not allowed to even communicate with the federal officials, how would they know to seek an arrest warrant? the fact is, mr. president, this doesn't make any sense. none of this makes any sense. imagine the department of homeland security calls up the philadelphia police department, they discover that the city has someone in their custody who the f.b.i. discovers is plotting a terror atafnlg the homeland security department asks the philadelphia police for information about this guy, like when did you pick him up? did he have other people with him? what were they doing? there's lots of information they might like and they might want to say, hold this guy until wii we can get agents down

there in the morning to take him into our custody so that we can interrogate him and begin deportation proceedings. that would be a reasonable conversation, a reasonable request. -- from the department of homeland security. but, under the current sanctuary city policy of philadelphia, the philadelphia police have no choice. their response has to be -- and is -- come back after the crime has been committed. come back after he's committed his terrorist offense and then come back with a warrant and then we can cooperate with you. sometimes i wonder, mr. president, if we have learned anything after 9/11, after the boston marathon bombing, after the san bernardino murders and after this horrendous massacre in orlando. when are we going to stop taking -- when are we going to start taking this threat seriously? it's here. we see t we're living through this. in my view, we've lived through

too much, way too much. so i am today continuing my on-going fight to end these sanctuary cities that endanger all of our communities. i'm flowferg the stop dangerous sanctuary cities act. it's senate bill 3100. it tookless two problems. -- it tackles two problems. part of the reason why some communities have chosen to be sanctuary cities is in response to court decisions, two court decisions that we need to address. one was by the third circuit court of appeals and the other by a federal district court in oregon. and these court decisions hold that if the department of homeland security makes a mistake in issuing a detainer, right, in a request to hold someone, turns out the department of homeland security made a mistake, maybe they got the wrong guy, and if the local law enforcement cooperates, as we i think -- as common sense would suggest we'd like to see, wcialtion according to these court decisions, the local police department would bear a legal liability. they could be sued.

they could have who knows what kind of damages. okay, that's a problem. that's a problem for communities and in fact it's driven over a dozen pennsylvania communities, counties and municipals to say, we can't make that legal risk. so we will quite reluctantly become sanctuary city. there is a simple solution to this. the solution is in my bill. the first thing my bill does is that it says when a local officer is complying with a legitimate, bona fide immigration detainer duly issued by the department of homeland security, then the local officer has the same authority as the d.h.s. official. a way to think about it is that the local police would be considered agents of the department of homeland security for this purpose. if an individual's rights are violated somehow, the individual would still have every right to sue, but they would not sue the local police department which was just acting in good faith in

cooperation with the department of homeland security. the person would sue the department of homeland security. no diminution of the person's legal rights, their ability to redress anything that went wrongly. it's just the liability ought to attach to d.h.s., not the local police department. with this change in the law, there would no longer be any pretext or any justification whatsoever for these sanctuary cities and denying the cooperation with federal officials that we need. so the second part of my bill says once that is in place, once we fix that legal liability problem, if a community nevertheless decides they still want to be a sanctuary city, they still want to refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement, then they'd lose some federal funds. they'd lose some of the funds, some of the cdbg money, community development block grant funding, which i know every senator is very familiar

with how much every city, every municipality that gets this money, how much they want, because the local politicians get to decide how to spend it. well, in my view, if you are going to impose the kind of cost on all of us that sanctuary cities impose, the additional cost for federal law enforcement, the additional cost to american people of living in an area where they are going to have greater risks, just unbelievable and impossible to quantify costs to people like jim steinle who lost his daughter, if you're going to impose those costs, then it's very reasonable for the federal government to choose not to subsidize that. that's what my bill does. it's pretty simple. frankly, i don't think it should be controversial. we have leaders across the political spectrum criticized sanctuary city policy. former governor policy, life long democrat, former chairman of the democratic national committee ed rendell has criticized the sanctuary city

policy of philadelphia. president obama's secretary of homeland security has gone out of his way to try to get philadelphia to change its policy. law enforcement officers from across the entire political spectrum, across the entire commonwealth, they all agree that we've got this right. and last october the senate considered a similar measure, and it got bipartisan support but it didn't have enough to overcome a filibuster. so, mr. president, i hope now finally we're going to fix this. this bill is a simple commonsense bill. i've had this conversation with my constituents, and everyone is just shocked that we haven't already fixed this problem. the bill stands for the simple proposition that the safety of the american people matters, that the life of kate steinle matters, that protecting our

homeland from violent criminals, including terrorists, that matters. as the steinles observe the tragic anniversary of their daughter's death this friday, i think they deserve to know that the united states senate cares about that loss too and that we're going to do what we can to prevent another senseless and avoidable death from happening again. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that taylor harding, an intern in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i wanted to take a few minutes tonight and discuss the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2017. the senate has been asked to provide unanimous consent to move forward on this legislation, and i have objected to doing that and wanted to take

just a few minutes to outline why i do feel very strongly about this. the realty is this legislation contains a number of valuable provisions, but once again it is being driven by the same issue that the senate looked at last week. that was the mccain amendment which involved a major change with respect to national security letters. my colleague, of course, a valuable member of the intelligence committee knows what i'm talking about. but to set the backdrop again, mr. president, i want it understood how important it is to make clear this is a very dangerous time. those of us who sit on the

intelligence committee are acutely aware of that. a couple of times a week we go into that special room and come away with a very clear recognition that there are people out there who do not wish our country well. so that's not in question. this is a dangerous time. and given these dangers, it's especially important, critically important that law enforcement and intelligence authorities have the tools they need to protect the american people. so tonight i want to start off with where we really left off with the amendment from the senator from arizona, the mccain amendment involving national security letters, because that amendment deals with the very same concern that has led me to object to the

intelligence authorization bill tonight. mr. president, i don't take a back seat to anybody, not anybody, in terms of making sure our intelligence and law enforcement officials have the tools they need to protect our country at dangerous times. that's why in thirty began working -- in 2013 i began working for it then, we got it into the u.s.a. freedom act, i wrote the provision, it became section 102 of the u.s.a. freedom act that said when our government, the f.b.i., when our intelligence and law enforcement community believes it has to move quickly, it has to move immediately, our government could do that, it could go get the information that has been in question, the e-mail materials and the text message logs and

the chat records and all of these digital communications. under section 102, the government could move immediately to get this information and then come back after the fact and settle up with the court. and never once has the court denied the government. so this authority, i will recall that during the debate over the mccain amendment, the distinguished chairman of the intelligence committee said, well, he was concerned that the f.b.i. might have to wait around for a month. no way. absolutely no way. out of the question. under section 102, there's not going to be any dawdling, there's not going to be any waiting around. the government can move and move immediately to protect the american people.

so given that the government has those tools, the f.b.i. and intelligence officials, making sure that we have the tools needed to protect the security and well-being of the american people, that's a reason for being real careful about thinking through big changes in these national security letters. what the changes would be specifically -- and this was in the mccain amendment, it's in the intelligence authorization bill -- is an f.b.i. field office could issue a national security letter, in effect administratively. it is an administrative subpoena without any court oversight. and, for example, the national security letters could be used to collect what are called

electronic communication transaction records. this would be e-mail and chat records and text message logs, and in particular, mr. president, and i've had senators come up to me to ask me about whether this could be true, folks at home this weekend, when i was out and responding to questions about this, people asked does this really mean that the government can get the internet browsing history of an individual without a warrant, even when the government has the emergency authority if it's really necessary? and the answer to that question, mr. president, is yes, the government can. the government can get access to web browsing history under the intelligence authorization legislation, under the mccain

amendment, and they can do it without getting a warrant, even when the government can go get it without a warrant when there is an emergency circumstance. now the realty is web browsing history can reveal an awful lot of information about americans. i know of little information, frankly, mr. president, that could be more intimate than that web browsing history. if you know that a person was visiting the web site of a mental health professional or a substance abuse support group or a particular political organization or, say, a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private and personal and intimate information about that individual. that's what you get when you can

get access to their web browsing history without a warrant, even when the government's interest is protected, as i've said, in an emergency. the realty is getting access to somebody's web browsing history is almost like spying on their thoughts. this level of surveillance absolutely ought to come with court oversight and as i've spelled out tonight, that is possible in two separate ways. the traditional approach with getting a warrant. and then under section 102, which i wrote as part of the u.s.a. freedom act, the government can get the information when there's an emergency and come back later after the fact and settle up. now the realty is,

mr. president, the president's surveillance review group has said that they believe that court oversight should be required for this kind of information. and in effect, now we have some law enforcement and intelligence officials saying that we ought to go in exactly the opts -- opposite direction. by the way, george w. bush agreed that we ought to be careful about gathering this information. and he didn't want this particular power. now, maybe somebody could argue, well, intelligence and law enforcement officials ought to be able to do this because it's more convenient for them. to tell you the truth, if we were talking about convenience

or protecting the american people in an emergency, i'd be pretty sympathetic to the government's argument. but that's not the choice, mr. president. the government's interest, the safety of the american people being on the line, the government goes to get that information immediately, the web browsing history and the chat records and the e-mail. the government gets it immediately under the specific language of section 102. so, what this really comes down to is we had this horrible tragedy in orlando, and so we are all very concerned about the safety and the well-being of the american people. and there's no question when

we're home, i'm sure this is a case for the president of the senate, as it is for my colleague from ohio and myself, the american people want policies that protect their security and their liberty. they want policies that do both and frankly they don't think they're mutually exclusive. they think the government ought to be doing both. well, after a tragedy and you can almost set your clock by it, increasingly proposals are being brought up that really don't do much of either. they don't do much to advance security. in this case you protect people's security, that emergency authority when the well-being of our people is on the line, and the public wants their liberties protected.

and they're certainly going to be pretty concerned about being able to see their web browsing history with an administrative subpoena and no court oversight. so i'm going to touch on one other section of the intelligence authorization bill that concerns me. but i will say, mr. president, i supported that emergency authority very, very strongly. i was the first to propose it in 2013, and i did because i said i want to make sure since i'm one of the longer serving members of the intelligence committee, very glad to have the president of the senate on it. my focus has been to show that security and liberty are not

mutually exclusive. we can do both, and i think with what i've outlined this afternoon, we can in fact do both. and that's why section 102 of the freedom act is so important. it spells out how when the well-being and the safety of the american people is on the line, there isn't anybody going to be dawdling around. what the distinguished chairman of the intelligence committee said about people waiting for a month to get a national security letter, not growing to happen, not if you use section 102. so we're making it clear how important security is, but we're also saying that we're not going to needlessly erode the sacred and vital constitutional protections of the american people, which is what you'd be doing if a field office of the f.b.i. administratively without

cowrgt oversight could -- court oversight could go out and scoop up scores of browsing records. so that's why i've objected to giving unanimous consent to the intelligence authorization bill. we always do it publicly, mr. president. that's i am's on the floor -- that's why i'm on the floor tonight. and i will just tell my colleagues that this bill on the key issue of national security letters is essentially a redo of the vote that took place last week on the mccain legislation. i just want to close up by way of saying that while the intelligence authorization bill does contain other provisions that i think are quite constructive, i am troubled that the brill would also erode the jurisdiction of the independent

privacy board for the second year in a row. and here in particular where we all want to concentrate on u.s. persons, that's what's so important is focusing on u.s. persons at a time when telecommunications systems around the world are beginning to merge and this will increasingly be the case in the digital domain, the individuals, u.s. or non-u.s. status, is not always readily apparent. so i am concerned about some of the restrictions that are in the authorization as well that i think really ignore the way in which telecommunications systems

have changed around the world and the difficulty in recognizing quickly an individual's u.s. or non-u.s. status. so, mr. president, with that i note our friend and colleague is here to give his remarks and i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio brown brown thank you, -- mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the good insight from my colleague. thank you, senatorwideen. i first ask unanimous consent -- senator wyden, i first ask unanimous consent that floor privileges been granted through the end of next month, july 2016. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. today the supreme court despite lacking in important -- an important ninth justice because my republican colleagues refuse to do their jobs first time that

anybody can remember, maybe in history, certainly in recent history, where a supreme court nominee has been sent to the senate by a president and the president has refused to either do hearings or certainly refused to bring that justice to a vote. if this continues, if senator mcconnell and his republican colleagues continue their course, this will be the first time in 150 years where a supreme court -- or supreme court vacancy has stayed up for an entire year. why 150 years ago? well, because we're -- we were in the middle of a civil war and there were all kinds of things going on as southerners who had seceded left the supreme court with lots of vacancies and the senate didn't do its job then. but that was a civil war. this is a political war waged by one side and a refusal to do its job. but today the supreme court despite not having nine members reaffirmed that women, not politicians, should be the ones making their own health care

decisions. in a 5-3 decision, the supreme court ruled a whole woman's health v. stellar that the texas law at issue places an undue burden on a woman's ability to access safe and legal health care. the law is arbitrarily, medically unnecessary restrictions caused dozens of clinics to close across the state of texas. the same thing has happened in other states with similar laws, including my state of ohio with 11 million people. these clinics are often the only place that women and also. mr. menendez: have to turn to for basic health -- also for men have to turn to for basic health. millions of women rely on planned parenthood and other clinics like it for life-saving screenings, for testing, for preventive care, for treatment. in ohio planned parenthood

centers provide health care services to almost 100,000 men and women each year, a hundred thousand men and women depend on planned parenthood again for things like screenings, testing, preventive care, and treatment. many of these men and women have nowhere else to turn. they either can't afford -- they cannot afford care anywhere else or they live too far away from another health center to have real access to basic -- we're talking basic health care, screening, testing, preventive care, counseling, treatment, all those things. today's decision sets an important precedent that no politician should come between a woman and the health care she needs. we know that laws like this are part of a sustained coordinated attack on a woman's right to make personal, private health care decisions for themselves. we've seen it in ohio. we've seen it in so many states across the country. politicis claim these harmful restrictions are all about protecting women's health.

nothing could be further from the truth. these talking points are a sham and it was shown today by a generally conservative supreme court with a majority decision that the supreme court saw right through those arguments. ohio and other states with so-called trap laws should repeal them immediately. if they wait, they'll only be struck down by the courts just like the texas law. again, courts where most of those -- most of those justices or at least half those justices were appointed by conservative presidents. we need to work to get these laws off the books quickly to fight the attacks that women continue to face on their right to make their own health care decisions. earlier this year, ohio passed a new law to strip federal funding not only from planned paindershood but any hill -- parenthood but any health care facility that could perceived as promoting quote, unquote -- safe and legal abortion. these are clinics that work with

other providers so that women can make decisions that should be between them and their doctors. this is far, far more sweeping than just the funding of planned parenthood which is a political talking point for republicans across this country now. health officials in ohio are scared the new law can take funding away from local health departments, as if we don't have enough problems in our state. let's be clear. this isn't about defunding abortion. the federal government does not provide funding for abortion, period. it hasn't provided funding for abortion for decades. no, this ohio law excollision sitly targets critical health and health education services for women, including h.i.v. testing and cancer prevention services. today's verdict by the supreme court 5-3 is a victory for all of us who want to improve the lives and health of women around the country, but it will do nothing to stop laws like this one in ohio. that's why our work goes on. these laws -- these laws that have passed in texas and ohio, these laws that the court struck

down, these laws are not about health or safety. the supreme court confirmed that today. they're about politicians thinking that they know better than women and their doctors, and it's happening every day in this country. if these laws continue to chip away or in the case of ohio's new law, a woman's access to care will see more undiagnosed cancers, will see more untreated illnesses, will see more unintended pregnancy. my state, mr. president, shamefully is 50th in the nation in black infant mortality. we're 47th in the nation in overall infant mortality. it's laws like these legislators passed, laws defunding public health services, laws cutting money for local communities so they can put it into health care and education. it's the behavior of this legislature and some of its predecessor legislators that have attacked young mothers and young women who may or may not be pregnant. and when you do that, there is

simply not the emphasis on well baby cairp. there's not the em-- care. there's not the emphasis on preventative care. there's not the emphasis on the health of the women. there's not the emphasis on giving women choices. it's time for politicians if my state and across the country to follow the guidance of the supreme court today and to stay out of decisions that should be between confidentially between a woman and her doctor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. no, i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

several of them have almost 11000, some of the biggest companies in the world only have four. anything in savings will realize is good, but for agencies have realized more by moving it. >> is tonight at eight eastern on c-span2

please join me in welcoming to the stage at truman fellow, rose jackson. [applause]. >> i will pay you later for that one. for most of our lifetime sub sahara africa has been treated and described as a charity case. for government, problem to to be managed, for businesses, a troublesome but rich source of natural resources and for general public, a continent or sometimes a country of crisis and hunger. that misperception is recently began to change in the united states. on technologist and entrepreneurs in africa waste no time in defining their world. putting up businesses and new technologies that are breaking ground in africa and beyond. lester the continent was home to

six of the world's 12th fastest growing economies. and the world's fastest-growing middle class. while systemic barriers like corruption, poor infrastructure, and a mismatched workforce still remain, the hype around the continent is going. we have brought together a great panel to explore what tech innovation means for the future of africa's economies and my people in the united states should care. today we have the privilege of hearing from three distinguished panelists to i will briefly introduce and then let my colleague rob get to the fun part. but but first perhaps i can invite them on the stage. [applause]. >> i am trying to avoid the awkwardness of a single person standing. first we have jonathan berman, founder of the associates who is an advice during part advisor working with

businesses of high growth potential in emerging markets. previously he served as partner and director of the corporate practice at dahlberg and authored a book called, success in africa, about the ceos doing business on the continent. next we have carolyn campbell, we will going a little out of order. she is a managing director and putting partner of emergency capital partners which is a private equity firm focused on africa. it has stakes never think of education, media, and internet companies to the java house and let me just say thank you for that. john is a ted senior fellow in cofounder and ceo of an audio and intelligence company. he is at best known for founding africa is a tech incubator and has spent the last decade serving as a data science and international business consultant to companies and organizations with parts of the u.s. government. i am please have us over to truman member, rob, the suited

man with a tie clip. rob is the managing editor and emerging-market advisory firm. in africa focus corporate data startup. given the expertise we have we are in for a good conversation. and i welcome the panel to begin. thank you. [applause]. >> thank you very much for this and it's very exciting and can agree that we are actually talking about africa now after several hours of discussion and finally the continent is getting some overdue recognition today. i hope everybody has had their cup of coffee for the afternoon, we are hoping for a lively discussion. if you have not had any, go get some now, i believe believe the beings are actually from africa. so it's thematic as well. technology looks as though it

has played a central role in africa's recent growth spurt, whether it is boosting of remittances, improving financial inclusion, supporting teachers, supporting farmers, and whether you are looking at nairobi or others, you can find plenty of examples of success stories like julia and others, they were involved in things like video streaming to election monitoring to e-commerce. the big question is, how have have these technologies actually impacted the daily life of everyday citizens. and what are the restraints emitting their impact on development across the continent. equally important, what role as a u.s. plane in the public sector or private sector in terms of helping to leverage technology as a tool for prosperity. so with the expense we haven't africa we have a great panel here with carolyn and the two

johns. they have plenty to say this issue. i'm going to stop talking here and go ahead and get started. we have a lot of ground to cover just to get things going, i'll start things off with a few questions. we will open questions. we will open it up to the q&a from the audience later on. the first question i would like to ask all of you in turn and jonathan i will start with you, to what extent do tech programs startup and tech companies actually play a positive role in encouraging developing? what extent have we seen that concretely. we've heard a lot of hype about it. is. is that translating trucks on the ground? >> from a commercial perspective i think there is a lot of hype and a lot of reality. first let's clear the air. there is an abundance of development and donor excitement around technology investing.

that excitement is expressed not only in a lot of hyperbole of speech but also in money that i perceive is going sometimes toward programs that are not sustainable it's really not commercially viable. in some cases it draws talent away from more lasting and maybe more commercially viable investment. i think you see a proliferation for example of incubators around the continent, which in my view is probably a little overwrought. there a few few that do great work, their lot that exist. there is certainly room to call that effort but the reality is there, there are extraordinary amount of innovation going on in africa, that now is getting some of the capital that it needs both from somewhat of domestic sources but significantly from international sources, including

silicon valley now. there are innovations covered from africa that are finding their way not only impacting africa but around the world. one of the things we have covered up is, is there energy, and out of africa? there certainly is in the area of internet security, with safety and certificate that came out of africa in terms of open-source software, limited-based software company that is used by millions of coders around the world. that comes that comes out of a south african company. i would say there's a small but growing set of additional technologies coming from there. there is a real reality around that technology. you asked about the impact, i will leave it to others to discuss the development impact, i'm no longer the develop an expert but i would say say there is growing commercial impact and frankly as i think some of the other

panelist might concur with, to me that is ultimately the most sustainable and compelling impact there is, the creation of jobs in productivity and profitability that is being extended over a broader base. we can get more into some of the technologies that is during that. >> john you have been involved in much of this frontline in a sense of getting involved with app development in places like uganda, you see in that through proliferation of commercial opportunity as a result of the sort of developments? >> yes. for my for my perspective the goal of has eyes and job creation and creating sustainable opportunities for employment. so i look at this growing tech sector across the continent and growing incubators that are sometimes donor supported. the benefit that i see is that these are jobs that are being created locally by local

entrepreneurs who are employing local talent. because they can can survive on local and sometimes international ecosystems, they are truly sustainable. these are jobs that will not go away when some organization decides to pull its funding from the region. so that is how i have always looked at it. it's never been about the attack or some of the other things that occur in the sector. it is is just about how do we create opportunities for the people there, that are talented, that are very self-motivated, etc. the other thing i was going to mention that you touched upon just a second ago is the opportunity for african technologist and technology to sort of support global demands. so the company that i started when i was in uganda and i move there in 2008 and it is still

there doing well, we do have an incubator /coworker space. but from day from day one we had a business model. so we have tried to encourage other people to adopt and we actually service companies with our talented that is there in the space. so this is a space in uganda and now with my new ventures in the state actually can outsource to my team in uganda software development, data entry, data validation, it has actually been quite economical and set an opportunity that i did not expect when i started the company in 2008. i didn't expect then that i would still be doing business with my team there so many years later. so it has been exciting.

>> carolyn as it you often get involved with established firms and i think sometimes it's worth reminding folks that tech is not just enable startup in incubators and accelerators but often much bigger companies as well and merging capital partners have stakes and things like isps and internet companies and telecoms provided like i just hours, what extent are you seen this kind of excitement over technology also play note on the grand scale with these bigger companies? >> we have done some small investments, some startups that you mentioned and that is a high-growth, highly competitive industry they look at flows between south africa and zimbabwe and we have invested on our own balance sheet, we have looked at the data centers and those are all sort of on the fringe of what we have done. what we have have really done

and made over 60 investments in full 34 of them is written three big technology waves. the thing personas gsm, 2% of the continent had any sort of connectivity and we did that from 2000, that was a very easy product to invest, exit and make money on. then the second wave we have done was the cable company. the major major shift for africa was three big ones coming to the west, three big come to the right and that allow them to enter the world of broadband internet. everything that we do, and they want to be connected in their homes to high-speed internet go outside and have 4g and everybody has two or three phones there. so we are are in the cable business, the pay-tv business, and that broadband internet business in kenya which we are expanding into east africa. the third one is the cellular towers.

in 2011 we bought a company that had 727 cellular towers under management. the cable comes to the coast but you have to get it into the terrestrial, the center of the country and even if you land in nigeria you have to get it into the big cities, so the real change to occur so you have a couple months out with satellite and our cable company also a direct to home part to it as well so you're covering everybody. so we grew that company since 2011 from 727 towers to 22,000 towers. thousand towers. that is a high rate of growth for company and a small amount of time. so what happened on the backbone of all this, activity? have a financial services company. we bought six remote licenses in places like chad, gabon, togo, and that was a very exciting but we didn't buy them for those countries we bought them to

build them into bigger countries and make a baking platform. you have all probably heard of equal bank to re-create that model. so then what that platform we acquired a group that has ivory coast, and some other countries for their of the coast. but how do you build that out? you're not into putting up bricks and mortar banks that we have in the u.s., that is not a viable solution. there is not really the infrastructure for that. but the mobile banking products has really enabled our growth and that company has grown financially. i think it grew its net banking assets ten times in two or three years it initially. on the back of the real connectivity with the entire continent are all of these forms , we have a lot of businesses that respond by that kind of connectivity. i i cannot

think of anywhere where businesses are not. anything that we do is put in a new erp and enter price resource system and that requires a common activity. >> i think you raise an interesting point about how africa has really changed over the past 15 or 16 in terms of going from 1% mobile penetration to 80 something. so it's basically the appellation of the u.s. times to has it gotten mobile phones over the past decade and a half in africa which is pretty impressive. certainly the cable connectivity to international cable networks that played a big role in that. you touch upon the importance of bringing, you have all this gateway connected so africa all this and has access to terabytes and terabytes of internet connectivity, but getting it to the inside of the country and countries is a big challenge. so i wanted wanted to ask all of

u, what are the challenges that if your tech startup company in africa and you have to deal with and more importantly from the kind of u.s. government u.s. private sector perspective what can we do to help alleviate some of those concerns? >> i will leave it to someone who has started up, i can talk about the challenges that they face, but i will say two things around, n connectivity, i'm sure whatever else john and lanes us with will come up. i do think that especially in the short term american sources of capital are quite valuable, particularly at the venture state all the way through the late venture getting companies ready for them to buy up is something that is particularly useful in the current phase for a variety of reasons. i don't believe in investing

without domestic for a long side, i think it's important proving point. but for a variety of reasons african capital has sort of mobilized around technology and around venture. so both software and venture are very new spaces for african capital. so giving them and returning the confidence of major global technology investors and software investors is a big boom. we have allowed them to come alongside, i think that's a significant a significant play in the next several years for america. frankly were talking to largely an audience of public servants, it's a differentiator between the u.s. and any of our competitors for regional power. because there's no 1i can compete with the u.s. in terms of either the know-how or the fluidity of our capital to invest in that. if you you think about where europe is, literally

today and -- know i think they are in worse shape today than they were yesterday. anything there to face a lot of challenges in the next couple years in africa. across the board and across all points of capital, but particularly on venture. the chinese is quite competitive with their little late to the game. the u.s. brand about u.s. venture capital and the opportunity to come in and establish a presence on the continent on topics that are high interest not only to the population but especially the government is significant as opposed to and i might be comparing here, but opposed to infrastructure capital or power. it looms large in the current demonstration. one of the the reasons is we are nation short on capital. we don't have a lot of money to do financing in africa, we have

plenty of venture capital to turn that direction, that is why. so that is one. i can turn to connectivity in a moment but i think i've spoken my moment. let me asked john to take off. >> i totally agree. it is certainly building the company from almost any country in africa your number one enemy is the blackouts, but what i think would be more useful and what will get more capital flowing to the continent is either the financial sector to provide some visibility into diligence on the companies that are being invested in, or public sector counterparts that could help facilitate that process. the number one reason why there is not more capital going into the continent is the lack of confidence in western investors about what is going to happen after the capital gets there. there is just nothing they can do and there's not a lot of resources out there to do what's

called discovery and find out what is going on. it is still a huge problem. have not seen very many solutions sort of pop up in that space. until that happens it is going to be this slow trickle of capital to the climate that judges spoke about. >> the regulatory reforms for protecting investors are really kind of crucial aspect for boosting u.s. investment and participation. >> i also think that from a policy perspective i was reading something the other day about this talk of finally in african union for at least traveling -- into inter-pan- african travel. i would like to see something like that for the private sector to do business with one kind of over arcing entity and then let

that entity deal with intricacies of the various countries and domains across the continent. >> you talk about domestic capital which is interesting because our last two puns have had increasingly anticipation increasingly from nigerian penn pension funds -- the kenyan pension funds have a lot of money to and they want to invested so what would be very useful as if someone gave them some either they could come here and hang out at new york state, and reserve fund, i'm sorry a retirement fund or if somebody were to go there and explain how this works. so our first investor conference, our lovely pension fund came and said where's our money? we invested last year we have not had a return a return in 12 months and we had to say okay the j curve. it it could take five or ten years before you get any money back. it's

expensive up front. that took years. that one tutorial did not work, they were upset and they're coming in again now seven years later to our fourth fund. even our pension funds in your car very thinly stacked. that is one thing i would think of and for the venture pools, you do have a new class of african billionaire and human mentions -- as one of our biggest investors, mark was a billionaire out of south africa put a lot of money into our fund. but they are running their own venture capital funds in every day i read read about a new text under venture fund or something. so be great if we could team up so silicon valley investor in your african -- in the from my perspective what we need besides growth, energy and lack of brownouts, we need business plan. so we went we go and look at companies of the business plan is kind of a shoddy power points were couple of pages with a dream dream that no one is investing in that. they need real expertise from

the valley on how you make a business plan, how do you sell it to an investor and so forth. >> in terms of building up that capacity one of the hot topics in tech was more generally entrepreneurship in terms of giving you the opportunity to pay their own way, not having to rely on the public sector that we traditionally did for employment and things like that. is there a role here as well for u.s. capital for the u.s. government to encourage entrepreneurship and if so what kind of capacity building schemes can help that? >> i think there is a dim view of the u.s. government teaching entrepreneurship. that is not even necessarily a knock on government or a public service, it's just on understanding that you are able

to look at what you do every day. so the models that i've seen out of the public sector, clearly in the private sector i have seen that we just spoke of that, but their audiences large it public service i think there's only a powerful role to play in this regard. i know this is not quite unquestioned but it is supporting and enabling an environment particularly with innovation. so the u.s. brand for venture capitalist john, the u.s. brand for innovation and regulation is very strong. the american government american government is very credible on that topic. more credible than on some of the topics in which we offer advice. i would think that to me as a a strong opportunity for the public sector. is going to talk a little bit

about providing funds or partial guarantees and other backstops like that for innovation. but i frankly, i don't know that i have seen the data that tells me that's the best credible in the u.s. has done this and they put up the typical fund managers. again i think your capability as an investor in that way, certainly americans can get by that of done that. the enabling environment renovation is very much missing. it's very much at the moment now and those laws are being written right now. sometimes written out of beer, a lot of legislation coming in holding data within certain individual countries of ensuring intellectual property in the absence of laws that are

undermining innovation. i think that u.s. government to promote sound innovation policy is needed. >> john you have been involved in this a lot and you have been saying one of your ventures out there you now use in terms of an outsourcing definition for work. how are you seeing these entrepreneurial initiatives take off among young students and recent graduates and things like that? >> i think it is absolutely an area of interest for them but to just touch upon the last question, a few years ago i was part of a partnership with u.s. department of state. i had a small font and was investing in african technology companies. we were just a partnership called apps for africa and obviously they cannot invest because of the nature of the state department but they could

support and enable this program where we went around the continent in this partnership allowed me to discover a number of companies. they got the benefits of supporting entrepreneurship at the grassroots level and it was very successful. we funded 16 companies out of that program. it's not great conversion but two of those companies still exist, one of them now has about 20 people. we invested very small amount of money in a company we put in about $5000 specifically because of that partnership. they have. they have just skyrocketed. it is been absolutely great. another one is a company in kenya which is not doing quite as well but still there, still doing well, still very relevant. so i think think that is absolutely the way i would like to see our public dollars

supporting african development. it is just like where can we support what is working and how can we accelerated and not get in the way what happens after that. >> another strength that we have come i love the strings that you mention in terms of the venture capital industry in california, is our business goals and how we formed the next generation of business people in the u.s. we have sent six analysts to harvard business school that have worked with us. when you go to the africa club of any business school across the u.s. those are your next generation entrepreneurs. if there's something something to do with them to i don't know explain to them how the backdrop works here, i think there is a natural affinity between the u.s. and africa that doesn't exist between any other regions. as in the east asian or the asian sovereign investors, they're going to fund

infrastructure, the big dollars and the long patient capital will come from other places probably. but you see that we love africa they love us for reasons that are different, mercantile reasons that are inspired when i think of the european african relationship. we we want to help just because we want to help. the french are going out to do business, absolutely that is not even hidden as their main motivation. to the extent we can form links with these young students who come here and probably already have business models and starting businesses we could really influence policy that way because they are going to go back to their home country and start up these can companies. they know how to raise money from the valley but they may not know what task four from from their home government in terms of what they need as a backdrop to their business. whether whether it's rights to a cable company, unlike the infrastructure in georgetown where every telephone call

trample has about 1000 wires, 90% which don't work. in kenya they want one wire. they don't want that must going on. they're very careful about how they are lame out there for structure. >> just before eyes arguing with the cable company about why they needed tables. so they're going over my house yet again, it reminded me actually of an enormous area of public policy influence to affect african entrepreneurship that people talk about. that is immigration policy to the u.s. we talk about this not nearly enough. we have a habit of taking the best talent of the world bringing them into our education system by virtue of our phenomenal education system and then forward marching them back to the airport. that is unimaginable for us and for them. the best thing we could do for

both sides is let that talent work here for a few years and may be as long as they want because they're always highly productive talent but let that talent cultivate her here, learn from our entrepreneurship and grow strong and then return to their home country. that is a multiplier that we would cost nothing in terms of u.s. taxpayer dollars, it generates enormous strength in terms of our future relationship with that country, and it has enormous 12 and impact. it be really high immigration policy. >> that is an absolute lease a per point to make. i think it's arousing point at which to open us up to questions from the audience. we have quite a few. >> i have a question as you look at the continent and you see tech take off for again entrepreneurship, what are some

of the anchoring factors. i think you talk about kenya, is it multinational corporation so the ceo, is it entrepreneurs, or is that governments like the president ever wander, or is it none, is there there an anchor that helps more easily facilitate these entrepreneurial tech opportunities? >> what i think it's really hard to answer that question because it takes a little bit of everything. it is hard to give a credit to any of those things. if you use.

[inaudible] for example he has a unique approach on how he wants to foster innovation in his country. i don't think it's wrong per se but i don't see, i don't hear from many rwandans talking. i did hear a lot from kenya, from ghana, nigeria, and pretty much -- there's a lot of other places where i think the factors, the way the country operates, the way private sector is allowed to operate freely that actually stimulates a lot of innovation in startup activity. and governments where you have more control, gabon, rwanda, i just don't see it. it doesn't mean it's not coming but we don't have the evidence yet. >> there's a question in the front row. >> i guess my question is for john or carolyn on the early stage, what are some of the unique challenges you see

especially from international investors in the united states and whether there is concessions are you unique terms that you're putting in that you may not see for a domestic company here. can you talk about that fundraising as it pertains or is it greater risk in africa? >> first are all just a, nonetheless question, i do see three pools of capital or innovation. homegrown innovation from companies small companies -- then and they said multinational corporation, and bringing innovation n, i think she is good at this but it's an exception. and even ge i think more

innovation is coming from africa itself. i think i see that more. there amongst the leaders. but ibm and berkeley for example are not doing as well but most companies do not. they don't innovate in africa for africa. the third is through an outside and that is to say, companies, not companies, not large companies but start up innovative tech companies that are in silicone valley, or new zealand, that innovate and finding the innovation they're bringing toward the market comes forward in an african continent. so a drug company based in silicone company, the plan to get into africa but the launch of the first program in their first commercial joan programs in rwanda because to got me to his credit wanted this kind of technology there and created the

environment to get them the millions of hours that they needed that their finding hard to get california. so all three of those in my view need to be synced up to get where we need to go. >> i think what john said about government government control is pretty interesting and contrary. and then the question was very quickly about fundraising. at least when i talk to investors about raising funds for a specific company or for fund and i have done both of those things, it is africa focus, i do not find they want any particular condition, think you have to address your concerns about risk, the biggest concern they have though is distance. there's a old adage that says you can't invest anything

further than what you could drive to and in africa that's a small number and on about traffic dates just to lead you to the other side to your house. so it's less an issue that i have found at least around financing words special concessions for their capitals then it is over comedy preconceived photos of investing like that one or like the aversion of having employees or human-based systems, that's another one i think is very common in silicon valley that i do not think really fight in africa. >> we find on the structuring part that are term sheets and deals are just like they are in the u.s. or anywhere else so the term sheet looks like a, b, c and the only area where we have stronger approach in africa is

on the exit just because it's a little weaker environment you don't have the stock market, there's not a pool of buyers necessarily, a lot of buyers around the world, but there around the world, you have to find them and make sure it's the right sector the right country and so forth. so with particularly both in the exit. and then on the fundraising in the us, that's been a very interesting experience.*first one had very little. we had el paso energy one of luke el paso energy one of gave us a big allocation for africa which i don't think the guy did very well internally there because it was so out of their mandate. and then we had aig. aig is no longer a big a big investor that it was. after that the money wanted a track record and they wanted institutional manager of the money. so now on her eighth but we think we're looking at institutional at this point. but the perceived risk is still huge and what you get when you go to the endowment of pension funds in the u.s. and u.s. for 50 or hundred million dollars, is how my going to do due diligence to this continent's. box box the risk to one page for me because i cannot -- for all

the money they have they do not have a huge team. that that is why they're reducing their managers or san francisco, the city retirement fund. so they want it package in africa is not a one page risk analysis. they're completely different than the risk in kenya and the opportunity and north of africa is completely different than it is in south africa. so that might be the distance, it's far and huge, there's 54 countries, there's several different regions but they keep waiting. i think once one goes it will be in effect because they will say they need to do due diligence and took the risk, that i was institutional. let's do it. i think were about to tap into that personally. i think you're hearing a little bit of a difference between private equity and that the investor.

i actually find the tech community including those who invested in it are remarkably good to africa because they both deal with uncertainty very well. i i do not mean risk, real gives calculable. but uncertainty is incalculable and unknown set of outcomes. the tech community in the u.s. is well-suited to that that actually define what is going on in africa at least in small ventures. >> i do not think it is for lack of interest. i hear a lot about africa when i'm in the valley. when i'm fine out there tomorrow and the conversations are more about how to we get in, like where are the opportunities how do we do diligence with these opportunities and so on. and then it kind of simmers down. there's always this push and

then no one ever wants to take the leap because i think they get a little overwhelmed. i think the best thing that is happening for africa right now is now you have counterparts. you have tech companies rising up and succeeding, they're giving giving visibility of they are now finding partners in the silicon valley entrepreneurs who do not have to take the risk of taking their own company there but maybe they partner with a company like brick or a number of other african tech startups that are starting to get some visibility. >> great. we have a question over in the front row. >> i have a question on official corruption and then another about traffic actually. how is official corruption come to effect their work that you do end in terms of the state of the startups that make it out of your organization onto the real world into the wild. >> american corruption. >> corruption in africa. how much has that led to the failure of some your startups. and then on traffic, i've spent

a lot of time in uganda so john i'm sure you've seen some of the craziness you've seen. how does that affect the actual functioning a business when you cannot get anywhere on time. ? >> that is some pretty broad questions. >> so the corruption point is another interesting and contrarian points was because i had a background in new york and london and then eastern europe big 4i came to african 2000 and i saw so much more corruption before i got to africa i cannot even tell you. and in eastern europe there is not sure registers, there is this guy no bank account was really capped, so that was a bit of a mess but the second thing is we operate in the private sector so we are not getting into the government sector. they have banking licenses which are now highly regulated by transparent, often regional organizations in africa. and and i don't see any major corruption

of course after 20 years have we had a company that we've had a manager sponsoring who wasn't on the up and up? yes. you have to do that and them. but it has been relatively low. you look at nigeria's new president, he is gung ho against corruption. in. on the second point about the traffic, will the traffic is one, they built a new bridge of the lagoon, gets better and better, you make a three hour window for when you actually get to the meeting. you're better off on a phone call and you start meeting in the car. and everything is two or three hours late. that is just sort of what happens. that is too bad. too bad. they definitely need to deal with that. kenya, and it and it is really market by market, you better meeting in kenya the driver now takes you off the main road and you think you are going somewhere with you that you may never return from, but you emerge in some great place, so things are working all over

there. >> so i was had this fear of doing business in uganda that i just feared working with the government at all. i didn't talk to anyone from the local government, i didn't go to any meetings where they would be, because i did not even want to be on their radar. i figured. i figured if i could stander their radar we could just survive and just survive for lack of a better word. the company that i started there now is a pretty, is like like a destination, for anyone doing anything with it tech in uganda, and i started to rethink that. this is after i left but i was talking to the manager there, barbara and i was like i i think i was wrong about that, i think you're building a resource here

for your fellow citizens, this could be a resource for ngos, could be a resource for five it sector the local government. if we figure out the best ways to make that relationship work then i think it wasn't on necessary risk on my part. i think that we hear a lot, it's just just a bad marketing for africa. we hear a lot about the corruption, some of it is real but just like everything else there's also a lot of hype and that hype can be more intimidating than the reality. so that hype is real. speemac's i agree with everything that's been said. i maybe and maybe i will add by turning the question on its head and talking about how technology is a solution to those rather than a victim, as you refer to it, there are a variety of ways in which technology is solving the problem of traffic literally with ways, and i've also experienced going to the depths of the back road with a kenyan

who were driver and that's another one huber, only to emerge exactly were supposed to be exact the worms posted be there. so both with ridesharing and with improved traffic technology. ibm's lab is working on innovative ways to deal with problem traffic. we do see that happening. but that is sort of intuitive. if you think about that for a minute you'll see how that works. but what you may not realize until you see it is the incredible contribution of technology solving the problem of corruption. technology and automation creates trail. eight reduces the opportunity for corruption. every point at which a human being does something that is not tracked in some way, is the opportunity-market you take the port and automation, port entry both by sealand. when that gets automated and we

know what truck is coming in with what and what truck left and in what order they arrive we eliminated a vast path on the entire economy because it means nobody can extract value from it. nobody can put it in the pocket. i remember i spoke to the people who are automating the land management kenya. they were getting death threats from whom? from the file clerks at the berlin management because once you turn that system to where anybody with a cell phone can search for their title and they can download that title it is illuminating attacks that existed on a country where you had to pay for that. so technology is not just a victim of these problems, is the solution. >> i think we are running out of time but we can maybe have time for one more.

>> as someone who has lived and invested in africa i always appreciate these panels were we are talking about the good side of what is happening, especially when that is not the perception. but but among practitioners we can talk about some of the other side of things. we try to ignore or try to avoid interaction with governments and you said you do not deal with the government and then if you are investing in kenya in 2007 at the ivory coast in 2002 or mozambique, or other ones today, suddenly becomes your problem. so is there anything, do investors have an obligation or an opportunity to contribute to long-term good governance in africa? >> the hardball questions for last. would like to take that went on? >> i think my perspective is that it's absolutely an opportunity for that to be the case. should it be a requirement. no. but yes, it is a way of managing

your risks as you are investing to have some sort of relationship, some sort of visibility to how the government is operating and thinking about things that you might be exposed to, political uncertainties that would not be visible if you did not have the relationship. so i think it is necessary. especially when you get past the stage and you get to the level where private equity is interested. it's almost impossible not to have some exposure to the government regardless of where you are. >> we and our companies always, not a policy but we have at least one senior screen from the local community and they always have some relationship with the government. it's funny you mention -- since 2000 we we have been through to be just civil wars and we run

and we still run the electric and water utilities of the ivory coast. we came right to that little civil war. we had an airline there during the initial issue in the 2000 but during during the silver war they commandeered our utility. so we had answer to the u.s. government, the e.u., and of course we had to do some of the government but we had a whole government relations department of that investment there. for cable as we set our cable company we have to talk to governments or the banking license, we had to make capital requirements all the time. so are we given tutorials on good government to the government? no. we have our lobbyist if we think something is wrong, like kenya's competition is a bit jealous,

you can take a most anything you have to get through them. even if it's the first company or regardless of market dominance. see you do need to know you're doing but i'm talking day today, are we hanging out with the commission sector of the customs guy. nothing nothing like that, no. i would have to say were very similar to john. >> i think they'll be a good note to end on. there are obviously still risks and obstacles in terms of generally doing business in africa but also more specifically the tech sector. also that there are a host of opportunities as well more partly that if you go into looking at africa and tech initiatives with a different set of metrics and indicators than he met with silicon valley the rages and options that you have available to are numerous. so that i would like to thank our panel for taking the time on

a friday afternoon and joining us here. thank you to the audience for asking some really good questions. give them a round of applause. [applause]. a small gesture of appreciation we have for you, a signed pen and pencil set with harry truman's signature. signature. thank you again for joining us. [inaudible conversation] >> i am pleased that the senate as a body has come to this conclusion. television in the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all americans to be better informed of the problems in the issues which face this nation on a day by day basis. >> during the election i had the occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me in my campaign.

she decided to come to shake my hand and take a photograph. a wonderful woman, she was not asking for anything and i was very grateful that she took the time to come by. it was an on on exceptional moment except for the fact that she was born in 1894 and her name was margaret lewis, an african-american african-american woman who had been born in louisiana. born in the shadows slavery, born at a time when lynchings were commonplace, born at a time when african-americans and women could not vote. >> it took our country from the time of its founding until the mid-19 80s to build up a national debt of $850 billion which was the size of the so-called stimulus package when it came over here. we are talking about real

borrowed money. >> 30 years of coverage in the u.s. senate on c-span2. >> earlier today on the senate floor, west virginia senator joe mansion talked about the damage recent flooding has brought his stay. here's a look.nia. >> with that being said that me tell you little bit about what is going on in my state of west virginia. i came back last night, i was driving home thursday night so i was driving, i got caught in virginia driving on 81. this a dilution of water started and rains i've never seen before when i was on 81. this getting into lexington and lexington virginia crossed over to 64 to come come in and then t from 64 ago to covington and the river, i have traveled quite a bit that way and i've never seen water like this. the river started coming across

the road. we we are able to geto through that and that was myy first impression, and it west. i was driving in any comment on the white sulfur springs in the butyl green berets right there as soon as you come into ourrier state, i came in and the exit that you got off, i looked down and it was totally underwater. all the stores i i used to stop the people and filling stations. the erie us to thing i ever saw in my life was all of these cars were underwater and their lights were on. so you know their lights were on someone was driving. the water to come up that quick that you cannot even turn your car off you just jumped out or tried to swim out or try to to get out the best you could, that gives you an idea of how fast this water rose. nobody has ever seen anything like it.id then i see a trailer, person's home floating down the road, the middle of the road.

and i'm thinking, what happened? then i drive on and get into charlston and as senator reid said nine inches, we had up to 10 inches in in some parts, nine or 10 inches in this area of southeastern west virginia. it really got hit. hit. all counties got hit pretty good but really a few of them got inundated. but if you can imagine nine orhi 10 inches of rain happening between two - six hour period. that is almost like turning your hose, all the hoses you have on house and put them on full force and let them run for that period of time and see what happens. it's unbelievable.e they so some people do not have insurance, they did not think they were in the floodplain. t next of all, people cannot afford the shirt insurance that they were in the floodplain.

next about most of our state being with the beef amounts that we have, most of the people ovee the years, the last hundred or 200 years have built in the valleys because that's where the river meandered and cut out in places. so we are saying why would they build? this is where they have always been. wall even either dredged at the rivers are built dams to hold back and that has helped tremendously. so now we have to rethink how we do this. we need the the army corps of engineers. we need the federal government. i want to thank president obama, his chief of staff dennis, i called dennis and i said dennis if we've ever needed help we need now and he said senator i assure you the president isio ready to help as quickly as you put your declaration inches never have have we had a i declaration signed and turned al around, i think the president, dennis and the entire white

house staff and the compassion i have had for our state and all the people in our state as hard as it is hit. we have three counties with the declaration, that is nicholas, canola, and green briar. we have now only 500 going going to 700 national guardsmen comine in. but to give you, i flew over the area and visited a the area by car friday, i flew over on saturday, i have never seen an entire town, an entire city inundated in water. abo there wasn't a dry spot in the town. everybody got caught. >> . . your life and your parens and grandparents before you, never have you heard stories about water coming this fast and this quick, let me give you one example and you can imagine. i went to white sulfur springs

yesterday down in the little town where you've seen the pictures on television, the house that was floating on fire. i was there right where it happened. before i got to that house, i'm walking down and there was a lady standing there. and there is foundations after few homes but no sign of a home anywhere. and there was -- she had flowers in a cross, and that's where her husband who is the grandfather and her, but her husband, her daughter, and two grandchildren were in the house. they got clear to the attic and the house left. one of the kids was saved but one of the kids was saved but one of the kids was saved that one little child the daughter, the mother and grandfather were lost in the flood and she is standing there looking at it, what do you say?se there are no words to replace