acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals. there is no prohibition against foreign governments owning and operating regional centers or projects. regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval. regional centers don't have to certified that they comply with securities laws. there's no set of sanctions for any violations. in other words, no recourse for the bad actors. there are no required background checks on anyone associated with these regional centers. the investment level is lower than congress ever intended. gerrymandering continues, and

rural and urban distressed areas then lose out. site visits or even audits are not required. there's no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects that they're investing in. the preferential treatment we have seen in the past is enabled without a strict code of conduct rule. now, that's just some of the things that are wrong. so the four of us on the two committees, in a b.p. cameral and -- in a bicamera and bipartisan way, tried to address awareness and to have process for dialogue leading to reform.

my committee held two hearings this year. the house held one. staff met with very interested stakeholders that asked, and we offered more concessions than we did last year. to top it off, we were ready to provide even a six-year reauthorization. this would have provided long-term stability for investors and regional centers. but let's talk about why this package was not acceptable to some and, most notably, not to the u.s. chamber of commerce that was the most rigid in not compromising. here's a list of issues raised by this leading voice of business in opposition to our package. they want, in effect, one

investment level. they don't want any meaningful discount for rural or urban distressed areas. and, don't forget, this law was passed 20 years ago to help rural and high-employment areas. that's the purpose of it. they don't want visas set aside for areas that congress selected as targeted employment areas for fear that investors in affluent areas would have to wait slightly longer for a visa. they didn't want to incentivize foreign investors to fund manufacturing projects that create long-term and sustainable and then real jobs in this country that we desperately need. they wanted to make it harder for rural areas to qualify on a

discount investment level, even though it's common knowledge that small and rural communities have a harder time attracting capital. they wanted certifications and compliance measures to be delegated to the agency. they did not want congress to dictate transparencies and reporting requirements. and we must remember, our job is to legislate -- mot-- --not to delegate. delegating authority to the executive branch on this program would result in more of the same. because even by the departments in charge, there's very little oversight or monitoring now, even if it might be required by law, but not enough of it is required by law. that's why you get away with this stuff. the chamber didn't like a

provision saying a foreign national had to be 18 years old to invest and obtain a green card through the program. they would like children as young as 14 to be able to make these major financial decisions and invest up to $1 million. a 14-year-old to do that. they wanted restrictions on where investor funds came from lifted. our package limited a foreign national from taking out a questionable loan or taking gifts from unknown sources, and one way to find out what's wrong is to follow the money. we wanted to be sure that those investing were doing so because they obtained funds lawfully.

the chamber of commerce wanted no such restrictions. they wanted foreign governments and even sovereign wealth funds to own eb-5 projects. they wanted to delay rules saying foreign governments could not own or administer regional centers by requiring bureaucratic. despite the changes we made this year on this very strict provision, they continued to water it down in every negotiating session that we had. they didn't want regional centers to have to consult with local officials about eb-5 projects to ensure that economic development efforts were coordinated.

they wanted to do away with a requirement that a foreign investor would have to create at least one direct job before obtaining a green card. now here you've got a situation where a program was instituted 25 years ago to create jobs, particularly in rural america and high unemployment areas, to create jobs, and they don't even want the investors to show that they're going to create at least one job. right now then, they use economic models to show indirect jobs. near the the existence of of those jobs nor the loalt location of those -- nor the location of those jobs can truly be verified. now, when you have the federal government setting up a program like this, that's supposed to create jobs in rural areas and high unemployment areas, wouldn't you think there ought

to be a way of showing those jobs are actually created? they raise new concerns about provisions that have been discussed way back since last june, such as requiring regional centers to pay a fee to an enforcement and monitoring fund. they wanted -- now believe this. they wanted a three-day notification of a site visit by the agencies to determine if regional centers truly exist. sure, tell the inspectors you're coming, so you can get everything in order before the inspectors get there. they fought efforts to require transparency of how investor funds were used. now, this is a major problem of the existing program. nearly every story of fraud related to how regional center

operators use eb-5 funds for their own personal gain and luxury. this program is meant to create jobs, not to help individuals in charge of the program have personal gain and, more importantly, even the luxury that might go with that. but the kicker in all of this is that these business interests insist on more visas and to make those visas even cheaper, they want congress to increase immigration numbers through controversial recapture mechanisms or by exempting certain people from the annual cap. the pro eb-5 groups want more

visas for an already qualitiy program, which makes more money and puts more money in their pockets. on top of that, they asked us to make the visas cheaper than it is even under current law. i have, of course, refused t th. i refuse to go below the $1 million level that's been in law since 1990. the demand for visas is there. there is no justification to further cheapen this program and cheapen the green cards that come with that program. we will have five months until we are faced with another reauthorization, because that's how far this continuing resolution goes. in that five months, i expect that proposed rules changing the

investment level and stoppinger havery mandering will be -- and stopping gerrymandering will be published by the end of the year by the obama administration, and i will support those proposed rules. i will be asking the new trump administration to keep those new regulations and build off them. now, in regard to the new administration coming in, they've took a very strong position on various immigration issues, and in taking that position, i would expect them to consider very closely the fraud and the misuse of the eb-5 program. and when this administration sees things wrong with it and they can correct those things that are wrong with it through regulation, those regulations are some that should be backed up very solidly by the new administration coming in.

now, next year we'll have to start over again. so, as you heard senator leahy speak about this, and you know his feelings and mine are very similar, and i've already referred to the house judiciary committee, we will continue to work in a bipartisan and bicameral way to ensure this program. now, i want to speak about the new ranking member, senator feinstein. i inintend to continue this work with her as closely as were her days with rank member leahy. and ranking member lay le -- and ranking member leahy will hey still be involved. she's very concerned about

closing down this program because of all the fault we find with it whether it's fraud or misuse of the program or possible terrorist activity taking advantage of it or whatever national security reasons. all of those. and some of these have been pointed out by law enforcement agencies at the federal level. so i want everybody to know that change is coming. now, i've always wanted to reform the program. but i'm not sure that the industry will ever come around. the leadership of this body and the other body could help by ending this program in a continuing resolution, let it sunset and all those people come to the table with a more compromising point of view to correct everything that's wrong here. but the industry loves the status quo and, of course, they

love the billions of dollars that pour into affluent areas, and consequently the money is not directed to where it was intended to. in 1990 when it money was passed, which was to rural areas and high unemployment areas. so i'm not sure with the attitude of the industry that reforms are possible. so just leaning on senator feinstein a little bit and considering her point of view, it may be time to do away with the program completely. i said that same thing a year ago, and i repeat maybe we should spent our time, our resources, and our efforts in other programs benefit the american people as opposed to benefiting the well-healed -- the well-heeled and the

well-connected. plebe it's time this program goes away. i yield the floor and thank senator leahy for his speaking on it. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, mind something that i was going to go next. but my distinguished colleague from west virginia has important visitors with him, miners who helped fuel our country. and so i would ask unanimous consent that after he is recognized that i be recognized immediately thereafter. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. so ordered. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: first of all, let me just say to my dear friend from new jersey, i appreciate so much. and his support, too. he has been with me since day one, basically for the working men and women of this country, but most importantly for the miners who have given us the country we have today. i have been doing this for quite some time now. we started two years ago. it's nothing new. this is not new to anybody.

this has not been sprung on somebody at the last minute what we have been fighting for, what we are trying to do. as of october, we had over 16,000 of our retired miners and a lot of elderly women, widows whose husbands have passed away, they were notified that they would be losing their health care benefits december 31 of this year. and we have been working for a permanent fix called the miners protection act. in that miners protection act, if that bill was brought to the floor today, it would pass. it would pass. we have all of the democrats caucus, all 46 of us, and we have at least 15 who have committed to voting for it from our republican colleagues. but that's not to be. that's not going to happen. so we have been working everything we can. we have gone through regular order. that means it's been to the finance committee. it's gone through and been debated and vetted. and it came out of there with an 18-8 vote. very strong, in a bipartisan

way. so now what do we do? we are not going to get a vote on the floor, so we thought well, let's attach it. so the cures act came over. it's a health care act. it was germane to that bill. it should have fit in perfectly. they said no, we can't put it in there. the only thing we have left is what we're doing now as a c.r. and this is something that i've never done. i have been here six years and never used this procedure to say wait a minute, if we don't stand for the people that have fought, worked and died for us and basically given us the country we have had. we have won two wars with the domestic energy that has been mined right here in america. an awful lot of it in west virginia, i might add. and we have the strongest country in the world with a superpower, that would never happen. we would never have the military might that we have had today. we just wouldn't have the quality of life we have in america if it hadn't been for the domestic energy that our miners have given us. so what we're asking for is all

they are saying is this is a promise that was made in 1946 that president truman said listen, we're going to commit to you that every ton of coal mine from this day forward and the coal companies you work for will put money aside to make sure that you have lifetime benefits for health care and for your pension. now, these are not big, elaborate pension plans. they are very small. they are subsidies, if you will. but the health care has been very important to so many people. this thing has been going on for quite some time. we have been involved many times. the federal government has been involved to make sure that the companies put that money aside so they would have their health care and their pensions. then lo and behold congress, congress basically passes bankruptcy laws that lets people walk away from their obligations through bankruptcy. so now the promises were made, and the promises that were kept by congress were done away with

through the bankruptcy laws, were so lenient that people could clare bankruptcy and say i'm sorry, we will not fulfill that commitment. that legacy goes away. it's somebody else's problem. to fast forward to where we are today and why we have the problems we are having, let me bring you to speed with what we are dealing with. we have asked for the miners protection act which was the permanent health care fix, and a permanent pension fix. these are for the retirees. we have another group of retirees out here that basically have gone through bankruptcy, and there was money set aside, about $47 million. now, that was supposed to run out in june, so we were going to bring all them together, so we took care of everybody. now with the bill that they have put in front of us that the house of representatives has given us, it is this horrendous and it's inhumane. they gave us a bill and said take it or leave it on the c.r. they said people want to close. nobody wants to close this great institution, this government down, not a person. but you have got to stand for something or surely to god

you'll stand for nothing. that's what we find ourselves. they gave us a four-year extension. now, if your aunt or your mother was getting a notice in october that she will lose it in december, they want us now to say okay, we're going to give you -- we will be so sympathetic, we'll give you four more months through april. that same person is going to now get another notification in january that she is going to lose it in april. on top of that, she won't even be able to meet her deductibles. so there is no insurance, there's nothing. and remember the money i said they set aside, $47 million for the miners who basically have gone through a bankruptcy and lost their jobs and retired? they were going through june. those same miners now are going to lose may and june, two months. they're going to lose two months. and there's going to be a $2 million surplus that goes back to the treasury. i had one woman called me, and she said senator manchin, i don't know, but you know, back home where i come from, they call that thievery.

and she is absolutely correct. so this is why we're -- we're so committed and we're so dug in on this issue. it's just the fairness, it's the right thing to do. and all we have asked for is to take care of our miners' health care. we'll come back and fight another day for pension, but give us the health care that's been promised and committed time after time again. it is -- i've never seen anything this callous in my life that we weren't willing to fulfill a promise that we had made and the federal government has put its stamp of approval on. so for those who are saying that it's inconvenient, and the procedures that i have been using and my other colleagues with me. i have had everybody, and i appreciate so much, and for them to say hey, you've held up a lot of good bills, yes. a lot of bills that i have worked on for a a year or more have been held up. but if we can't pass forward on this and walk out of here basically knowing that we did the right thing, what's our purpose for being here? why do we come?

if we all talk -- i've seen everybody's election. you know, all of our election, advertisement, whether it be democrat or republican is we're all for the middle class. we're all for the working class. we're going to make sure that the working men and women really get a fair shake. they have been screwed and left behind. so let's do it. okay. we're all for that. all for our advertising. all of our campaigns say that. we're committed to it. the only thing i'm saying is now fulfill it. it's either put up or shut up. that's all. you've already told them, you've asked them to vote for you because of this reason. now you have to chance to show them that's why you are here. i came here to do exactly what i told you i would do, make sure you are treated fairly. and we have paid for it. this is not out of taxpayers money. this is a.m.l. abandoned land mine. there is a certain percentage of money from the coal that goes

into a fund that is put aside to do reclamation. now i've got some of my western states that don't have quite the reclamation that we have had, and i will tell you in the eastern part of the country, in west virginia, in pennsylvania, ohio and southwestern virginia, there's an awful lot of work to be done, and we do that work. and we have done that for quite some time. we're saying listen, we're not denying you all are getting your money, but you shouldn't get first dibs on it and then hinder us from taking care of the responsibility we have to the miners where we have -- who have given you the opportunity to live in this country. that's what it really comes down to. so i have been asking all of my colleagues, you know, this is not a fight that is going to be damaging to anybody. this is the only time-sensitive issue we have before us. nothing else we have before us, all the bills before us right now. not one will has -- bill has time sensitivity. we can come back and do it again. we have no problems doing it over and over. we have been here a long time.

this is the only one, the miners health care, they lose it, 16,500 lose it december 31. you show me anything else we have in here that someone is going to be that harmed at a time specific, then we walk out of here, that's what this is about. and to tell me they're going to give us four months and they're doing us a favor for four months, that is absolutely -- and i've said this time after time -- that is inhumane. and how they did it and how they paid for it is even a crime. it's awful. that's why we're standing here and fighting. that's why i am going to continue to fight. i think we have a purpose in life. if you have a purpose in life and public service, then serve the public. don't come here to serve yourself. and that's all people have asked for. do your job. and you wonder why we have a low rating from the public, why they think so little of congress. this is so common sense, it's so easy for us to do, it's so easy for us to be able to say fine, we're going to fulfill this, and then we have a lot of other things we want to take care of.

that's all we have asked for. that's all we're asking for now. we can do the right thing between today and tomorrow. we truly can. someone says oh, the house has left. i'm so sorry that they were inconvenienced and had to leave so early to go home for christmas. you go home and tell the people that i live with and the people that i was raised with, the people that have taken care of me, i'm so sorry, but we had to come home for christmas. i'm so sorry you're losing your health care december 31. i just didn't mean for that to happen, but you know, i had to get home for christmas. that doesn't play well where i come from. that is not a commitment. that is not public service. i am so sorry. i hope i haven't inconvenienced anybody. i hope i haven't made you feel uncomfortable. i hope i haven't held up a bill that you have been working on, because i have held up all my bills. no one was left unscathed in this thing. we are all. but all we're saying is for pete's sake, do the right thing. stand up for this. stand up for the people that give us what we have today.

history said if you don't know where you come from, you sure don't know where you're going. and right now, i'm not sure. if we're not going to stand up for the people that have given us the life we have, i'm not sure where we are going. but i know one thing, i can go home and look them in the eye. i can say i'm doing everything i can. i will fight for you and i'm willing to do whatever it takes. whatever medicine it takes. whatever upset people get with me, however uncomfortable they may be, i'm asking them just please take care of the miners' health care. that's all. we'll talk about the rest later. so with that, mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i came to the floor for a different purpose, but i do want to say to my friend and colleague from west virginia and to those who he is fighting for, senator manchin has been at this in the most constructive way possible, trying to prick the

conscience of the senate to do what is fundamentally right, to help those who help make the country great, help them at their greatest time of need. to simply be able to go to sleep at night not worried that you are one illness or one black lung away from dying. and he has ceded time and time again, asking for regular order, and i was very pleased to support senator manchin as a member of the senate finance committee when there was a markup and there was a strong vote, and members who were running for re-election got to go home and say we passed it in the finance committee, we'll take care of it when we come back after the elections. well, here we are. and now it's time to put your votes and insist on having the

miners health care taken care of. and i -- if i was a miner, i couldn't have anybody better fighting for me. i just want those who you have been fighting for to know that you have been doing it for some time and tenaciously and graciously as well, but nonetheless with conviction. so i strongly support my colleague. mr. president, i rise today as i have many times before to discuss the urgent need for the united states to have an immigration system that reflects our values as a nation of immigrants. today in my first floor speech on the subject since donald trump won the election, i am deeply troubled by the fear and panic i hear from our immigrant community, from our young immigrants known as dreamers and their families to the workers in the field, to those in our restaurant kitchens and our

homes. their panic is justified and palpable because of the inflammatory remarks made by the president-elect on the campaign trail about immigrants. his campaign promises made it seem as if no immigrant was safe from deportation. even otherwise law-abiding, decent people who came to this country searching for the american dream for themselves and their children. the threat of deportation was heard loud and clear by over 744,000 young law-abiding immigrants who are american in every way except for a piece of paper. these dreamers were brought to the united states, many as infants or toddlers, for reasons beyond their control or their knowledge. they grew up in america, going to school. the only flag they have ever

pledged allegiance to is that of the united states. the only national anthem they know is the star-spangled banner. the effects of deporting them or their families would be incomprehensible and destructive. the deferred action for children arrivals program or daca is a tremendously successful program. it is something i fought for to allow young men and women to come out of the shadows to step forward and register themselves with our government and make them right. daca has allowed nearly 800,000 undocumented youth who came to the united states as children -- children -- to obtain temporary protection from deportation and a two-year work permit that is renewable if -- if -- they first came forth, registered with the government by hanged over their -- handing over their personal information and the information of their immediate families, passing a criminal background check and paying nearly $500 in fees.

and we said the information would be confidential and not used against them. now their fears of deportation are justified. the daca program has the potential of becoming a registry of millions of undocumented immigrants who are now exposed for seeking a better life for themselves and their kids. let's think about this for a second. we ask kids who came to this country through no choice of their own, no decision making, without any notion that they were doing anything wrong, many of them didn't even know they were undocumented until they tried to, for example, go to college or get a loan for school, to come out of the shadows voluntarily turn over their information and the information of their immediate relatives in exchange for protection from deportation, a work permit and a chance for a

better life. and as early as next year, once again through no fault of their own, these young immigrants and their families are at risk of losing it all. the human cost is too high to pay, a cost measured in the thousands of parents separated from their children who are undeported, husbands and wives separated from their spouses, millions of families who are torn apart because of our broken immigration system. among his many campaign promises, president-elect trump pledged to end the daca program. this means that daca recipients, a group of individuals the u.s. government has deemed as otherwise model citizens that pose absolutely no threat to our national security would be at risk for deportation and could no longer continue working legally. mr. president, we're here

talking about children who have grown up in the united states, children who attend our schools. many of them the valedictorians, in the top tier of their graduating classes, children who have been given a chance to be fully integrated into the only country many of them have ever known. i've listened many times to my colleagues talk about the core of family values and the essence of that core is a family unit. i've listened that you don't subscribe the sins of the parents to the children. and yet, those who are advocates of ending daca would undo all of those things they've spoken to. if the daca program is dismantled, young immigrants will be stripped of their jobs, education and forced back into the shadows of our society. in fact, the center for

american progress finds that ending daca would cost the united states $433 billion in gross domestic product over the next ten years. now having said that, i am hoping that on election night when president-elect trump said -- quote -- "now it is time for america to bind the wounds of division," he later said in an interview that millions of undocumented immigrants are -- quote -- "terrific people." i hope the next administration thinks long and hard about binding the wounds of division. a good start would be a clear and unequivocal message that there will be no mass deportation task force and that the daca program will continue, something that the president-elect already alluded to this week in an interview with "time" magazine saying -- quote -- "we're going to work something out that's going to make people happy and proud.

dreamers got brought here at a very young age, worked here, gone to school here, some were good students, some have wonderful jobs and they're in never-never land because they don't know what's going to happen, close quotes. so it appears to me that hopefully, hopefully we are getting to a place where there is universal respect and admiration for dreamers. this acknowledgement offers a glimmer of hope for a productive way forward, and i hope that's the case. let me close by saying the following: i do not intend to sacrifice one set of immigrants for another. let me be clear about our nation's immigrants. it is not just enough to say dreamers are terrific people. protecting a temporary program is not enough, although the panic and sense of urgency to protect these young immigrants is justified. it is not enough because the reality is dreamers do not exist

in a vacuum. they have parents. they have loved ones who have instilled values and work ethic and supported them to pursue an education and reach their full potential, to benefit our country. their parents are also terrific people, and so are so many other hardworking immigrants who have lived in this country for years, have obeyed the laws, are not criminals and have integrated themselves into the tapestry of american society. we know them. you have to be blind not to know them. they're sitting next to us in the pew in church. they attend parent-teachers conferences. they are our neighbors. they pick our crops. there isn't a person in this country who isn't beholden to an immigrant worker. they watch our kids. they open businesses. they perform backbreaking work, work that we can't get many

americans to do to keep the gears of this economy turning. immigration is not an easy problem to fix, but when we came close -- we came close, i think in 2013 when the senate came together to pass comprehensive immigration reform. i was part of that bipartisan gang of eight that produced a bill which passed with a strong bipartisan support of nearly three-quarters of this chamber. that bill is a strong model for reforming our immigration system as we look ahead to the new congress. s. 744 addressed the key pillars necessary for a functioning legal immigration system. it addressed the 1 1 million undocumented, so we can know who is here to pursue the american dream versus who is here to do it harm. it reformed the legal immigration system for high and low-skilled workers. it had strong family reunification provisions. it put dreamers on a path to citizenship. and it included tough border security measures.

s. 744 wasn't perfect, but it was a significant milestone in our nation's efforts to truly reform our immigration system. we must remember what our economy and america needs. our nation will be stronger where there is an accountable path to citizenship for the undocumented living in the u.s. our borders are secure, employers are held accountable for who they hire, jobs are filled with qualified and documented workers who contribute to the economies and families are kept together. we don't have downward pressures by an underground economy against the wages of all other americans. so then with an immigration system as flawed as ours, and with so many things to still fix, daca has been a beacon of hope, one shining light leading the way towards fairness, justice and a better life for so many young immigrants looking for a chance to succeed in america as americans.

yes, abolishing it would be a tragic mistake for an administration seeking to unite what they helped divide. but let me be clear as i have said all along, we cannot lose sight of our ultimate objective. the only real solution in the end is a permanent legislative solution that doesn't pick winners and losers amongst the most vulnerable in our society. that's why i'm pleased to once again see a bipartisan coalition of voices begin to resurface so we can work towards a bipartisan moment to fix our immigration system once and for all. because beyond stopping those who wish to turn the clock back on any progress we have made, we still need to implement a functioning legal immigration system for all. we need to make sure we don't take a giant step back and focus our nation's resources against the most vulnerable talented and hardworking. i have always been and remain

committed to solving this problem in a fair, comprehensive manner that reforms our immigration system. and i will continue to work with a bipartisan coalition of voices towards this goal. our dreamers, their parents, immigrant families and our nation deserve nothing less. irrelevant of who occupies the white house, i'll never stop fighting for those who, like my mother, came to this country in the last century to give their families a chance to contribute to america's exceptionalism. and for all those who still await for us to give them a chance to contribute to america's exceptionalism in this century. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana indiana.

coats --. mr. coats: about oo momentous occasion for our beloved home state of indiana, a celebration of our by centennial. in 1868 president james madison signed the indiana enabling act which allowed indiana to be the 19th state to june the union and required that indiana's leaders draft a state constitution. in the two centuries since, indiana's admission to the union, indiana residents -- and we call ourselves hoosiers -- have accomplished extraordinary things. in 1840, william henry harrison became the first hoosier to be elected president. in 1888 benjamin harrison, his grandson and fellow hoosier followed in his footsteps to the presidency. five hoosiers served our nation as vice president. sky letter kofax, thomas

hendricks, thomas marshal and dan quayle. in a -- a few short weeks ago americans elected governor mike pence to serve as our new vice president. he will become the sixth hoosier to serve in this role. we have a well-deserved reputation as the mother of vice presidents. as many of you know, when dan quayle was elected as president, george herbert walker bush's vice president, in fact, i was appointed to fill his vacant senate seat. vice president quayle has been a close friend and source of advice to me throughout the years. and when president trump elected mike pence or named mike pence to be his running mate i knew hoosiers would continue to have a strong impact on our country providing guidance and leadership in one of the top elected offices in our land. i'm honored to call both dan quayle and mike pence close friends and now commemorate the great work they have done for

the state of indiana and have and will do for our nation. we've had excellent governors, excellent representatives, senators and others who contributed significantly to this body and to the congress and to the nation, and we are proud of that as hoosiers. i keep using the word hoosiers because we have been misnamed as indianaans which is hard to pronounce and spell. i could go into a long discourse of what hoosiers mean but i won't take the senate's time to do that right now. please contact my office and we'll send you a full description of what hoosier is but you're going to see two of them here on the floor today. well, talented, loyal public servants are not the only contribution our great state has made to the nation. during the civil war over 200,000 hoosiers answered the

call to serve. only one civil war battle was fought in indiana, more than 24,000 hoosiers lost their lives and an estimated 50,000 were wounded. during world war ii, nearly 10% of indiana's population joined our nation's armed forces. those who stayed behind contributed greatly to the manufacturing boom required for the war effort, manufacturing nearly 5% of all weapons and equipment required for the war. our state has continued that service, that call to service to the military, and we have for years and decades been one of the leading states providing per capita support to our armed forces. in addition to these accomplished hoosiers which i've named, the places and events that make indiana unique are numerous and i want to mention a few, and i don't want -- i apologize to those that we don't

have time to put in place here. but as senator done -- donnelly and i know a few months ago we commemorated the running of the indianapolis on this senate floor known as the world's greatest spectacle in racing, the indianapolis 500 is a great source of pride to hoosiers throughout the state and throughout the country. every year our race is an epic event regularly surpassing speeds of 200 miles per hour. in addition to the indy 500, the little 500 at the indiana university, the automotive industry that has deep ties to indiana is prominent in our state. in 1896, the hanes aperson company opens its doors in kokomo, indiana producing one of the very first automobile manufacturing sites in the entire united states and it

operated until 1905. it's -- its 1904 model seated two passengers and sold for $1550 at that time. now, you don't have to go too much further north of kokomo, indiana to arrive in the city of auburn where the cord duzzenburg and other popular cars were manufactured and every year the festival parade and museum is open to people from around the world to see a magnificent parade of cars of that era in absolutely perfect shape. and if you find yourself in southern indiana, take a minute to stop by the lincoln boyhood national memorial in spencer county. abraham lincoln may have been born in kentucky, he may have ended up in illinois but he was raised and shaped in indiana. in addition to our landmarks, some of america's most famous buildings have been constructed using indiana limestone. the pentagon, the national cathedral, the lincoln memorial,

the united states holocaust memorial museum, the empire state building in new york, and many more, all feature indiana limestone coried -- quarried in south central, indiana. our state has been blessed with a climate of soil fit for all kinds of agricultural activities. according to the state's department of agriculture, 83% of indiana's land is dedicated to either farms or forests. god has blessed us with a climate and a soil fit for all kinds of agricultural activities. according to the state's department of agriculture, 83% of indiana's land is dedicated, as i said, to farms and forests while corn and soybeans are our top carbon dioxide dis by value, indiana -- top comedies, of value, indiana produced $1.2 billion worth of agriculture products in 2012. this includes 41 and a half million broiler chickens, ten and a half million hogs and pigs, 30,000 acres of vegetables

harvested for sale. the next time you head to a movie theater, think of indiana. indiana produces more than 20% of the united states popcorn supply and a great deal is exported around the world. we're also a world leader in pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. our medical device industry is the fifth largest in the u.s. generating more than $10 billion in annual economic output. hoosiers truly are working hard to provide healthier, longer, more rewarding lives for all americans. and not only does indiana seek to enrich the quality of life of hoosiers through its contributions to the medical manufacturing field, we also do this through our institutions of higher education. hoosiers do not need to travel far to receive al high quality -- a high quality education. we boast of a rich variety of world class colleges and universities such as indiana university, perdue university, butler university, notre dame

university. indiana state, rose, time, grace, manchester, erlim, evansville, indiana wesley and on and on we could go. i'd be remiss if i were to neglect mentioning my own graduate school alma mater, the indiana university, robert m. mckinney school of law. this quality of education bleeds into the quality of coaching found at hoosiers schools. there's nothing quite like being in the stands during a hoosier high school basketball game. the coaching quality that we have has produced all-stars at every facet of basketball, whether it be professional, college, high school, or elementary. there's nothing quite like being in the stands during taylor university's silent night where the fans pack the basketball stadium and stay completely silent until the home team scores their tenth point.

then the noise really starts and the game finishes with the fans singing "silent night." through the years so many hoosier teams have proved to be formidable foes on the court and the field. we're the home of the colts, the pacers, the birthplace of larry byrd, james dean, david letterman. on and on i could go with that. but in addition to recognizing all that indiana has contributed to our nation over the past 200 years, i would like to add that one of our greatest contributions has been and will be always hoosier hospitality. while at times our country is more divided and complicated place, hoosiers continue to demonstrate the kindness and a good meal that can make the world a little better. it's an honor for me to commemorate this bicentennial for this great state of indiana. i'm honored to be able to do this with my fellow center, joe donnelly, from indiana, and with that, mr. president, i would

like to yield the floor for that purpose. don mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: i rise today to join my colleague dan coats, our senior senator from indiana who is wrapping up his time in the senate as of the next few weeks. and what an extraordinary service he has provided to our nation, to our state. we're incredibly grateful to senator coats for what he has done. i also want to celebrate indiana's bicentennial. i want to reflect on the past two centuries of our state's rich history. and the important contributions hoosiers have made to our state and our nation. for nearly a year now in every corner and in every community of indiana, from the biggest to the tiniest, we've been commemorating the storied history of our beloved hoosier state. together we'll culminate the

celebration on sunday, december 11, when indiana turns 200 years old. admitted to the union in 1816, indiana has developed and ground into the cross roads of america, a welcoming place where businesses and families can grow and succeed. as hoosiers, we take pride in putting in an honest day's work. we don't want a free lunch. we don't want a handout. we want the chance to work, to work a good job, to educate our children in good schools, to ensure our kids have the tools to make a better life than we did, the american dream, the hoosier dream. and eventually after a life of hard work, to retire with dignity, to have a chance to go fishing in one of our lakes, to have a chance to be with our family in one of our extraordinary parks or our national forests.

indiana has a proud tradition of serving our country and working to protect our nation's security. nearly 500,000 veterans and many service members and military families call indiana home. our national guard dates back to 1801 when we were still a territory. today our guard is the fourth largest in all of the united states and hoosiers have proudly served our country in all of our fights, all of our wars, all of our efforts to protect our nation over the years. it's also home to naval support activity crane, the third largest naval installation in the world. mr. president, i think we can take particular pride that in the middle of the country about as far away as you can get from the atlantic and the pacific, we have the third largest naval base in the entire world.

our state is also home to grissom air reserve base in kokomo where the 434th air refueling wing is based. the 122nd fighter wing in fort wayne where they are training daily as well as camp attarbury and the intelligence wing based at the air national guard base. throughout our 200-year history, indiana's success has helped drive america's success. the backbone of our state has been built from our manufacturing and steel plants, our small businesses, our farms. hoosier farmers and those involved in agriculture know what it means to work hard and do their part. our corn and soybean farmers and our pork producers, our beef producers, they've helped feed not just indiana but our country and the world. our dairy farmers have produced

incredible products that on a hot summer night some of the best ice cream in the world comes right between the illinois border and the ohio border and the michigan border and the ohio river, that beautiful place we call home. in the cities and towns across indiana, small businesses are the cornerstones of our communities. indiana's home to nearly half a million small businesses employing almost 1.2 million hoosier workers. and so many of those small businesses are in agriculture as well. we don't want to leave anybody out. the egg producers, so many. the turkey producers, the chicken producers. if it grows, we make it. we feed the world every single day. throughout our state's history steel has been not just a major employer but also a source of pride for hoosier communities. hoosier steel serves as the foundation of buildings and

bridges, all across the united states. what indiana makes, the united states and the world takes. still today indiana is the largest producer of steel in the united states. speaking of construction, the limestone from southern indiana has traveled all over the world from places like yankee stadium to buildings in other parts of the world to buildings all across the nation's capital, some of the most beautiful buildings you've ever seen built from indiana limestone and from indiana products. manufacturing is central to our economy. it contributes to roughly 30% of indiana's economic activity and economic growth. manufacturing plays a larger role in our economy than it does in any other state in the nation, and we are really,

really good at it. manufacturing employs 17% of our work force, some of the most skilled workers in the world. hoosier manufacturers and their workers build some of the most advanced, highest quality products in the world, from engines to r.v.'s. just down the road if my home in granger is elcart, the r.v. capital of the world. mr. president, i know you've traveled a few miles in r.v.'s as well from one end of our state to the other. more than 80% of global r.v. production is based in elcart. so if you see an r.v. on the road, there's a good chance it was built by hard-working hoosier manufacturers and there's a real good chance your family is going to have an awesome time. we boast some of the best educational institutions in the world. as my colleague senator coats mentioned, he listed them off.

attracting students and professors and researchers from across indiana, across our country, and across the world. our colleges and universities provide an exceptional education to our students and lead the way in innovation and cutting edge research. not surprisingly, many know our state because of our sports heritage, particularly in auto racing and basketball. this year marked the 100th running of the greatest spectacle in racing, the indy 500. it's a special event unlike any other. we don't just showcase the best indiana has to offer on the racetrack but also on the hardwood. basketball has been part of indiana's identity since the late 1890's, and it remains king today. our state has achieved great basketball success, including with history-making teams like the flying tigers of christmas

high school who in 1955 became the first all african-american high school athletic team in the country to win a state basketball title. a few things have defined our state's culture and fabric as much as basketball. as senator coats, the president, knows, john wooden may be considered the father of all coaches in this country, came from indiana. as we reflect on our 200 years, we have so much to be proud of. as we look to the next 200 years, we know that through hard work and by working together, we can make our state's future even more prosperous because that's the american promise that we work nonstop, that we work together so that when we look at our kids and our grandkids, we can tell them, tell all of you

we're going to build a stronger, better indiana. we're going to build a stronger, better america because that's the promise that we pass on from one generation to the other. and to my friend, the senior senator from indiana, i want to tell you what a pleasure it's been to serve with you. what a good friend you have been and how lucky i have been to have been your junior partner in this endeavor where we try to stand for america every single day. mr. president, i yield back. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: and as my two colleagues from indiana leave, again, congratulations on their bicentennial. there are many great hoosiers that have made their way to the

state of washington. one was most beloved -- most beloved, a broadcaster named dave nehaus, a great, great part of our northwest economy and sports history and certainly should list dave colaaral. now we have the great bill ruckelshaus, there working on salmon issues and does great things. so congratulations to those hoosier senators today. i'm here with my colleague, senator murkowski of alaska, to talk about all the great work that was put into the senate energy modernization act. and i know the presiding officer knows well how much work was newtown that legislation. -- how much work was put into that legislation. we're here to say that after

many markupups and many amendm amendments, that we still believe that our house colleagues should extend their time here in congress to consider the conference report on an energy modernization and natural resources agreement. we say that because there's so much important work still to be done. we reached an agreement on extending the national park service 100th birthday by making an investment in our national park system. we had responses from 47 senators and were able to protect hundreds of acres of land. we were able to reach agreements with both bodies on important issues like water resources, providing and securing funding for fighting forest fires, making sure that communities who are at risk got the attention that they so deserve. and i can say for the state of washington, having lost seven

individuals in fighting fires over the last decade and a half, this is so important for us to make sure that we get it right and provide the communities the resources they need to fight fires. we were able to reach agreement on cybersecurity and how much our infrastructure and grid needs to be protected and go to work on that by improving the capabilities of the grid and making sure the d.o.e. was in charge of of that, not just talking about hardening some of our physical infrastructure like our hydro-system, but actually the work that it takes to make our grid more resilient from hacking and cyber attacks. and also to make sure that theworkforce was there. we reached agreement on that increasing the workforce of the energy system that has been outlined in the quadrennial review that we need a million and a half new workers in energy. so we were able to do that along with a hydro- agreement, an agreement on nuclear power and many, many other areas of

science that were so important to us. so it's so frustrating at this time, mr. president, that as we went through the normal process of doing an energy bill, we went through hard work of working with our colleagues here on the senate floor, which included -- i don't know if it got to 100 amendments, but i'm sure we considered and worked through 100-plus amendments -- to then work all summer long and all fall with our house colleagues on reaching conference. it is so disappointing to have our house colleagues refuse to agree to these important provisions, and i mentioned many of them, but i forget to -- but i forgot to mention the sports men's bill and all the packages that are part of this. these are hard-fought issues that are hard to agree on because they mean coming to the table and taking into consideration all the interests. whether you're talking about sportsmen and the open access to hunting, which my colleague from alaska so championed, or whether

you're talking about thousand get water agreements that involve fisher mn and tribes and farmers and a lot of river interests, we were able to accomplish that. or whether you're talking about fixing the fire fix that was debated back and forth between our house and senate colleagues for almost seven or eight years now -- all of these things we were able to reach agreement on. so it is really irresponsible for our house colleagues to drop the ball and not consider these solutions and taking "yes" for an answer to act on them. what's even more outrageous is now the house wants to take a piece of energy policy that should have been considered by our committee, this california water issue, and think that they can airdrop it into the wrda bill that isn't even in its jurisdiction. so as much as our house colleagues like to talk about the "no earmark rule," the california water deal that is

now being decried in newspapers in california as the midnight rider and basically saying we should reject the midnight rider is a bill that was airdropped in as an earmark in the wrda bill and is being sent over here, a policy that should be considered by the energy committee. so i say to my colleagues that if you want the hard work of your energy policy considered in the future and you want energy policy to be a consensus of people working in the regular order process of the united states senate and you want us to reach consensus, you need to say to our house colleagues and to those who are refusing to move forward on a conference report that this is problematic. that the senate that we all know and the house and the conference that we all know is a process for us to work out agreements,

not sidetrack them or drop into other bills items that have not been worked out and basically don't adhere to the rules of the senate or even the own rules that the house is claiming to have on earmarks. so it's a very cynical view of the world, if the house can only pass energy legislation that is airdropped in in another committee that violates its own rules and basically overruns what is, by the sports fishermen the basically troute unlimited and many sportsmen groups, what is basically a very collaborative process for engaging our public lands and resources and turning it into backroom deal making in the house of representatives. so i join my colleague tonight to just explain the great work that was done in our conference, hard work. i think she and i believe in it. i think we believe in the senate

the way it's supposed to work. we believe in the hard work that it took to reach compromise on so many issues, and i think we want to make sure that our colleagues know that getting to "yes" was just inches away and very unfortunate that the howrksz instead of doing -- that the house, instead of doing that homework, sends a very cynical approach to the legislative a rue in a -- arena, that seems like something i thought we jet sonned -- jettisoned. instead ernest that we had transparency. i hope our colleagues understand these are important policy issues, take the respecting days that we are here, if we happen to be here into next week, renew the effort with your leader in the house and encourage them to get the great energy work done and bank what is public policy in the best interests of the united states.

i thank the president, and i yield the floor. and i just want to thank my colleague from alaska for her leadership on the energy committee, her hard work and dedication, her willingness to work across the aisle, and her willingness to be very tough on how important thorny public process -- policy could be in these areas with you not to back away from that and find solutions for everybody in the united states senate. i thank the president. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. and i want to acknowledge the very good work of my friend and colleague and neighbor to the south of us from washington state, senator cantwell. she has been a partner throughout this two-year process that we have been engaged in, as we have tried to formulate and format a renewed energy policy for this country, something that hasn't been done in close it a decade. and -- in close to a decade. and we acknowledged early on

that there were going to be policy differences that we each have, given where we come from and our views, but we were committed -- we were committed to working together to work through the thorny issues, to work towards concensus, not only that she and i could come to but that our whole committee and ultimately the senate. and we were successful in doing that. and i also want to acknowledge the good work of senator cantwell's staff as well as my staff on the energy committee. these folks have been working tirelessly -- tirelessly for two years, but more importantly -- and when i say "tirelessly," pretty much 24/7 for the past several weeks in trying to get us to that point, where instead of talking about what might have been in an energy bill, being able to stand in front of my colleagues and tell you, these

are the policy changes that we will now see placed into law. and i had truly wished that i would not be in a situation where i would have to come to the floor and speak negatively about where we are right now, because, as senator cantwell has outlined, the process that we have been engaged in is one tht as the chairman and the ranking member we were proud of but that the institution should be proud of. our committees are designed to be that incubator of the good ideas and how we then allow these ideas to materialize and come together through good debate and amendments and refinement and then bringing that forward to a full body,

again, for further work and refinement. and we have done it by the book. there's not too many things here in the congress that look like what you learned about how a bill becomes law. and i'm looking at the young pages that are sitting here. in your classes in american government, you learn about how a bill becomes law. well, if you read that and then you see what happens around here, you'd say, two different universes. and you're nodding because you know you're seeing that. but what we've attempted to do and what we have done for the past two years is to allow our committees to work, to take the good ideas from energy-producing states like alaska and louisiana and working with colleagues from the interior of the country and views and ideas that perhaps are different than ours and building consensus, building consensus with energy policy, with

resources, with access, and we did it. we -- we have been that textbook example of regular order process. i'm actually told, mr. president, that they have a training course -- or a training program offered here in the congress that kind of walks committee staff through examples of how a bill should be moved thrathrough a committee. i was told just the other day that our bill, the energy bill, is the model that is being used as what to do in that training program. well, that's pretty good, but you got to get it over the finish line. and this is where senator cantwell and i are so frustrated. this is where we are so frustrated because, after two

years of work and being this close to the finish line, we're being denied that opportunity to share the success because of lack of action over in the other chaivmenchamber. mr. president, you've -- you have heard it because of a been part of this, but we started this energy bill off with really competing ideas. we held listening sessions here in washington, in alaska, places in between. we gathered the ideas for what we hoped was going to be the first major energy and natural resources bill signinged into law in nearly a decade. we then moved into oversight hearings, legislative hearings. we reviewed over 115 separate bills. we spent weeks negotiating a base text of the bipartisan bill. we held markups where our bill drew support from nearly all of our members. then we brought it here to the floor. we had some bumps, yeah.

the flint was part of it. seems like ancient history now as we try wrap flint up in. but we persevered. we worked through all of them. we added more priorities for our members, to the point where over 80 different senators had their priorities incorporated into our bill. and then in april, 85 members of this body, 85 members voted in favor of passage of this bill. and when you think of all that was contained in it, to gain that level of consensus, i think the senator from washington and i were doing something positive there, to get everybody on board. so then the house responded to our energy bill in late may, and then in july we went to former conference. and we began work right away. the negotiations started just about immediately, even before the first former meeting of our conference. so think about it. we have been working this conference between the two

bodies since july. since july. and not just on an occasional basis. working this aggressively. during this conference, we had held more than 75 bipartisan and bicameral negotiating sessions at the staff level. there have been countless more meetings and daily interactions aamongst our staff. we've got -- we've got -- these lists go on and on forever. the final conference report includes provisions from 74 members of the senate and 224 members of the house. this is not -- this is not kind of a bill where you're cramming it down the other side. this is how you achieve consensus on measures. the chairman and the ranking members of committees of jurisdiction, whether it's here in the senate energy and natural resources, the house natural resources, house science, house energy committee. we have been meeting to resolve our differences.

again, staff has just been working round the clock. and then just this weekend went through hundreds of pages, hundreds of pages to close out all of the issues, all of these issues. and again, we did it by the book. we did what we were supposed to be doing. we were the team players here. we adhered to the regular order process. senator cantwell said we were doing the normal process. i don't know. i think what we're doing now is extraordinary. it's not normal, because it seems that if there is guerrilla warfare that's going on, that seems to be the way to move a bill nowadays. it doesn't send a very powerful message for those who want to work to gain consensus, who want to use the committee process to build things. we were really on the right

track until just a couple of weeks ago when it became pretty apparent that the house was -- was just done. the house was done. they stopped negotiating in good faith. they stopped trying to work to reach agreement. mr. president, i see you giving me the high sign that my time might be coming up, but i need about five minutes, if my colleague would indulge me. i can do a little less. thank you. thank you. so we are -- we are at that point where we have the house that is going out. we are told that we here in the senate are going to be wrapping up shop here. but as senator cantwell has outlined, what colleagues note to know is -- need to know is what is being left on the table. it's not just, it's not just the guts of this conference bill that we have been negotiating that is on the table. what's on the table is we just

don't think it's going to be necessary to put so much time and effort into good committee process that builds good consensus, that gets a good product. that's a problem. that's a problem to me. and i think it's something that we're going to have to be working on. we're going to have to work on aggressively in this next year. now, there have been a lot of speculation about what's really going on, what's the problem, why can't you get a deal? well, i messagessed to you that -- mentioned to you that we have closed out every aspect of this bill with the exception of two. there have been a lot of executives out there that we don't have enough time, the bill's too complicated, there's not enough in it. wait a minute, there is too much in it. so we worked to address all that. we worked to address all that and we got it down to two issues, and both of those issues can be easily resolved in plenty of time, in plenty of time for

us around here if everybody is willing to sit down and work through them in good faith. in fact, on both of those issues, the senate's already written, we have already proposed the modifications that were necessary to reach the final agreement. and what happens when we propose them? what happens when we sent them over? we wait. we wait. it's going to be a half an hour. it's going to be an hour. now it's half a day. that's not good faith. that's not good faith. and i'll give you one specific example. this relates to l.n.g., l.n.g. export projects. this is something, quite honestly, that folks had agreed was going to be part of the bill. we've included it in every senate offer. it was taken out by the house. then when the house says hmm, your bill doesn't seem to have enough in it, what happened to l.n.g.? you took it out. let's not be moving the goal posts here.

what we have, as senator cantwell has outlined, is significant, vitally significant for many in our western states, with forest management reform, with a potential for a fire budget fix, for our sports men and women who care about -- about accessing our public lands for hunting and fishing and recreational shooting. it -- it includes a west water package that will boost our water storage and management in some of our most drought-stricken western states. it has a robust public lands title with more than 50 bills in it that provide everything from the expansion of a v.a. cemetery in south dakota to high-priority land exchanges in places like colorado. we've got language related to the national park service

centennial that really sets our national parks on track for the second century. it includes a range of nuclear cybersecurity, hydroelectric, energy policies. these are good things. these are good things that will help our country move forward and produce more energy that's affordable, reliable, free of any -- any form of pollution. we have worked so hard. and, mr. president, to be here on on the 8th of december, the 8th of december and say we're out of time, well, tell that to the sportsmen who have been working for six years to get a sportsman's package through, and we're here on december 8 and we're saying we're done. tell that to those who are particularly from the west who are concerned about wildfire threats year after year and whether or not the funds are going to be there, not only to address fire but to be there for

the other accounts that our agencies are worried about. tell them that we ran out of -- tell them that we ran out of time on december 8. we haven't run out of time. we have run out of a desire to work together to finish important work, important work for this country. we have time. so don't make excuses. don't run out the clock. recognize that what we have worked on for two long, strong years deserves to be placed into law. so i urge my -- my friends and my colleagues in the other chamber, work with us on this. let's not give up on energy policy. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, and i thank my colleague for the indulgence of some additional time. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thanks, and i appreciate the good work that senator murkowski does and her cooperation with people in this

institution. mr. president, today our country lost an american hero, colonel john glenn, senator john glenn. i will be back on a later date to deliver a more former tribute with my colleague, senator portman, but i want to share some initial thoughts as i, along with my wife connie and so many ohioans mourn for john glenn and join so many people around the country that loved him and cared for him and respected him. it's been one of the great lessons of my life to get to know john glenn and for connie and me to count him and annie as mentors and friends. we remember just a few short years ago on the 50th anniversary of his flight into space, the night before we had dinner with john and annie. connie and i and john and annie and his children david and lynn and his daughter-in-law, david's wife, and how interesting and joyous it was to just hear him recount his experiences and so

much of what he's done. we loved him, we'll miss him, we'll continue to draw strength and wisdom from the lessons he shared with us over the years. the first time i met john glenn, 1969. he was colonel glenn then, long before he was elected to the senate. colonel glenn spoke to an eagle scout dinner in mansfield, ohio. only a few short weeks earlier, i had -- in my court of honor, i was awarded the eagle scout, i got the eagle scout award. i was 16 years old. i got to meet colonel glenn. his words inspired us. they stayed with me as i grew up and looked for ways to serve community and country. 38 years later, john granted me the great honor of walking me down this center aisle. when senators are sworn in, any term they serve, they are accompanied by often the senator from their state or a former senator or whomever that senator-elect or that senator

soon to be sworn in chooses, and i chose to walk down with my friend and former senator at that point, john glenn. john's kindness -- he had a humility and a kindness unusual perhaps in this business and perhaps somebody of his level of accomplishment. his kindness and intelligence, his courage, we know about that, his commitment to service set an example that our country needs today more than ever. his legacy will live on, not just in the pages of history books. it will live on through the americans he inspired, whether it was a passion for exploration that led him to join nasa, a dedication to country that called him to the armed forces, a desire to make the world a better place that led him to public service. john will live in the hearts of everyone who knew and loved him, including his beloved wife annie and his wonderful children lynn and david. i spoke with annie and john on their 73rd wedding

anniversary, and annie told me the story that they -- i knew they knew each other in grade school. they dated, becoming -- beginning i don't know exactly when. i asked annie if they wanted to marry in high school. she said yes, but her parents said they couldn't do that because it wouldn't last so they waited until after pearl harbor when i believe john was 20 and annie was 21 and married for 73-plus years. ohio and the united states have lost a great light today, but that pales in comparison to what we gained over his 95 years on earth. i hope my colleagues will join me in sending out our love and prayers to john's family at this difficult time during the holidays. i heard john glenn stories even today when we -- when the ceremony unveiling the portrait of democratic leader harry reid took place in the russell building, and a number of former colleagues of john's came up to

me, and they had just heard of his death. that happened mid afternoon today. so i thank them for their memories and remembrances. so, mr. president, i ask -- i would ask to speak on a separate matter and that it be at a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. last night, senator manchin and i on the floor of the senate with senator wyden and senator donnelly and senator casey were again asking our colleagues to honor the commitment that harry truman made seven decades ago to the mine workers in this country, to the retired mine workers and to their widows. we all know that mine workers, the life expectancy of mine workers is often less than the life expectancy of a teacher or an elected official or an insurance agent or someone that works in other -- many other kinds of businesses. they are more likely to be injured on the job. they are more likely in some cases to perish on the job.

they are more likely to contract an illness from the air they breathe and the conditions in the mines, whether it's black lung or whether it's some kind of heart disease. so this is particularly important to mine workers and to widows that we take care of their insurance. most of the mine workers i know got a notice only earlier late in november or earlier this month saying their insurance would be cut off at the end of december. what a christmas present. we have asked senator mcconnell, the republican leader, who seems to be the only one standing in the way, we have asked him month after month after month to fix this so these widows and these retired miners don't get this notice saying their insurance will be cut off. finally, senator mcconnell, the republican leader, asked us to make it bipartisan. we did. we have a number of republican cosponsors. senator portman from my state, senator capito from west

virginia, a number of others. we did that. then senator mcconnell said well, run through regular order. put a bill through committee. we did that. 18-8 in the senate finance committee. every democrat joined by a third or so of the republicans. we did that. then senator mcconnell said that's not good enough. we want you to find a way to pay for it. we did. this is money in the abandoned mine funds assessed against the mine companies and accumulation of funds through the years. we did all three of those things. still senator mcconnell because of his antipathy apparently towards the united mine workers union, if he hates unions that's his business, i'd rather he didn't but that's his business. but to stand in the way of these widows and these retired mine workers because of his animosity towards the mine, towards the union is pretty troubling. last night senator manchin and i issue after issue after issue continued to object to other

generally noncontroversial bills which we support. some of them i cosponsored. until this body does its job. but you know what, mr. president? if this senate doesn't act, it looks like a number of senators, as house members apparently have already done, have gone home for christmas. i'll have plenty of colleagues go home and celebrate the holidays. rearls of their faith -- regardless of their faith they'll celebrate the holidays in the three upcoming weeks but these thousands and thousands of mine worker retirees, thousands and thousands of widows of mine workers, their christmas isn't going to be so good. because now senator mcconnell said we'll give you a four-month extension. you no he what that means? they already got the first letter saying the insurance runs out the end of december. now we get a second letter if we do the four month extension in january or february saying it's going to run out in april. how would we like to live that way saying you're going to have insurance until this day and

then we'll give you a little extension, you'll have it until this day. that is simply not fair. maybe it's okay for us because we have good benefits and good insurance, but it's not okay for them. so, mr. president, i'm hopeful that senator mcconnell and republican leaders will bring this to the floor and will support a one-year -- we want more. we'd like to see the pension problem fixed too. but before the holidays let's do one year extension on the insurance. it's a commitment president truman made, the president of both parties for seven decades have honored. it's the least we can do, mr. president. i think we should stay here and work up until christmas if it doesn't happen. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll.

mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. graham: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection,so ordered. mr. graham: and unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with senator mccain when he arrives. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: right on cue. i'll start off here. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent for colloquy between myself and the senator from south carolina. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: just to make sure. very briefly, i'll let senator

mccain lead off, but we're going to talk about the way forward. mr. mccain: i'd like to join my friend and colleague on this issue of transcendent importance, transcendent importance to america's relationship with our friends and allies with placing literally americans and american companies and corporations and governments in great danger, particularly governments. i'd just like to mention in passing, if my colleague will indulge me very quickly, because i have here in front of me -- and i will ask that it be included in the record -- statements from the president of the united states, the director of the c.i.a., the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, all on this issue, on this issue we're

talking about. the leaders of our government from the president on down, including the heads of our most important defense agencies, have expressed -- and i will quote them in just a minute. congress passed the justice against sponsors of terrorism act of jasta, well intentioned the spirit behind the legislation is noble. any foreign government behind a terrorist attack on our homeland or our citizens must be held accountable. what has become clear is that the unintended consequences of this legislation are quite grave, as it exists now jasta presents a significant risk to the united states and our military and diplomatic personnel serving across the globe. as it currently exists, as my colleague from south carolina will explain in greater detail, jasta undermines a fundamental

international norm of sovereign immunity that protects governments from being sued in court except in narrow circumstances. if this law is not narrow -- and please, my colleagues, understand the senator from south carolina and i aren't for abolishing this law. we are putting into a scope that protects the united states of america. and that is if we allow our laws to target governments indiscriminately we will expose our country to great risk and undermine our ability to pursue justice. no country in the world stands to lose more from an erosion of these legal standards than the united states of america. the united states has more bases and more forward deployed personnel protecting peace and security than any other country. jasta now gives these countries an incentive to bring these brave men and women to court to answer for u.s. counterterrorism

policies. if other countries pass similar legislation, it means the united states and american soldiers, diplomats and intelligence officers serving in some of the world's most dangerous and difficult countries will be forced to justify their actions and defend the policies we have made to defend this country before courts that may not share our standards of due process and fairness. our allies will wonder if it is wise to join our coalitions to fight terrorism if they too will face legal liability in courts around the world. thus, we are faced with a twisted irony that the men and women who put themselves in harm's way to bring the 9/11 attackers to justice and to defeat those that still seek to attack the united states are the people placed directly at risk by jasta. we must be concerned with the diplomatic and economic fallout of this law.

our allies and partners around the world, particularly those who struggle with terrorism at home, now wonder if they might be hauled into courts for terrorist actions. they face potential cost-ordered damages and asset seizures. their citizens and companies doing business in the united states are at risk. it is only reasonable that these countries will consider pulling their assets and resources out of the united states out of fear. in short, jasta could cause our allies in the fight against terrorism to distance themselves from us as a country that most needs their support against those who mean to do us harm. now i'd like to just provide some quotes, mr. president. our nation's top national security officials have issued statements and written to congress to warn us about the unintended consequences of jasta. let's begin with president obama. i quote from his letter and the

white house. he wrote jasta would -- quote -- "neither protect americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of ourresponse to such attacks. doing so would threaten to erode sovereign immunity rules that protect the united states including armed forces and other officials overseas." i will admit, mr. president, that senator graham and i have a special relationship with the men and women who are serving. his 22 years as a member of the united states air force reserve, every year going to iraq or afghanistan. i obviously have sons who have served. i don't want to see -- i don't want to see my sons or anybody else's sons in court because they might have violated a sovereign nation the way that we are saying that jasta affects our country. enacting law according to the

president, as i said, would neither protect americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. doing so would instead threaten to erode sovereign immunity principles that protect the united states, including our u.s. armed forces and others overseas. the secretary of defense wrote -- and i quote -- "u.s. service members stationed here and overseas and especially those supporting our counterterrorism efforts would be vulnerable to private individuals' accusations, that their activities contributed to acts alleged to violate a foreign state's law." he continued to say, whether guilty or innocent, the mere allegation of their involvement could subject them to a foreign court's jurisdiction and the accompanying litigation and intrusive discovery process that goes along with defending against lawsuits. our service members might be

required to testify about, or provide documents on operations that they're obligated under u.s. law not to disclose, supposing them to punishment for contempt by the foreign court, including imprisonment. according to the secretary of defense, we can be risking imprisonment for the men and women who are serving in our military overseas. chairman of the joint chief of staffs, i think we all respect the chairman of the joint chief of staffs. here's his view. any legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign governments would increase the vulnerability of u.s. service members to foreign legal action while acting in an official capacity. in those cases the service member could be held in civil or criminal contempt should he or she refuse to appear or otherwise comply with the foreign court's orders. the secretary of state, john kerry, wrote jasta could

encourage foreign courts to exercise jurisdiction over the united states or u.s. officials, same thing. the director of the c.i.a. wrote jasta will have grave implications for the united states, the most damaging consequence would be for those u.s. government officials who dutifully work overseas on behalf of our country, the principle of sovereign immunity protects u.s. officials every day and is rooted in reciprocity. if we fail to uphold this standard for other countries, we place our own nation officials in danger. no country has more to lose from undermining that principle than the united states, and few institutions would be at greater risk than the c.i.a., which certainly makes sense. so here we have from the director of the c.i.a. to the vice president of the united states, to the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, to the president of the united states,

to the secretary of defense, all want us to narrow the interpretation of this law. what does it require? whose word more do you want? all i'm saying, that we need to narrow the law. we must make it clear that countries will not be held responsible for rogue actions of their citizens unless we can show that a nation knowingly assists a terrorist group, sovereign nation should not be dragged into our courts. if we don't fix jasta, our ability to defend ourselves will be undermined and the people we ask to go into harm's way on our behalf will be placed in jeopardy. america must pursue justice but in the long run, jasta will make it harder not easier to bring terrorists to justice and prevent terrorism in the first place. we need to fix this law. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent all those statements from the president of the united

states, secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs, director of the c.i.a., all be made -- and secretary of state all be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection so ordered. mr. mccain: i would ask my colleague, let's make it clear here. are we asking to have this law repealed? are we asking that people and countries that are responsible for acts of terror, are we trying to let them off the hook? are we trying to say committing acts of terror can be sponsored by any nation and we'll turn the other way? that is basically the argument with -- that is being mounted in sometimes hysterical fashion and what we are trying to do to ensure that a government must -- maybe not even done it themselves but knowingly.

isn't that the key particularly coming from someone with your background as an officer trained in the uniform code of military justice and the international rule of law? mr. graham: thank you, senator mccain. your overview was excellent about the perils we face as a nation if we don't modify the law. i'll try to give you a couple of minutes of how did we get here. after 9/11, one of the most horrific attacks on our homeland, maybe ever i guess since the civil war, the bottom line was that we responded as a nation in many ways. the 9/11 families have a special place in american history and our hearts. they've been pursuing legal claims against those responsible for the attack. sovereign immunity is a concept that protects our government and every other government from doing business because if you don't have sovereign immunity, you really can't function as a government. but there are waivers to that

concept. a tort. a tort, if somebody in saudi arabia is driving a car down the streets of new york and they're working for the embassy and consulate and they hit you, there's actually a process where you can sue. you can sue your own federal government in the federal tort claims act, if you're injured as a result of being hit by a military vehicle. even though sovereign immunity applies, we've waived that to allow citizens who have been injured tortuously to bring claims in a very controlled process. so the 9/11 families for well over a decade now have been pursuing nation states like saudi arabia in court trying to hold them liable for the act of terrorism of the 19 hijackers. under our law a tort does not include acts of international

terrorism. so i was very open minded to say well, certainly that's a tort. if you're injured or killed because of an act of international terrorism, you've been harmed and i don't mind holding somebody responsible who caused that harm. but now you're getting into the operation of a nation state. so here's what we're saying. saudi arabia, in you believe the saudi government collaborated with the 19 hijackers, that they knew or should have known about the attack and assisted in the attack, not only should they be held liable in our courts as probably an act of war under international law. unfortunately the way we have structured this law, that requirement doesn't exist. and let me give you an example of how that can come back to haunt us. we're engaged in a conflict in syria today. we're training, providing weapons and training to a lot of

groups inside syria to destroy isil. one of those groups is the wpg kurds. they're literally the cousins of a terrorist organization inside of turkey. there's friction between the kurds in syria and the turkish government and it's beginning to bubble up. we're knowingly providing training to kurdish elements inside syria for the express purpose of enlisting them in the fight against isil. what i don't want to have happen is that the c.i.a. officer, the special forces soldier, anybody in our government who's working in the training, equipping process to be held liable if that training and those weapons are used to go into turkey or some other place where we didn't intend for it to happen, didn't know about it. as this law is written now, it is my fear the very act of

helping them do one thing could make you liable for everything they do. so we're trying to narrow the scope and we're trying to make sure that whatever claim against a foreign government lies during the -- for the 9/11 attack, that we don't open the door to lawsuits, imprisonment, criminal complaints, liability by us as a nation state for all the activities that we're doing throughout the world. we're training people in mosul and iraq today. we've been training the iraqi security forces. we's -- we've been training tribal ma lish ya. the one thing i don't want to have happen is the people who provide the weapons and the training, that if a sunni group for some reason out of our control goes into a shiite village and commits a genocide or the reverse, the shiites go on a sectarian binge,

i don't want us to be held liable unless you can prove that we knowingly engaged in the act in question, that it wasn't enough just to help the tribal leaders, sunni tribal leaders fight al qaeda, that if they do something outside of what we intended, the only way we can be liable and people working for us can be liable is if we knew about it and we're involved in it. and that's what's missing. so it may be harder for the lawyers representing the 9/11 families to prove the case, but if we don't make the standard as i described, we're opening ourselves up as a nation, all those throughout the world. nobody understands the world better than senator mccain. i promise you we're providing aid and assistance to groups that are very questionable at best but that's the world in which we live in. the mideast is a complete mess. and i don't want my country, our country and those who serve under our flag to ever be hauled

in a foreign court because they were doing the training and equipping that our nation ordered them to do, and i don't want us as a nation to be responsible for acts that we did not know about or intend to happen. just simply helping somebody doesn't make you liable for all the things they might do down the road. so if there's evidence that the saudi government knowingly or should have known about the attacks of 9/11 and aided that attack, you can bring a claim. and if it's any less here for the 9/11 attack, then that lesser standard would be used against us because countries as i speak are adopting their version of jasta. and the one thing we don't want to do is open up the international legal system, the

claims against america based on what we did here at home and not have thought it through very well. i would just end on this. we all voted for it because we're sympathetic to the cause and we want to make sure the 9/11 families can proceed in court to hold those accountable for the horrific acts against their family. i don't think we're helping those families by passing a law that's not well thought out and putting other families at risk that are in the fight today. this is not suing for a war that's over. the damage is done after the war. the war on terror is very much alive and well. and as far as the eye can see, america is going to be involved in equipping and training and aiding and assistance groups, and i don't want our country to be held liable and the people we

ask to do the training and equipping to find themselves in a foreign court unless we as a nation knew and intended the consequence in question. so if we don't change this law, we'll have not served those in the fight very well. and we can modify this law in a way to allow claims to go forward post-9/11. all of us agreed to a process to allow the 9/11 families to move forward. i hope all of us can agree or at least most of us to modify that process to make sure we don't have the unintended consequences that everybody in the national security infrastructure of the united states is telling us we created. no member of the senate in wanting to help the 9/11 families i believe want to expose other families and those who serve this nation to being hauled into foreign courts and being accused of a crime and

being sued. and we have a chance to fix it. but i'll tell you this. if we don't fix it, we're going to regret it because the activities we're engaged in today i'm afraid could be a basis of an action against our nation under the law that we've passed here. if you did exactly what this law allows in another country and the terrorist organization was helped by the united states, even if you view them as terrorists, even though we didn't know about what they did, we could actually be liable, and i don't want that. mr. mccain: could i ask my colleague just one additional question. we've heard from virtually every middle eastern country on this issue. and no threats have been made. the conversation between us and ministers of various countries in the middle east have been of grave concern of support for the

fundamentals of this law but also a deep concern about the ramifications that my colleague from south carolina just described. so let's for a moment put yourself in their position. you face now the possibility of a lawsuit brought against your country because some acts of terror have taken place by citizens of your country without your knowledge or assistance. so you're about to go into court in the united states of america and you have significant assets that -- and you're the lawyer and i'm not, but it seems to me first thing a good lawyer is going to want to do is freeze the assets so that pending the outcome of the suit that is

being brought. so wouldn't it make sense -- and by the way, i have received no threats from -- in our conversations with these countries. wouldn't anybody in their right mind say hey, i'm not going to risk having my assets frozen there and maybe spend years in litigation in the courts? mr. graham: yes. i think the foreign policy of nations and the willingness to assist us as a nation is very much up in the air if we don't somehow modify this law because if you're doing business in the united states, and let's just pick saudi arabia, the claims can be brought against the saudi government if there's a judgment, those assets can be attached and they can be taken. if you're not doing business here, you don't have to worry about your assets being taken by a court. i want to stress this, that there can be a claim, but that

claim has to be able to prove that the nation state, example saudi arabia, knew or should have known of the attack itself and aided the attack. now, if you can prove that, then we not only should allow lawsuits, we should really rethink our relationship with saudi arabia. and here's what the saudis tell me. if we actually did that, i don't blame you for rethinking the relationship with us. so the bottom line is what you say is very true, senator mccain. if this law stands in the united states, and this is an emotional time in the world. juries are -- you know, they render justice. but mid eastern nations are not very popular right now for sometimes good reason. the saudis are helping people in yemen. they're helping people in syria. sometimes they're helping people differently than we're helping because they're more worried about iran than assad. it is a complex world, and i

think nation states are going to be reluctant to do business in america if they come from a complex part of the world if we don't modify this law because all of their assets are subject not only to being confiscated through a court process, it would no longer be a safe place to do business. and i would stress this. the same thing could happen to us in other countries. if some groups that we're helping in syria somehow want to take on saudi arabia because they don't like their government, i don't want us to be sued in saudi court and the american business assets that lie in saudi arabia be seized or attached if we didn't know that the people in question were actually going to attack saudi arabia and collaborated in that attack. mr. mccain: we have another scenario -- d