delaying the iranian nuclear program or a year and a half, two years but it did open that particularpandora's box . >> host: here's the book, lights out: cyber attack. a nation unprepared. surviving the aftermath. the author, ted koppel. >> and the senate just gambling back in a couple of seconds ago, ready to work on the date for federal energy and water project. that bill that sets ending on this project for 2017. a number of amendments pending. others will vote on one of those this afternoon at 5:30 eastern.
one deals with army answer our prayers, providing us with the privilege of entering your throne room whenever we desire. today, inspire our lawmakers with your wisdom, infusing them with a steadiness of purpose that glorifies you. give them power to follow after goodness, striving passionately to please you in their thoughts, words, and deeds. lord, bless all their undertakings and cause them to prosper. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag.
i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is are two bills at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 1206 an act to
prohibit the hiring of additional internal revenue service employees and so forth. h.r. 4885, an act to require that user fees collected by the internal revenue service be deposited into the general fund of the treasury. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is being heard. bills will be placed on the calendar en bloc. mr. mcconnell, madam president the top democrat on the appropriations committee recently said that the energy security and water infrastructure funding legislation before us marks an excellent kickoff to the appropriations process. this is the first bill of the appropriations committee to come to the floord, she said, -- floor, she said and it signals we're ready to do regular order. i share senator mikulski's sentiment here. it's been good to see colleagues
working across the aisle express an interest and working cooperatively this appropriations season. because we know continued cooperation will be essential to a successful appropriations process. we've seen plenty of positive signs in the appropriations committee already. the committee has already approved a third of the 12 funding bills on a bipartisan basis. with continued cooperation, we'll have an opportunity to pass the first of these bills on the floor this week. the energy security and water infrastructure funding legislation before us is a result of many hours of hard work and research. it will reduce wasteful spending. it will bolster national security, and by advancing priorities like public safety, waterways infrastructure, economic development, and energy innovation it will impact all 50 of our states. this excellent kickoff to the appropriations season enjoys
bipartisan support. it advanced out of committee by unanimous vote and represents another example of what's possible in the senate that's back to work. i thank subcommittee chairman alexander for working with ranking member feinstein to move this important bill out of committee. let's continue our work today to get one step closer to passage. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: madam president, i commented to my able assistant at the desk here with me who i've always whenever you, the presiding officer says the pledge of allegiance, i'm amazed at how you stand at attention and brings back your old military mind, i'm sure. very impressive. madam president, as each day
passes, the senior senator from iowa further distinguished himself as the most political and partisan chairman in history. last friday senator grassley took his political partisanship to a new level when he encouraged the f.b.i. to join the political crusade against secretary hillary clinton. the senator from iowa is confused about the role of the f.b.i. the f.b.i. by law is obligated to do its job and conduct an independent review of everything it gets, it has to work on, free from political interference. it's wrong for any senator, especially the chairman of the judiciary committee who deals with these issues day after day to urge the selective leaking of any federal investigation. the f.b.i. isn't in the business of disclosing information to appease political operatives. but according to press reports, that is sort of the thing that the republican judiciary committee has done. remember, there's been a lot of
speculation under chairman grassley's leadership, personal information of a clinton staffer was leaked to the press, including payroll records and social security numbers. but urging a leak of an f.b.i. investigation for political purposes wasn't the only thing that senator grassley said on friday. the senator from iowa was asked what he thought was the worst change in congress during his tenure. he responded that the increasing partisanship was disappointing tom. madam president, the audacity and even hypocrisy of that statement is really staggering. senator grassley decries partisanship while he denies a hearing and a vote to a qualified supreme court nominee for what? no one has got a good answer on that. the senator from iowa complains of partisanship even as he uses it in judiciary committee to wage a political war against secretary clinton and her staff.
under the guise of oversight, senator grassley has been wasting taxpayer dollars by trying to usurp her name. folks under secretary -- borders on obsession. senator grassley has written dozens of letters containing hundreds of requests. he's held hearings. he's issued press releases and what he and his committee achieved? nothing. all the chairman has done is waste taxpayer dollars. the judiciary chairman is so desperate to legit miz attacks against hillary clinton that he's willing to encourage a selective leak of a federal investigation by of all the f.b.i. all this in an effort to award the presidential nomination to donald trump. so i agree in one respect with senator grassley, that the partisanship in this chamber is awful and it's paralyzing the senate and preventing us from
doing our constitutional duties. but much of this, the handiwork of the judiciary committee and senator grassley. there appears to be no one on the floor, madam chair. i would ask you announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. mr. reid: suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
i may show articles that are relevant to the subject of the speech. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: i rise to speak about the rapid rise in child poisonings kaud -- caused by single-use laundry pods. earlier today we have an update on the number and severity of these poisonings from the american academy of pediatrics. and it was in an in-depth study they published in their journal "pediatrics." and the news is not very good because in 2013 and 2014, that academy reports that there were over 22,000 child exposures to
laundry pods resulting from the deaths of at least two children due to the chemicals in these pods. and many others have faced serious injury, and at least 17 children in that time period went in to comas because of skpoe -- exposure to these chemicals. now, madam president, what am i talking about? this is a laundry pod. it is very colorful on the outside. it smells very good. it's quite soft and its texture to the touch, particularly of an infant's hand and an infant's face is very soft and
reassuring. the problem is if it gets in the infant's hand, where is it going to end up? it's going to end up in their mouth. these packages are soluble, so naturally the plastic exterior is going to dissolve, and all of those chemicals are going to end up in the child's digestive system. and as a result, we had two children die and we had 22,000 child exposures in that two-year period and 17 children went into comas as a result of this. others have suffered seizures or internal burns to their lips, mouths and the esophagus. and if it gets in their
esophagus and burns, then you've got a problem. now, what we have been advocating -- senator durbin and i filed legislation -- is to make them as safe as possible to get the consumer products safety commission involved in these things. this senator has met with the industry. let me show you some of the things in which indeed they have made progress. this is a detergent pod package. in order to get in it -- and this pod came in this packaging. and in order to get in the packaging, you had to tear it open. that's one good thing. they design this container so
that it would be very difficult to get into, and even i am having difficult kwraoel -- even i am having difficulty getting into it. and the pods would be in this container, something that would be childproof. or they designed this container, and this has one of those slide bars like on a plastic sealant freezer package that you have to push down on it, apply pressure in order to get the slide that unzips the seal. that's also a good thing. but let me show you what the industry is resistant to do. children are naturally attracted to colorful candy.
there are a variety of candies, some of them like gummie bears. but in the process of all these are interpersed some of these pods. this is one, this is another, and this is another. not unlike the colors on this. so if you don't have the packaging preventing the child from getting to this pod, then you're going to have a problem. and we lost two children and 17 others in a coma in the last two years. now, a lot of people like these products. so does the nelson family.
and they serve a very useful purpose. at the same time we need to make them as safe as possible. so why not just remove the color from the package? make it less attractive to the child. last year senator durbin and i introduced legislation that would require better labeling, more child-resistant packaging, and safer chemical formulations for these single-use laundry pod products. the bill has been referred to our commerce committee. and as the ranking member of that committee, i'm going to talk to senator thune again, who is the chairman of the committee, to see if we can get the committee to take up the
bill as soon as possible. earlier this year we were able to get, both the house and senate, to pass legislation requiring childproof packaging for bottles of liquid nicotine, some of which had injured children and in some cases death as well. and had poisoned thousands of others. and if we could get that done in a bipartisan manner, which we did, and is now law, then there's no reason why we can't in a bipartisan way address the issue posed by this. keeping children safe is not a partisan issue. it's just common sense. so in the interim we want to
encourage the manufacturers to keep working on new standards to reduce the poisonings, and we appreciate very much the efforts at things like this and this. and that is helpful. last week one manufacturer announced plans to put many of the laundry pods they sell into new, more child-resistant packaging. they also announced a public education campaign urging parents to keep laundry pods away from their children. that is certainly helpful. but at the same time we need to keep working to make these pods less attractive to children. perhaps more importantly, make the chemicals inside these less toxic so when a child does get
hold of one and it goes into their mouth, it's not going to turn into tragedy. i want to thank the american academy of pediatrics for their very important study. and i look forward to working with our colleagues to put an end to the accidental deaths and poisonings that we see as a result of these attractive products. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, on sunday, during a joint press conference in hanover, germany, with angela merkel, the president of the united states said this -- quote -- "with respect to congress and the
trans-pacific partnership" -- that's the big 5,000-page trade agreement that the president is trying to move through congress. he said -- quote -- "i think after the primary season is oven is over the politics settle down a little bit in congress, and we'll be in a position to start moving forward with this agreement 'because i know we had a majority of members in the past who were in favor of this deal. otherwise we wouldn't have gotten the authority for me to go ahead and fast-track this agreement. but i think we all know that elections can sometimes make things a little more challenging and people take positions in part to protect themselves from attacks during the course of an
election season.'" now i would suggest that the american people should be very uneasy about their president making such a statement as that. we've already heard that there are plans by a number of forces, interest groups to try to slip this t.p.p. through after the election in a lame-duck congressional session. why would that be the case? well, the president says it right here. the american people are uneasy about it. they're not for this. support for it is sinking. elections are turning on it, and it does not need to become law. i am firmly opposed to this agreement. i believe it is bad for our country and it bothers me that if it's such a good deal, why don't they bring it forward. why don't we have a debate here
while elections are on? why aren't people willing to go home and explain to their constituents how and why they voted the way they did and why and how they believe the way they do. what's wrong with that? why wait afterwards when things have cooled, settled down a little bit in the president's words, where people can't be held accountable by their constituents for the votes that they cast or they think they may be able to slide away afterward. i don't like this. i don't think it's the right thing to do. i think it's arrogant. what the president is fundamentally saying and what a lot of these special interest groups are saying is, well, we know you in congress are so smart and we know the president is smart. the people out here, they don't understand how smart we all are, and we just need to get this done, and so we'll have this trade agreement, but we understand you probably shouldn't do it right now while
elections are going on because, well, you might get your clock cleaned. they might vote you out of office, so we'll see if we can't work up a way to pass it sometime in the future. so the president has made clear he intends to continue to push through this 5,544-page trade agreement that the american people don't want. polls show consistent disapproval of the t.p.p. a march poll by americans for limited government found 51% of americans did not know anything about it. well, i would say 50% of the members of congress don't know much about it. it's 5,000 pages. i probably spent more time on it than the vast majority have, and it's rather difficult, if you want to know the truth, to read the thing. no wonder the american people say they don't know a lot about it, but of those who claim to be
familiar with it, 58% oppose it. this isn't -- and there are a lot of reasons for this, and we're going to talk about it more. and today our u.s. trade representative, michael froman, announced that they are beginning the 13th round of the transatlantic trade investment partnership, t-tip, they call it, with the european union in new york. so this is the second part of the fast track. the fast track guarantees a fast vote, without amendments, without filibuster on the floor less than two days, you get up-or-down vote. that's what fast track is. so we'll have the pacific agreement probably coming up first and then they would have the t-tip, the atlantic agreement, and then there is a third one, trade and services agreement. all these are huge trade agreements, unlike anything we've seen before, creating in
the pacific an international trade union, so much of the beginning of the european union that britain is trying to get out of, and i think we should be very dubious about that. but how is the trade agreement fairing in europe? or how about germany, which is probably one of the leading trading countries in europe. a bertleson foundation poll, a nonprofit organization that studies domestic and international politics, found that only 17% of germans feel that t-tip, the transatlantic partnership, would be a good deal, even though less than two years ago it had a 55% positive rating. the more people learn, this study found, about the agreement, the more they opposed it. and the same thing is happening
in the united states, in my opinion. so the president had referred to the t.p.p. as -- quote -- the most progressive trade deal in history. its chapters create new labor and environmental provisions that the public really knows nothing about. on sunday, april 24, during a joint press conference in germany, the president again has pushed forward with this agreement. so even -- colleagues, even the economic data that the white house claims that the t.p.p., even under the economic data they promote, the white house promotes as proving the validity of the t.p.p., if you look at it carefully, you can see that their own report and study that they cite the most, that signing
the agreement will decrease the rate of american manufacturing jobs by 120,000. how is this good for america? we're going to lose 120,000 manufacturing jobs that we would maintain had we not signed the agreement, by their own study. another study by tufts university says they will lose -- the country will lose 400,000 jobs. and we're going to go into the differences in the studies, and we're going to see the assumptions that were utilized in the model that creates -- that the president cites, and we're going to see that the assumptions they make are not reasonable. they are extreme assumptions. something that would never occur in the next 15 years, as they
assume will occur, and no wonder they can justify positive numbers with those kind of assumptions. so we have to begin to reveal, i think all of us do, and the american people need to be more alert to how bad this international agreement really is, how it will not positively affect the lives of most americans. it's just not going to do so. we'll look at how the promises for the korean trade deal that i supported in 2011 nowhere came close to being beneficial to the united states. that agreement assumed and stated when the president signed the deal in 2011, president obama said it would can create an increase of $10 billion in exports to south korea. i thought that was a good thing. it sounds pretty good.
computer -- the model that the experts used to study the trade deal is the same one they're using to study this trade deal, and so we have a pretty good test, don't we. do we increase exports by $10 billion each year to south korea? well, their imports to us increased by $12 billion, and the trade -- we increased our exports to korea about a couple of hundred million dollars more than in 2011 last year. but we didn't get any increase at all, virtually none. they had a huge increase to us, and our trade deficit with our allies and friends in south korea increased 280%. this is a serious little matter. the same thing happened, they used this same computer model when we signed the agreement
with china in 2000. we then had about a 70 -- little less than $70 billion in trade deficit with china, and they said our exports to china would grow at the same rate as china's exports to the united states would grow. did that happen? no. what's the trade deficit with china today, pushing $400 billion. it went up last year, our trade deficit did. so how -- at some point, who's right here? the american people who are worried about their jobs, their wages, their incomes or the experts who promise all these grand things if we would just sign these agreements and everybody's going to be better off for it? i think the american people are the ones being proven right by this data, and i've supported most of these in the past, too.
and finally, i am very -- very concerned about the effort to dictate -- the presiding officer: your time has expired. mr. sessions: i thank the chair. i would ask consent to have one additional minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sessions: we don't -- the president does not need to be threatening our allies in britain about their own decision of their people whether or not to exit from the european union. they're not happy with how things are going in the european union. a lot of people are concerned about it. it's heading toward a close vote. the people of the united kingdom can make their own decision without hearing advice or threats from the president of the united states. i don't blame them for being offended by it. this is certainly not an acceptable position for the president to take. so, madam president, i appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. i want to push back from the
president's recent statements about this trade agreement, how he plans to move it through when people aren't watching, and i also think congress really needs to speak and assert that we affirm the right of the people of the u.k. to decide whether or not to remain in the european union. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i rise today in support of the f-35 joint strike fighter. i have previously addressed this body on the progress of the f-35 program and its importance to our national defense. on one of those occasions, i stated that this weapons system provides the capabilities we need to protect our freedoms and those of our allies. this statement resonates even more today as the international security landscape grows even more precarious.
when the f-35 program started over 20 years ago, the strategic backdrop for the program of record was significantly different than it is today. the cold war had recently drawn to a close and the menace of islamic extremists, rogue states and nonstate actors was just beginning to surface. today these groups pose the most salient threat to our national security, and we all know it. to find examples of their deviant behavior, look no further than the headlines of today's papers. in eastern europe, putin's invasion of a sovereign nation threatens not only the security of the ukrainian people but also tests the resolve of the north atlantic treaty organization. perhaps our country's most important defense alliance. in the middle east, iran grows more emboldened with its ballistic missile tests, rattling a region already on the verge of violent conflict, and
none of this is to mention the metastasize of isis in iraq and a seemingly endless civil war in syria. in asia, the north korean regime constantly threatens south korea with more. meanwhile, tensions over territorial waters in the south china sea grow more strained, escalating the possibility of conflict between china and our asian allies. all the while, china continues to deliver its economic largess to build highly advanced weapons systems. madam president, i believe many members of this body would agree that the dangers facing our country today are more immediate and far-reaching than they were just 20 years ago. as threats to our national security proliferate across the globe, we need a next-generation weapon system of unparalleled capability. we need a strike fighter powerful enough to deter the aggression of our foes.
we need an aircraft that can penetrate advanced enemy air defenses and neutralize targets on the ground. in short, we need the f-35. in fact, we need the f-35 today more than ever. even so, there are those who seek to reduce or delay the number of f-35's being produced. i strongly advise against this action. reducing procurement numbers for the f-35 will only make the aircraft more expensive in the long run. to ensure that our country continues to dominate air power for decades to come would stay the course and resist the urge to cut aircraft. madam president, that is why i believe we must increase, not decrease the number of f-35's scheduled for production. recently, several of my colleagues led by senators cornyn and shaheen, sent a letter to the armed services committee and the defense appropriations committee in both
the house and the senate. their letter was clear -- the need for f-35's in today's environment is crucial. therefore, the committees of jurisdiction should not follow the president's budget reduction plan but should maintain the problem -- or the program of record. i realize the frustrations that many of my colleagues have with the department of defense's acquisition process. during the first two decades of the f-35 journey, the program office experienced its fair share the setbacks, broken promises, missteps and faulty leadership decisions, decisions made by both by government leaders and industry partners. even from within the pentagon itself we have heard the title of -- quote -- "acquisition mal malpractice" bestowed on the program after the highest levels
-- time and again my much esteemed colleague, the distinguished senator from minnesota has pointed out the shortfalls and missteps. i echo his frustrations and stress the need for an acquisition and sustainment strategy that focuses on delivering and sustaining the most available capable and affordable weapon systems for the war fighter. nevertheless, we must recognize that reducing procurement numbers for the f-35 will only put an unnecessary strain on our armed forces given the dangerous state of global affairs, now is not the time to hamstring our military's capabilities. madam president, amid the many criticisms of the f-35 program, i wish to call attention to its successes. in terms of both capability and performance, the f-35 program has made tremendous strides. on the affordability front, the price of each f-35 has dropped
dramatically over the past five years to under $100 million per aircraft. this trend is expected to continue for at least the next five years in order to achieve after flyaway cost of $85 million per aircraft by 2019. in an affordability and capability sense, the f-35 is a bargain. but in addition to being a bargain, the f-35 is also an indissensable asset to our defense arsenal. the f-35 has the ability to try some of the most veined air-to-air and air-to-ground systems in existence today. many of these systems are being developed by the russians and the chinese. the f-35 stealth technology, advanced sensors and weapons allow it to defeat those integrated air defense environments, and that's to our advantage, no question about it. currently even the most advanced versions of the f-16 and f -- excuse me -- f.a.a. team would
be har hard pressed to defeat sh threats alone. that's why we need the f-35 and with the f-35 we can maintain our ability to strike any target anywhere in the world. the f-35 is not only a tremendous strike aircraft but it is also a war-winning dog fighter. in fact, when facing legacy aircraft like the f-16 and air-to-air combat scenarios, the f-35 consistently wins these engagements. the aircraft's combination of stealth, maneuverability and superior battle space awareness allows the f-35 to enter the fight against legacy aircraft with a great advantage. if you ask our marine, navy, and air force pilots flying this aircraft today, they will tell you as they've told me that this is the best fighter aircraft they have ever flown and the plane they want to take into battle above all others. this conclusion is shared not
just by american pilots who have flown the aircraft but also our allies who have chosen to purchase the f-35 out of a wide variety of aircraft which are currently available in other countries as well. as the israeli defense minister recently said -- quote -- "i'm very happy that we'll know how to preserve the qualitative military edge of the israeli defense forces and of the israeli air force through acquisition of this important plane." madam president, military might is only useful if three things occur. one, the capability is present to encounter and engage the threat. two, the capacity and numbers are present for all of the threats. and three, those in power have the resolve to use them to protect the sovereignty off our nation -- of our nation and its citizens. the current demand on our military requires every ounce of capability made available by advanced weapon systems and just as important the numbers need to
counterthreats the globe over. consider how in the past we chose to reduce the number of f-22 advance fighters made available to combat commanders. originally the program of record for the f-22 was 750 aircraft, yet we only procured 195. today the demand for the f-22 and the capabilities and its capabilities dwarfs the available jets in the inventory. in hindsight we should have bought 1,000. similar situations have also occurred with the b-2 bomber, the c-17 transport, and numerous other aircraft. the lesson is clear. the program of record for a 1763 f-35 moltsdzs and 680b and c models for the navy and marine corps have to materialize and be realized. the committees of jurisdiction should also insist to the department that the f-35 joint program office also acquire the spare parts needed to sustain
the numbers and accelerate that purchase to ensure that f-35's are sustained at the level of readiness demanded by the current world dynamic. as the old adage goes, if we do not learn from history, then we are doomed to repeat it. i want to thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: i ask that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. morning tbis is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2028 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 96, h.r. 2028, an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: madam president, it's the beginning of the appropriations season here. i'm glad we're doing that we're a little ahead of schedule as from past experiences although we haven't been doing appropriations bills if my second owe in my second term here in the senate. i'm glad we're doing it because that's really what we're here for. mr. coats: for those listening, this is for when congress determines how we spend taxpayer money. a number of people in the galleries today, all taxpayers won deferring -- wondering where does this money go which is sent to washington. when hooziers fro hooziers fromd their hard earned tax dollars here to washington to be spent by the federal government, they expect their elected leaders to be good stewards of their resources. after all, they worked hard to raise this money and before they
get their net paycheck, their taxes are deducted, sent to washington. they have every right to expect us to be good stewards. now, it's no wonder that taxpayers are furious with d.c. when the federal government wastes the money that they worked so hard to make. and when they hear about or read about some of the ludicrous ways in which we spend their money or the wasteful ways which we spend their money, they have every reason to be concerned and to be angry. clearly there are essential functions that the term government has to under-- federal government has to undertake but we can't continue to ignore the fact that our national debt has now passed $19 trillion. borrowing money in order to pay for expenditures and then having obligations to pay that money back along with interest rates putting us in a very deep hole
here that we've talked a lot about but not done what is necessary to address this continued plunge into debt. and seamingly every day we see examples of mismath and wasteful spending in washington which is one of the reasons why i give my weekly addresses on waste of the week. these waste of the week speeches have been coming -- i've been coming to the floor now more than 40 times in this cycle to talk about documented cases of waste, fraud, and abuse within the federal government. not something made up but documented abuses by generally the government accountability office whose job is to look in terms of how we spend our money and to publicize how that money is spent. and now we've racked up 40 weeks of nearly $160 billion of documented waste, fraud, and
abuse. these have included the ridiculous, like federal grant spending on rabbit massages, as well as the serious, such as double-dipping in the social security unemployment and disability insurance funds. while many americans struggle every day to pay their mortgage or to put food on the table, it is infuriating that the federal government is wasting money renting empty warehouses or funding a study to determine if being hangry is a real thing. hangry was one of our speeches eferl weeks ago. hangry being a modification of the words "hungry" and "angry" and a considerable amount of money being spent to determine whether if you're hungry you're more angry with your spouse. and so they coined the word
"hangry" for someone who is hungry. and because they're hungry, they get a little anxious or a little difficult to live with, and this study determined and came to the conclusion that, yes, if you are hungry, you tend to be a little bit angry, and you tend to take it out on the person nearest to you, which is usually your spouse. i think any of us probably could have come up with that conclusion without spending $400,000 or so in order to submit a grant to determine that that's the case. so we now add a new english word to the dictionary -- webster's dictionary called "hangry." you can look it up. but $400,000 of taxpayer money to do this when people have trouble paying bills at the end of the week, paying their mortgage, or saving money for sending their kids to school? this is the kind of thunk that infuriates -- this is the kind of thing that infuriates the american people. this is the kind of thing that
has put our approval ratings into the single digits. this is the kind of thing where people say washington needs to be shaken up. why do we keep doing this? why do we keep taking these hard-earned tax dollars -- taxing them, and sending it to washington and spending it on things like this? americans struggle every day to put food on the table and pay their mortgages. it is infuriate being to them that -- it is infuriating to them that the federal government is wasting their money doing these kinds of things. so eliminating this wasteful spending can go a long way to real estate storing trust in -- to restoring trust in washington, and it needs to start. that's why i said the studies by the government's own accountability agency, own watchdog agency, the federal government accountability office, are so important to the work we do here. g.a.o. just released its 2016 annual report on additional opportunities to reduce
fragmentation, yor -- overlap ad duplication. it lists 92 new actions that we can take that either the congress or the administration, to improve government efficiencicy and effectiveness to chief cost savings -- to achieve cost savings. this includes programs i already talked about such as the failed advanced technology creeks program i -- technology program that i spoke about last week. we raised the apairness of a many -- awareness of a program that is sitting on nearly $4 billion of unspent money invokeg that -- nothing that of the five programs -- and the money that was released on these two proposals, two of the companies have already gone bankrupt. so while signature on $4 billion of additional money to award, we
simply said, look, this is program -- look, this program, $500,000 wastes. why do week take that money and spend it on something more useful? such as at n.i.h. which prolongs life and brings better health, something that'sed intoed to do perhaps with infrastructure, but unfortunately we came up one vote short on that. i'm looking forward to exploring ways in which we can use examples in our continued efforts through "waste of the week." several things that we're looking at -- we know the i.r.s. is paying billions in fraudulent refunds where people steal -- criminals steal people's i.d. over the internet or whatever method they use and then file
for i.r.s. returns, consolidating programs scattered across 22 different federal agencies with all kinds of duplication. we're looking at these sms or selling unused federal property which can save billions each year. the list just continues. we'll be coming down here. i'll have another "waste of the week" that we're teeing up. but exposing the waste and the fraud, and the abuse is only the first step that the administration and congress must take. according to this report, the actions congress has already taken -- and congress ought to be commended for this -- on past g.a.o.'s recommendations over five years have saved $56 billion, and that's not small change. but i have documented in our last 40 speeches here another
over $160 billion -- not million, billion dollars -- of savings. and so there's plenty still left to do. in 2010, i asked hoosiers to send me to washington to rein in the federal government's runaway spending. whether it's through my continued "waste of the week" speeches, legislation, or highlighting reports like the g.a.o. report, as i'm doing today, i will continue to pour every ounce of effort i have into doing as much as i can to reduce wasteful government spending. so, we will be back this week with -- so we will be back this week with i think number 42 or 43 "waste of the week," and hopefully we can continue to alert this congress and this government that there is money out there that is hard-earned but being wasted and could be used for much better purposes. madam chair -- madam president,
quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president, i'm here to join senator merkley in offering amendment 3812 regarding funding for wind energy research. this is a straightforward amendment. it simply restores funding for wind energy research to a level provided for just last year,
$95.4 million. the underlying bill provides $80 million. so the merkley-grassley amendment will increase funding by just $15.4 million. these additional funds will come from within the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, so you can see there is no cost to this amendment from the -- under the bottom line of the bill. it does not raise overall spending levels. it simply redirects, simply redirects $15 million from other renewable and efficiency programs to wind energy research. this funding will allow the department of energy to continue the advancement of wind technologies and innovations.
these advances have greatly increased the competitiveness of wind and facilitated rapid growth in wind energy across the country. in iowa, wind energy now accounts for more than 30% of the state's total electricity supply. wind supported 88,000 jobs in 2015, an increase of 20% from the previous year. wind was the source of new generating capacity in 2015. some of my colleagues oppose wind energy and federal policies that support this clean and renewable energy. they argue we that wind is a mae industry. don't kid yourself. wind, while nearly mature, is
just an infant compared to the federal dollars and incentives provided for fossil and nuclear energy. it is quite amusing to me that some of the strongest opponents of wind energy in this body are the biggest proponents of other much more costly programs for mature traditional energy sources. for example, 100-year-old oil and gas industry continues to benefit from tax preferences that benefit only their industry that result in the loss of more than $4 billion annually in tax revenue. nuclear energy is another great example. the first nuclear power plant came on line in the united states in 1958. that's 58 years ago. nuclear receives special tax treatment, including -- would you believe it -- a production
tax credit. nuclear also benefits from the price-anderson federal liability insurance that congress provided as a temporary measure way back in 1958. this temporary measure -- can you believe it -- has been renewed through 2025. nuclear energy has also received more than $74 billion in federal research and development dollars since 1950. this bill includes over $1 billion for nuclear research. this is an increase of $71 million or 7.3% over fiscal year 2016. for wind energy research, we're just asking for the same amount of money appropriated this year as last year. for next year as this year, i should say. fossil energy and research is
another one i should point out is allocated $632 million in this bill, equal to the 2016 levels. even prominent conservative advocacy groups have called for the nuclear and fossil fuel energy funds to be cut or eliminated altogether. again, this amendment will simply provide level funding for wind energy research by providing an additional $15 million. this is not new money, so there is no score by the c.b.o. so i urge my colleagues to support the merkley-grassley amendment. and if i could ask unanimous consent for ten minutes to speak on another subject as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: i recently of gave a speech to the midwest political science undergraduate
research conference which was held at a college in waverly, iowa. it dealt with the current state of our political discourse and what we should all do as americans to try and elevate that political discourse. the election-year rhetoric is already heating up here in the united states senate, so i think it's appropriate to share with the senate what i told these political science students and their professors. this is an election year, so there's a lot of talk about how americans have voted and will vote and also which americans will vote and which ones will not vote. there is something that is evident in this election season and it's also something that i have seen increase steadily since itch served in elective -- since i have served in elective office, and that happens to be cynicism. americans are increasingly cynical about their system of
government and those who serve in that government. candidates of all political stripes are tapping into this cynicism by railing against so-called elites. sometimes it is an ocean of elites within a political party. elites in washington generally or elites even in the private sector. regardless, there is a perception that elites of some kind or another have an undue influence over decision-making and ordinary citizens are being ignored. now i'm not saying that such concerns are all illegitimate, but i think the cynicism is made worse by a lack of understanding when it comes to how our government works and, more importantly, why it works the way it does. it seems to me there has been a decline in the interest in
teaching american students about our constitutional system and especially the principles which it was founded -- on which it was founded. you cannot understand how our government works and how it is supposed to work without understanding the constitution. and i would add that the best guide to the constitution is the "federalist papers." you also cannot understand the constitution without understanding the declaration of independence. but you cannot understand the declaration of independence without understanding the natural rights philosophy. you also cannot separate the study of history from political science. to understand our current political debate, it is important to understand how we got where we are today. for instance, the debate between anti-federalists and federalists sheds a great deal of light on
what our founding generation agreed upon and what they disagreed upon. subsequent events such as the civil war, the progressive movement and the civil rights movement all drew upon early american political ideas, either borrowing from or rejecting them. our political discourse today is inevitably influenced by this heritage. but it also seems disconnected from it. from cable news shows to the local diner, people with different views shout past each other without comprehending the opposing arguments. in recent years, there has been a realignment of political parties that follows more closely along philosophical lines. that has led to more party-line
votes. but you would think that would make our debate more about principles instead of pure partisanship. and it hasn't. there has been a lot written about how americans are increasingly sorting themselves into groups, where they live and work, with people who think like them and only consume like-minded media. as a result, when people do encounter a view they don't agree with, there's a tendency to think that there must be something wrong with the person who holds that view. moreover, if a policy you disagree with gets enacted but almost no one you know supports it, naturally you feel there must be something amiss. that leads to anger, to resentment, and to cynicism. and that makes for fertile
ground for demagogues. there are real differences of philosophy reflected in the two major political parties, so i'm not arguing that there shouldn't be vigorous debate. in fact, the clash of ideas is an essential part of our representative system of government. but you cannot effectively challenge and opponent's philosophy if you don't understand that philosophy. and you cannot understand your opponent's philosophy unless you understand what you believe and why you believe it. that's why it is so important that americans study american history and civics. thomas jefferson said this -- quote -- "if a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and will never be. if we are to guard against
ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every american to be informed." end of jefferson quote. in an election year, we talk a lot about voting being a civic duty, but that is incomplete. our civic duty goes well beyond the simple act of voting. we have a responsibility to understand what we believe and why before we go into what, into the voting booth. representative government doesn't work very well if citizens are only engaged in the month or two before an election. our system of government relies on an informed and active citizenry. we need more americans to write their members of congress and ask their positions, attend town meetings and seek to understand both sides of an issue. still we have to come to terms with the fact that we are a
closely divided nation. better understanding of each other's principles will elevate the debate, which is good for representative government but it won't eliminate and shouldn't eliminate political differences. the next step is to respect other people's right to live according to their principles. i believe that calls for a renewed commitment to federalism. the father of our constitution, james madison, designed a system for what he called an extended republic. the classical understanding of a republic as small, unitary and homogenous did not apply to the new united states, and it certainly doesn't now. in fact, madison argued that our large w-rbgs -- large diverse
country could better prevent a faction from trampling on the rights of others. however, it also required decentralizing power and allowing different states and communities to do things their own way. whenever a government takes an action, there will almost certainly be some people unhappy with it. that's why the presumption should be to let individual americans live their lives as they see fit. when government action is warranted, the decision should be made as close as possible to those it affects. so in my view, the extent to which the federal government now makes a great many decisions that affects the lives of americans beyond the limited role envisioned in the constitution leads to a great deal of unnecessary conflict. since our government is so
closely divided, a great many decisions will upset almost half of the american people. that is not a sustainable situation. so my preferred solution, which of course is based upon my political philosophy, is to let states and communities make more of their own decision when it comes to issues like health care and education. of course others may disagree and do disagree, and we should have that debate, but it should be an honest and respectful debate based upon very basic principles. that was the end of my substantive remarks to those students at the college. i then commend the students for their interest in exploring political issues. i also said to the students the fact that you are interested and that you're engaged and many of your peers are not gives these
students a very special calling. i ended my speech with a challenge. i said i would challenge you to continue developing your understanding of your political beliefs and those of others you may disagree with, then do your part to elevate the political dialogue. i would issue the same challenge to my colleagues here in the united states senate. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: madam president, i want to thank the distinguished senator for his remarks and also for his chairmanship of the judiciary committee. i found it very interesting. and i note that the distinguished chairman of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee is now on the floor, and i have been very
fortunate to serve as his ranking member, and i think we have put together a very good bill together and that this leadership has really been strong. last week, madam president, he brought to the floor a chart, and on that chart it had red and blue lines, and they depicted a lot about the spending pattern of this nation, which absolutely is relevant considering we are talking about spending. well, i wanted to put my rendition before us since no one on the floor is asking to speak at this time. since 2006, i have been -- i have asked my after staff to put together some charts which i shared every week at my constituent breakfast with the constituency from california on spending, and i want to tell you a little bit aut this chart. this chart, the source, is the
congressional budget office, and the budget and economic outlook part of that. going back to 2006, we look at budget numbers, but the accurate way to look at it is really outlays. what does the federal government spend every year? that's the number that creates the debt and creates interest on the debt. in 2006, the federal government totally spent $2.654 trillion. and here's how it spent it. you see this big red. the big red part are what are called entitlements. these are mandatory payments to programs to which an individual is entitled. if you're entitled to i you get it, regardless of what impact it has on the budget.
they were 53% of what the federal government spent in 2006. and interest on the debt was 8%. so if you added the 53% and the 8% together, that was about 61% of everything that was spent during that year. nondefense discretionary was 19%, and defense was 20%. so the green and the blue were the discretionary programs. the yellow was interest on the debt. and the rest were entitlements. this year the total outlay is $3.919 trillion. entitlements have gone up to 63% of what the federal government will pay out this year, and
interest on the debt has dropped 2% to 6.5%, largely because interest rates are low. defense discretionary is 15%, and nondefense discretionary is 15.5%. so if you put these two things together, which wire now passing appropriation bills on, they comprise about 30.5% only of what the federal government will spend this year. the rest is entitlements and interest on the debt. if you're entitled to social security, you get it. if you're entitled to medicare, you get it. if you're entitled to medicaid, disabled, women, infants and children and a whole host of very good programs because they
help people but they are expensive and they cost, and this isn't often talked about, madam president, and i think it's not talked about because individuals don't want to worry people, but it's a problem and it's a problem that needs some solutions. if you project these numbers ten years forward to 2026, we go from total outlays, total government payments in 2016 of $3.9 trillion to $6.401 trillion. and entitlements are then 65% of what the government will spend in the year 2026. and interest on the debt will double from what it is today to
13% because it's estimated that interest rates will go up. so if you add the two together, you see we're well over 70% in spending. if you look then at discretionary defense -- defense discretionary and nondefense discretionary, you will see they are both 11%. that's the economic outlook. so 22% only of the budget will be what the appropriations committee will be doing in ten years from now because the rest of it will not be able to be controlled. so we have a constantly escalating picture, and my own view is that those things like the army corps of engineers, which in a sense is the only infrastructure program this
country really has outside of the highway program, will be compressed more, and everything that we spend to make this a better country will be compressed more because of the growth in entitlements and interest on the debt. well, i believe that the time has come for members on both sides of the aisle to sit down and see what we can do to work out solutions to this ever growing. is there additional taxes? are there ways we can change these programs so that they become more efficient but cover people and pay for them in a better way than putting them on the debt, which is effectively what we're doing. so i want to say to our distinguished chairman who is now here -- last week you had
your red and blue lines, so this week i brought my charts that i have been using since 2006, and i believe the numbers are correct, and i believe they are also astonishing, and they need our concern. so, mr. chairman, i would like to work with you in the future. perhaps we can bring together republicans and democrats to sit down and consider some -- some remedies that will not be punishing for people but will bring this huge red mark and thereby the interest mark into better control than today. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, i congratulate the senator from california. she has with her usual precision identified a big problem, and she has approached it as she usually does in a very direct
way. the picture she presents is one that we can't tolerate longer in the united states of america. the good news is we've done a good job on what we call discretionary spending. that's what we're working on here in these bills. the chart i showed last week, which shows the same thing in a little different way is hers, points out that over the last eight years, the 12 -- the spending of the 12 appropriations bills that we're working on now has been flat and will be flat for the next ten years. in other words, if the work that the appropriations committee is doing on a trillion dollars were all that there was to the federal budget, we would not have a federal debt problem. we would not have a federal debt problem. that blue line is federal spending under control. we set priorities, we have oversight. senator feinstein and i have eliminated programs. we do that every year. we're getting control in this budget of big cost overruns that had persistently happened on
large construction projects. so i'm proud of that line, that blue line. i'm not proud of that one. that's the one senator feinstein was talking about. this is a trillion dollars. on top of that is $3 trillion. that's the automatic spending. there has been very little courage shown on the republican side of the aisle or the democratic side of the aisle. we make some big speeches sometimes about the blue line which isn't a problem. very few speeches about the red line that are as straightforward as senator feinstein's remarks today. so we have a responsibility to the taxpayers, to ourselves, to the next generations to deal with this line because that's the line that's causing the joint chiefs of staff to say that our federal debt is our biggest national security problem. quite a thing to say in a world as unsafe as we have today. i thank the senator from california. her prestige in the chamber makes her remarks today even more important. i look forward to working with
mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. on behalf of senator murray, i call up -- the presiding officer: there is a quorum call. fine fiewn i ask that the quorum call be vished. the presiding officer: woks. mrs. feinstein: thank you. on behalf of senator murray, i call up murray amendment number 3813 and i ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mrs. feinstein for mrs. murray proposes an amendment numbered 3813 to amendment number 3801. mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snow shower senator from california -- the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: is it appropriate for me to speak on the murray amendment? the presiding officer: the no is recognized. mrs. feinstein: i support this amendment. the amendment would reinforce buy-american provisions that have been in provides for
decades. these provisions say that when american tax dollars are being spent, the preference should be to buy american products. but despite current federal regulations, there are concerns that the corps of engineers is circumventing these buy-american provisions and acquiring welded ship board anchor and moring chain manufactured by foreign sources. the murray amendment simply reiterates current requirements to support american-made products, echoing language from our colleagues in the house and the 2016 appropriations bill. the amendment is good for families and workers across the country, and i urge this body to support it. thank you very much, mr. president. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator tennessee. mr. alexander: the murray
amendment 3813 simply real estate states an existing regulation, so i have to objection to it. i am going to vote for it. i yield back all of our time. the presiding officer: all time has been yielded back. the question occurs on amendment 3813. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will now call the roll. vote:
the presiding officer: have all senators voted? any senator wishing to change their vote? on this amendment the vote is yeas are 55. the nays are 38. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number. i ask this on behalf of the senator from california and myself. jack reed 3841, feinstein 3842, warner 3851, kaine 3843, rounds 3844, murkowski 3808, mccain
the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendments by number. the clerk: the senator from tennessee mr. alexander proposes amendments en bloc numbered 3841, 3842, 3851, 3843, 3844, 3808, 3869 as modified, and 3870. alexander alexander mr. president -- mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate vote on these amendments
en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. alexander: i know of no further debate on these amendments. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendments are agreed to en bloc. mr. alexander: mr. president, i thank the majority leader, senator mcconnell; the democratic leader, senator reid, my colleague, senator feinstein. what we have done is just approve eight more amendments by senators by voice vote. we've already agreed to have three more votes at 11:00 tomorrow. we're making good progress, and we hope to continue to do that and wrap the bill up soon. mr. president, i have one unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session of the senate.
it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent this request be agreed to and that this request be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i rise today to continue my tribute to nebraska's heroes and the current generation of men and women who lost their lives defending our freedom in iraq and afghanistan. each of these nebraskans has a
special story to tell. throughout this year and beyond, i will continue to honor their memory here on the senate floor. today i wish to highlight the life of master sergeant linda terango griess of sutton, anybody. she was known as one proud soldier. from an early age she was disciplined and focused on the future. her aunt marie remembers this future soldier as a great kid who was always helping. marie would know because she raised linda from the age of 11. linda attended carney high school where she enjoyed playing softball and volleyball. she was also active in the big brother-big sister program. linda's willingness to serve as a role model and mentor for others came as no surprise to those who knew her. as one of her high school
classmates recalled, linda was someone who always had a smile and a positive attitude. after graduating from carney high school in 1989, linda was determined to go to college, but she struggled to find a way to pay for it. she learned about tuition assistance opportunities offered by the national guard, and she decided to enlist. through the national guard, linda discovered her passion for being a soldier in the united states military. it also allowed her to complete her college education. linda graduated from the university of nebraska in carney with a degree in criminal justice. as part of her service, linda was required to train one weekend a month in york, nebraska. it was there that linda met her soul mate, doug griess. after dating for a few years,
they were married in 1994. for the next several years the young couple formed a new bond and they began planning for the future while continuing their service in the national guard. less than a decade after they were married, their roles in the military would bring them both to the front, to the front lines of a new war a world away from home in iraq. linda and doug wondered which of them would be called up first. then the news came for linda to deploy with the 267th ordinance company. after deployment training, the 267th arrived at camp spiker near tikrit, iraq, in february of 2004. as one of the unions senior sargeants, linda's helpful nature and her insistence on
doing every job well quickly stood out. her professionalism and caring nature boosted the morale of her platoon. an officer from a nearby unit said linda was always a true professional, not only a mentor but also a friend. she served her country honorably. the summer of 2004 was shaping up to be a complicated period. doug was at annual training back home and rumors were flying about his unit deploying. at the same time linda was planning to return home on leave to be with doug and her family for a short time. on july 10, doug's unit received deployment orders. the following day, on july 11, 2004, the unthinkable happened. linda was driving in a convoy
through a high-threat area in somorra, iraq. the convoy was attacked by al qaeda insurgents and linda's vehicle took a direct hit from an improvised explosive device. linda and another soldier were killed. she was only two weeks from returning to nebraska. doug was at home with his friends discussing their upcoming deployment. suddenly a car pulled up with three soldiers dressed in class-a uniforms and doug knew why they were there. linda was buried in sutton, nebraska, and over 1,000 mourners traveled to this small town in central nebraska to honor this brave soldier. a month later doug deployed to iraq with his unit. his grief over the loss of linda
was held at bay for a year as he focused on his mission and his fellow soldiers. linda would have wanted it that way. doug's commitment to fulfilling this oath and serving his nation would have made her proud. master sergeant linda tarango griess was the first woman to lose her life in combat while serving in the national guard. she earned the purple heart, the bronze star and was promoted posthumously to master sergeant. doug would later remarry, and he is now the proud father of three wonderful children. linda's aunt marie lives in lincoln where she is active in yellow ribbon activities for troops serving abroad. linda's sister vicky lives in
north platt with her three children not far from her brother augie and father augustine. to this day linda's sister keeps an e-mail from linda. in the e-mail linda proudly describes how her platoon competed in a five-mile run which the 267th nicknamed the desert dash. linda said none of us won the race, but in our hearts we are winners. our reward is the self-satisfaction for just finishing the race. i hope all nebraskans remember her as an example of what it means to serve our nation with bravery, compassion and joy. master sergeant linda tarango-griess is a hero. she embodied the grit and determination of an american soldier, and i'm honored to tell
mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. we have a great opportunity in the senate to recognize and reconfirm an extraordinarily distinguished and dedicated public servant who happens to be from west hartford, connecticut, commissioner jessica rosenwarsel of the federal communications commission. i understand there was an agreement as part of the approval of commissioner o'reilly that michael o'reilly was reconfirmed as part of a very unusual request that there
be that agreement. the president renominated ms. rosenwarsel for a new five-year term back in 2015 and she was easily and unanimously confirmed by the senate commerce committee, and i think we ought to keep that agreement in the senate, that anyone party to that agreement when the democratic leader, senator reid agreed to reconfirm republican f.c.c. commissioner michael o'reilly, and that we ought to move forward. but apart from the politics and the internal agreements that may have been reached -- and they deserve to be honored -- commissioner rosenworcel is supremely well qualified, and she is needed on that commission, which is sorely in need of her expertise and experience in specific areas, and let me give you just a few. number one, as an example of her
leadership, she led the effort to provide for writing rules that will enable enforcement of the 9/11 locating standards for all 9/11 services across the country. the g.p.s. location services require those rules. she has written standards and will enable those standards to become the guiding light for all 9/11 services. that's important in cases of emergencies. it's important in cases of physical and emotional trauma or crashes and accidents. it's important in cases of opioid or heroin overdoses becoming increasingly prevalent
across the country. in fact, in connecticut and my guess is oklahoma and all across the country, there is an epidemic of opioid and heroin addiction praj cally, taking a toll in debt and financial costs, and when there are overdoses, the administration within a limited period of time can make the difference between life and death, in fact and bring people back from the brink of death. and those 9/11 location standards will help emergency responders go to the place where they're needed. the standards aplay to the 9/11 services that enable those first responders to go to those places are the result of the work that commissioner rosenworcel has
done on the f.c.c. only one example of the kind of work that she has done. she has been outspoken on the cruel struggle faced by students left out of the broadband revolution as countless are in areas that have no internet access at home and face obstacles literally to complete homework that they are given at school and to apply for scholarships that they need financially. today roughly seven in ten teachers assign homework that requires access to broadband, but the data from the f.c.c. suggests that almost one in three households lack subscription to broadband services. they simply do not subscribe. and that's at any speed with any serving due to lack of
affordability and frankly sometimes lack of interest. ms. rosenworcel has made this homework gap -- a term that, by the way, she coined -- one of her top priorities, and she has pushed all of us to think creatively to provide all students with the connectivity they need for a fair chance to succeed. that's really the american dream. a fair chance to succeed, closing the gap that results from lack of access to internet service, which in turn creates a homework gap and a scholarship gap and generally deprives those students of a fair chance. as commissioner, ms. rosenworcel has visited schools across the country in alaska, arkansas, california, colorado, many more, and witnessed how the internet can support greater learning
opportunities and also how limited broadband capacity prevents students from developing the skills essential for them to compete in a global digital economy. drawing from these visits and her experience in the senate working on this program, she called for an e-rate 2.0 to ensure that the e-rate program is reinvigorated to meet the future connectist needs for libraries and schools through stronger broadband capacity standards and robust funding. that robust funding is an investment that this nation needs to make, and she is continuing the legacy of senator rockefeller to fight for strong public safety, not only on the f.c.c. 9/11 rules which keep communities safe as well as providing emergency responders the ability they need to go to
places where there are overdoses or other health emergencies, but she has also worked on a bipartisan policy, a spectrum policy leading the f.c.c. to raise record-breaking amount in the last years wireless spectrum auction and ensuring there is more than fully enough to fund first net the nationwide interoperability network for public officials to communicate during emergency. she has taken her own time and she has a young family. on multiple occasions when she is back home in connecticut to join me in helping to educate wireless customers and consumers on what they can do to avoid cramming. those are the charges on phone bills that consumers never consent to, never know about in
many instances, and where they can go to seek refunds when they are victims of these kinds of cramming scams. she has been a champion of consumer interests on cramming refunds, on preventing cramming, on helping to reach wise and prudent settlements with the carriers. she's joined me to also call on telephone companies to offer consumers new tools to block robocalls. what i find -- and it's a relevant point during the campaign season in which we find ourselves, that voters, consumers, residents, people from all walks of life and both parties and a lot with no party at all deeply resent the robocalls that they received so
often. those robocalls come from commercial interests and sometimes from political interests and banning robocalls. whether we agree to ban them or not, consumers ought to have the ability to block them if they choose to do so, and that's the cause that she has championed with me and i deeply respect her commitment to consumer interests. she is widely acknowledged for her really keen judgment and insight on all of these issues, advancing smart telecommunication policies for the public benefit. she is a graduate of wesleyan university in connecticut and new york university law school, and her career has been about telecommunications law, which included time as senior communications counsel for the senate commerce committee under the leadership of both senator
rockefeller and nor inouye. in her -- and senator inouye. in her time on the commission, she has been a champion of consumers, of students, of emergency responders, of everyday working men and women who deserve the best system and protection of their interests when it comes to telecommunication. there was an agreement. it ought to be respected, but as important or even more than an agreement, she deserves and the country needs for her to serve as a commissioner. i urge my colleagues to reconfirm her swiftly and overwhelmingly so that she can
quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for the alexander substitute amendment 3801. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the -l standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on senate 3801 to calendar number
96, h.r. 2028, an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be disdispensed with. the presiding officer:, mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for h.r. 2028. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 96, h.r. 2028, an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: and i ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to both
the alexander substitute 3801 and the underlying bill h.r. 2028 be at 2:30 p.m., tuesday, april 26. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 345, s. 1579. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 345, s. 1579, a bill to enhance and integrate native american tourism and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the substitute amendment be agreed to and the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate proceed to s. res. 404. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate kwraougs -- resolution 4040 designating march 2016 as national middle-level education month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 439 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 439 congratulating the university of nebraska lincoln women's bowling team for winning the 2015 national collegiate
athletic association bowling championship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., tuesday, april 26. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. further that following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2028 with the time until 11:00 a.m. equally divided between the two managers or their designees. finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand
privilege and the bridge to a new america. i believe that jim wallace is the greatest prophetic voice we have in our country. i admire him to an extraordinary degree in what he has done for our country and what he continues to do and what sojourners does. the free event so take advantage , put it on your calendar and i will look forward to seeing you on the night of the 24th of february which is a wednesday night. our guest speaker today is the editor-in-chief of the baffler magazine. there are several things that are odd about me one of which is i know a lot about quarterly's, literary quarterlies. i've been reading literary quarterly since i was in my early 20s. literary quarter -- quarterlies
represent the great underground of american literature. very few people know that they even exist. some of their, some of the publications have circulations into in 3000. weighing that against the country 320 million but there are certain that are not related to the circulation. they are important is related to two things. one, who reads them and take them seriously and secondly who writes them. the fact is an american literary history some of our greatest writers were discovered in literary quarterlies so you'll have your own copy of the baffler. take it with you, read it, enjoy it, subscribe and help make it succeed. i am very pleased to introduce a new friend, a new friend,
someone that i sought out in the contents of what i do because he is from boston. he is just a terrific guy. ph.d. in american history from the university of rochester and now the editor-in-chief of the baffler. welcome please the one and only dr. john summers. [applause] >> thank you george. how do i sound? hell is my volume? can you hear me over there? what a pleasure it is to be introduced by george. i'm going to speak for just a few minutes and then introduce you to the magazine and some of the personal and institutional background that has gotten us to
this point and i hope we can have a conversation because as george suggested this is a topic of a very focused, kind of rich substandard discussion and it would be a shame if i did all the talking. so let me start out with a kind of baffler catechism. our editorial program issued four times a year in print and everyday on line offers a mix of social mouth this, political criticism, stories and satire. also lots of art and as you can see from this issue which is out in the foyer there this cover was made eight high a displaced iraqi artist living in sweden,
displaced white house and comes at a nice time for the discussion about worn policy. all throughout we keep the focus on the money power. the way that money talks the dogmas that it generates in our culture and what it produces in our politics. we identify a concentration of power, would challenge contentious speaking. our collective intelligence capacity en masse production of conformity and the failure of our big institutions. we strive for the third side of the two-sided debate and hope to generate contradictions that suggest public pros can rise to
the form of literary art. to be an independent publishing out of time when the art of public argument more or less collapsed simply to keep working to find a fresh and honest vocabulary when that is capable of examining uranium -- assumptions providing some direction. we believe magazines offering such commentary on current affairs need not be boring or frightening either. the baffler was born in 1988 at the end of the cold war and it was reborn at the dawn of the information age economy in 2011. that's when i came on board. it was as you remember the aftermath of a global recession. all along the people who have edited and written about the baffler have been passionately devoted to its prospects.
it falls to a conservative and conviction. we do this because we believe in the importance of free expression in a democracy. the baffler in this respect is an ironic title of course for imagining. we don't actually aim to baffle you as you have probably figured out. every time he read one of our essays we -- to persuade you of something. our art is pretty much the polar opposite of what you normally hear about idealistic enterprises. some of you are probably already wondering how this idealistic enterprise gets funded in the first place. let's get that out of the way. i know that more of you will be curious once i tell you how stubborn and principled they are about this thing. we have a strict policy of paying all of our contributors and that alone distinguishes us from 95% of the kind of media
where i'm bald with. for another thing we refuse to use an intern and volunteers. nobody gets to work for free around here. third, we use government money and don't bother with asking foundations for grants. we are genuinely independent. that means we don't have to ask for permission. unlike the great majority of literary magazines the baffler is not a plaything of any benefactor. we don't take prices -- excuse me we don't take ads and we don't give prices although we did get prices for george. to explain a little bit of the framework we are a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) scheduled tax-deductible organization. charitable technically speaking as a church and we depend on a
heterogeneous circle of people to sustain our work. unsurprisingly many of these people are from arts and professions. we have among our supporters media, film producers videogame providers, playwrights plus a smattering of programmers and publishers, professors lawyers tech entrepreneurs every one i assure you with exceedingly good taste. we have a relatively new initiative called the publisher circle. people understand the intangible value of our kind of unbought opinion and to know and to feel the power of education and information in a democracy. now in a market culture financial transactions including increasingly those that happen and i are educated -- higher education philanthropy are caught up in a contrasting language of investment. equity is called stakeholding.
impact must be measured constantly and on a very short leash. the baffler is not selling states. ours is the language of the gift economy. it's equality, not equity that fires us up. it's appreciation, recognition and trust rather than the return on investment that attracts readers and supporters to our community. this is how we are able to speak from outside concentrated systems of money and power to challenge the mass production of the shays euphemisms and buzzwords. we are not hostage to them. there are fewer and fewer martial outlets for a rider who is bold enough to speak in the direct conversational voice while also attempting to rise above personal experience and to get something larger. taking the time to consider, to reconsider, to rework, to revise
, to think in writing. our magazine, our kind of magazine exists in order to publish facts checked worked. well how do you measure impact on something like this? it's a difficult question. let's consider a counterexample. it's surely one of contemporary histories richest ironies that the conservative businessmen to live and breathe the jargon of the dividend figured out a long time ago how to work outside of the market economy to advance their monetary interest. much is made of donald trump producing new political realities. trump is especially -- product that is a donor funded convergence of power and intellectual capital that has presided over the conservative
movement since long before ronald reagan. the war of ideas they told us while building up an arsenal of magazines and publishers, radio and television shows, web sites, think tanks and producing a team of public intellectuals featuring brand-name editors and writers like william f. buckley, trump supporter and coculture. the ultimate gain has been to rewrite the rules for which american popular thought produces a world in which democratic alternatives don't really seem possible because it's major premises are perfectly natural and primarily necessary. cutting taxes, cutting social spending, divesting from higher education cultural funding downsizing workers and even financial markets. these crackpot ideas -- the world's economic ideology the
false position for serious discussion of america's future can't be understood outside the context of ideological slant of the. it's not a secret for nearly half a century conservatism has showered some sun nonprofit institutions transforming fringe ideas to common sense. ms. measuring american progress. this revolution in reverse could never have wound up a competition of ideas without fieldpress like richard -- somebody probably knows how to pronounce his name. sheldon adelson the bop we know and i'm sure you have heard of charles and david koch. viciously harassing, tacking and sabotaging journalists producing their own realities.
to take a logic to the next step to capture the degraded public media all for itself. what about those of us who believe in democracy? as recently as the 1960s people like us created and eventually were swept away by another movement culture sparked university-based political insurgency called union for democratic society who invented new theorems of five and values women's studies, launched the careers of best-selling social critics right -- betty for dan and another name ehrenreich who is one of our contributing editors and defended the values and premises of government programs like medicare come ledges like an -- legislation like the civil rights act. that movement culture together with the thinkers and ideas for sustained it is surprisingly cut back.
there are few institutions that support big and imaginative thinking great fewer mechanisms that location and reproduction to connect our writers and our thinkers to the young into the disillusioned which grow larger every year but we are part of the tradition at the baffler. the baffler along with a handful of other publications and periodicals recently invented and restarted our source of renewal. compared to the conservative we were cheap. some members of our publisher circle participate in the thousand dollar level to give you an example, some of the 10,000-dollar level and a few angels who make up the difference. one of our principle goals and striking out the forms, this one is to grow our circle to keep us going strong against the headwinds. the only thing that happened to me today as a result of today's talk if you subscribe to a call
it a victory. there's another factor of the kind of special baffler imagination that i want to talk to you about the keeps us in a perpetual flow meant. the heavy use of irony and are graphics produced a sometimes her castaic oftentimes cynical. nothing could be further from the truth. producing the baffler is really a mark of confidence. it's a nod to what we think of as the attitude handed down by our american ancestors. very simple, act as a today's america is a time and place were an independent magazine can directly change minds, influence opinion and you help to make it so. the attitude is dangerous. it requires us to discern pope from fantasy in the fantasy
culture is a culture of magical thinking. it's one of our targets and one of our main -- but it's more satisfying than pessimism and a lot more responsible. and it's working. 2015 which we just concluded we open the publishing office in new york city to work in concert with their editorial office in harvard square. we have a staff that is doubt doubled from the previous year. we took down our payroll on our web site and fine-tune the frequency in the past digital multi-verse putting up daily blog post. we produce 160 essays including last year is especially popular one about the costs breeding up -- they met we are going to break away from this recorder program and take you live to wilkes-barre pennsylvania, donald trump rallied.
>> do we love our country? do we love our country? this is amazing. and we loved wilkes-barre, isn't that right? [applause] and we love the state of pennsylvania. thank you everybody. there are 6000 people outside they can't get in. it's unbelievable. i love it. unbelievable. so, we have a lot to talk about. this is my last stop. you are going to go out and vote. who is going to vote for trump? [applause] we are going to make that the best vote you have ever cast, i promise you. america first, folks.
make america great again but america first, okay? remember that. so just a couple of things. my son eric is here. you know eric? he is great. and in this area he said dad, make sure you mention natural gas that we are 100% behind it, and we are. and call, 100%. we are going to bring things back and we are going to bring them back like they have never been before. we are going to take our jobs back. we are bringing our manufacturing back. we are going to take it from all of these countries that for years have been ripping us off because we have politicians that don't know what they are doing. so we are going to take it back. [applause] so you know, the whole deal, you know this whole thing, we are
leading by millions of votes. we are leading by hundreds of delegates and it's a rigged system but i think you know that at the rate. i have a boxer. it's a friend of mine. he is a world champion and he goes into a very unfriendly territory. i said what you doing it? if you have a good natch you'll end up losing on a decision with bad judges pretty said mr. trump, the only way i can do it, i have to knock this guy out. i have to knock him on his [bleep] [applause] and he did. and he picked up a big paycheck so what we are doing is we are going to win on the first ballot. we only care about the first ballot and is sort of interesting because if you look at these new guys, what is one for 41?
millions of votes ahead, many states, many delegates. the other one is like a total disaster. he goes to new york last week ended that they been registered or he's got no delegates. they ought to both job out of the race and we have to unify the republican party. [applause] and a great poll just came out. a great poll that has me even with hillary clinton. that's nothing, i haven't even started with crooked hillary yet. we have even started. .. person about bringing back
jobs. more people are coming across the southern borders them practically ever before. it is out of control. we all know who these people are or where the hell they come from and the border patrol are amazing people. just a you know, last week the border control endorsed donald trump. 16200500 people. they have never done that before. [cheers and applause] amazing. they are amazing people. and you know, sheriff joe from arizona he endorsed. [cheers and applause] we will do a great job but people are coming across and they are coming from the migration thousands and
thousands of people are coming here nobody even knows or they're going they put them all over the country. are they isis? it could be the great trojan horse. don't worry about it we will build a wall it will get built. [cheers and applause] this place is unbelievable. fix i have all these people were treated have to do something the sad part all over the country last week it was new york state i
wanted record-setting numbers nobody could believe it. [cheers and applause] i went to school in pennsylvania my daughter is currently going to school in pennsylvania. my son went to school in pennsylvania. also they went to the hill school and ivanka went to school in pennsylvania i went to school in pennsylvania. [cheers and applause] i love pennsylvania. but i will tell you so i went to the statisticians i said give me status in the
area that it has been hit hardest among the communities in america. they talk about scranton region lost half of the manufacturing jobs since 1990. our region here lost 6,000 manufacturing jobs since the recession of 2007 and. that is a lot of jobs. they're going to china, mexico, japan, vietnam [booing] the state of pennsylvania has lost more than 35% of its manufacturing jobs since 2001 that was the year that congress voted brilliant people have except for my two favorite that -- those was a letter here tonight. where are they? where are they? get them up here.
it is so high at but not think they can. to they can never make it down. they are great guys. from the beginning. congress voted to lead china into the world trade organization when things started to go bad. lying ted cruz supports chinese currency cheating. [booing] and one out of 42 and continues to run he was the big vote on nafta that destroyed pennsylvania and virtually every state if you look at what happened with new england i was in new york state last week places
i know very well and i went to albany and poughkeepsie and all over new york state manufacturing plants. all the empty siphoned off going to other countries the jobs are hard -- horrible. we will now let that happen anymore. i really know how to stop it. so it isn't a pretty picture. to help with that. more than 10,000 people laid off. foreign-born population reducing wages and jobs we will change it. we have big news today.
lying ted cruz says he cannot win by himself. he cannot do which he is a joker. so he said let me form a partnership led to recall that? go-ahead. what do we call that? it is called pollution. i wrote up something but he could not fight by himself saying how well he did he holds the bible i then he lies and puts it down. lying ted cruz. [chanting] [chanting] we have corrected hillary there is no way we have these people and turn our
country around. [cheers and applause] so i get a call last night about 1130 it is okay. call me i am a worker. and i dictated something over the phone i said it isn't it sad that you grow and politicians have to collude against one person who was only then a politician for seven months but i and the politicians and we are bought off with campaign contributions and as a pack some of them are very dumb to be honest. some don't have a clue. how can you allow what has happened to our country to go on? grossly incompetent which they are or under the control of the lobbyist in the special interests which both of them are.
i am self funding so it is the big difference i don't care. i will do what is right for you. [cheers and applause] i have that in this deal 10 months and to stop the person from getting the republican nomination when we should be bringing everybody together it is time and i will tell you i have been watching these dishonest people some of the most dishonest people are in the media. [booing] they will not show the stadium show it. go ahead and they will not show it. [booing] i will go home and my wife will say darling were there many people there tonight? i will say you didn't see it looked at it on television live cattle the lights she
will say were there many people? they never showed a crowd we have the biggest crowd by far and the greatest people by far. [cheers and applause] so senator cruz has done very poorly especially with getting votes he can't get votes and after his new york performance which was the total disaster was in a free-fall and he reacts very badly under pressure also approximately 80% of the republican party right now because i actually think that 20% is high, is against him and against john kasich is even worse he has won
state out of 41. i will tell you. i had ted dirty coal given to the florida and ohio were done at the same time i was winning florida by a lot action against marco rubio and bush had dropped out. when they heard that trump was running a change that because we have for rigged system a corrupt system this whole thing with the delegates is ridiculous and you have to go out to get your beautiful delegate party in both your delegates it is crazy it would be nice if you just go out and vote we are way at bin the polls do not let that fool you but here is the story. they just said when you go
up there we tell them to take the delegates this and that is the cool thing to say during the speech. vote for the trump delegates i have done my job it would be nice if you could vote and be done with it but the system is so complicated now we have a great head of the republican party and we have some great people and amazing delegates to do a great job they akio. i love you to. and kasich is interesting like a child who is a spoiled brat i don't care getting through medicare ben carson who has endorsed me. he was tough.
dr. ben carson. chris christie marco rubio did better he has more delegates right now then john kasich has and has been in the race a shorter period of time. and then you see him eating in the morning i have never seen him he is stuffing pancakes in his mouth like this. i always tell my boy is little tiny bites. he said who is that guy on television? that's disgusting. did you ever see? then they talk about presidential puts big cakes this big in his mouth. this is not a presidential person. but marco rubio has more
delegates of lot of people could have said i don't care. i will read with the first ballot. i don't care. it is a corrected system how would you like to have this? trumpets run at one dash women's and the people of indiana are smart they know i have been speaking for months of the horrible treatment of carrier air-conditioning gave to the people that worked for that and indianapolis when they said you were all fired. we are moving to mexico. i have been talking about this long before realized how important indiana would be to the process.
and the people in indiana are smart. i have one of the great endorsements of all time. and refused to say it is bobby knight but it is bobby knight. [applause] he is great. a great endorsement he knows how to win he is smart that is where he is endorsing me. all right. others have done much better. collusion. they're both losing campaigns they are no good it is done. if you add up the john kasich and ted cruz vote i am beating them by a lot people will be surprised to hear this if you add of their delegates it is a river system of cruz and
kasich i am beating them by a lot. of lot. [cheers and applause] but to show you how corrupt and dishonest the system is i have to get 1237 i think we will beat that fairly easily but what if we don't? they have then buying dinners and hotels. to buy all the delegates. id like to have somebody win on the second ballot that has a three-year 4 million less votes, four or 500 bus delegates than trump? we will pick up a guy that
has no zero delegates and then they ran them both out of town. they will pick somebody and it will not happen. he will be one / 50 ladies said justin in the new nominee, man that has been running for over one year year, he won one stay at a 50 but he will take it they said from the media i am a smart person that is much easier than what i am doing right now because the neck
to look into for i is called into everybody falls asleep after 10 minutes show that media. the dishonest media. they don't move the camera is. they never move the camera is, is the resume of phony protesters. do we have any? i would like to put a couple write-up there where they can see. 6,000 people are not able to get in? here is the story we will win big tomorrow do all the things you have to do. do we discuss our poll numbers firm rhode island plus make two speeches san
to rallies yesterday we had an unbelievable rally in airport hangar that was so big into the driveway areas. what is going on is a movement. we have spent on the cover of "time" magazine many times. in fact, i will be added dinner tomorrow night to for "time" magazine the most 100 influential who cares. i care about winning this nomination with cricket hillary clinton to do a great job for our nation. [cheers and applause] we will do that.
[cheers and applause] we are going to do it you should see rhode island today. by your poll numbers are so high there over 60 percent it doesn't work that way. we gave them a 10 hour notice and these are great people we go to delaware two days ago we went to maryland day couple of times i have spent all over pennsylvania unbelievable.
unbelievable. it is so great. so you want to take care of people that are there with you. that is rarely one to go so tomorrow is a big day because of me everyone now sees the republican primary system is totally reduce broken. to be mathematically out. and then beat hillary clinton big. [cheers and applause] she will be a terrible
president havel tell you if she wins. even john kasich what he has said about her. that she has bad judgment they say but don't say that anymore that is terrible he said she is not qualified to me were all qualified. but then he said i will take a back but what he said was amazing and she has bad judgment even on the emails it is criminal but it is bad judgment really bad judgment. if you look at syria and libya and all the problems in the middle east and what the hell has happened to the world?
then look at president obama one of the worst deals ever made. [booing] we give them $150 billion we get nothing those days are gone we should've had the prisoners back before we started to negotiate you don't negotiate like that. [cheers and applause] with no past to victory. one less tpp which is a catastrophe for this country. and ted cruz is what to do anything about china to
manipulate the currency he had the opportunity and he blew it. he heads the senator doing nothing in the united states senate no legislation nothing important he is a bad senator and doesn't get along with anybody. practically no endorsements. the man he respects most is senator sessions from alabama a great man and a great senator but only one problem. except he endorsed donald trump. [cheers and applause] that is a problem. 11 i came down the escalator with my wife on june 69 look down at trump tower and i saw the largest group of paparazzi and reporters literally the academy awards.
because we can make ameritech rates again make it better than ever before. and i stood up and made a speech. and i brought up other things but illegal immigration to make it stronger better -- bigger better nobody will ever mess with us because they toyed with us right now. a lot of people say trump is the toughest one running but he may have a quick trigger i have this low was trigger of anybody but nobody will play games with me but i have the slowest trigger.
i am the one that said i was not a politician but i said at the beginning don't go into iraq you will destabilize the entire middle east and that is exactly what happened our politicians went on vacation 15 years ago we would be a lot better off in the middle east right now we have a big fat ugly mess. they are the ones that pulled the trigger. then i heard a certain senator lindsey graham moonset i don't know why donald trump doesn't listen to me i have been fighting this war for many years. have about two weeks. we have to get back to our country to rebuild america and rebuild the united states. we will build three schools
in different places in the middle east and we rebuild it. again and again the with the school in pennsylvania the government says we have no money. [booing] we have spent over $4 trillion in the middle east. we are in worse shape now than we were 15 years ago then when obama got out instead of doing it a certain way or the insurgent groups behind to protect to even call it one. just everybody else to announce the date and now you have a mess. here comes isis to take the oil and i have been saying for years. keep the whale. don't let them have the oil i didn't want to go with the
first place but if you're going to go out take the oil because if you don't iran will get the oil so who has the will? iran and isis. which i the way for years and years was the same military strength. they fight three-year for years that they go home and rest then saddam hussein would hit somebody. then the others then they move 10 feet that we destroy the military capability now iran is taking over iraq as sure as you are standing here. it is always nice when people have seats and they still want to stay and to hear trump.
[applause] i appreciate it. so we will change our focus on military and foreign policy into things right. we predict many nations for the protection many of these nations are very wealthy we protect germany, japan, i love germany and love japan and france. south korea. from a mad man next door. 28,000 soldiers making a fortune i ordered 4,000 television sets for different projects. thousands. where they come from? south korea their money-making behemoth's we protect saudi arabia. i have many friends and saudi arabia day by my apartment held