Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I wish to recognize Mr. William ``Bill'' Lovelady, Jr., for his 34 years of service in the U.S. Army. Bill has worked on behalf of our Nation as a civil servant, rising to chief counsel for the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, or ERDC. Throughout his career, he has displayed leadership, professionalism, initiative, and dedication. His accomplishments will have a significant and lasting impact on the Corps of Engineers' laboratory community, the Army, and our Nation. Today, in recognition of his retirement, I offer thanks and congratulations.

Prior to Bill's 22 years as counsel to the ERDC and Waterways Experiment Station, he served as assistant division counsel to the Lower Mississippi Valley Division and Corps of Engineers. He also worked for the Vicksburg District of the Corps as a trial attorney. In these capacities, Bill played an instrumental role in the successful execution of the command's missions, particularly regarding research and development. In fact, he is acknowledged as the Corps' leading legal authority in this mission area.

Bill's accomplishments do not end there. He has been recognized by chief counsels as an example for other legal managers in the command, including his selection as a charter member of the Chief Counsel's Managing Partners Group, board of directors. This group, comprised of senior Corps attorneys, is responsible for recommendations to improve the delivery of legal services. Bill's exceptional legal advice, acumen, and sound judgment were no doubt of immense value to this group.

Bill has also served as an advisor to the ERDC Installation Planning Board, ERDC Program Budget Advisory Committee, ERDC-Vicksburg Site Partnership Council, ERDC Special Recognition Committee, and ERDC Senior Anti-Terrorism Steering Committee. He is a member of the Federal Laboratory Consortium Legal Support Subcommittee and an active participant in the Department of Defense, DOD, Technology Transfer Integrated Project Team.

In 1999, Bill worked tirelessly in the reorganization of the Corps' laboratories to establish the ERDC. He helped develop plans, worked to implement them, and solved numerous leadership, administrative, labor- management, and legal challenges. In reviewing all aspects of the reorganization plans, he ensured that R&D leadership was advised of potential legal concerns and solutions through the process. Moreover, he effectively assumed leadership over the geographically dispersed and formerly independent legal assets of the Corps' laboratory system. Because of the legal team's substantial contributions, ERDC's structure and operating mode have served as a model for delivery of legal services across the Corps.

Bill has always been a proven manager and adviser. In 1998, a new human resources system was instituted under one of nine congressionally authorized science and technology laboratory personnel management demonstration projects. Bill applied his leadership and legal experience to identifying the distinctions between the features of the project and the basic Federal personnel system. His advice was critical to implementation strategies and problem-solving during the transition.

Bill is the coauthor of the ``Research & Development Partnering Handbook,'' a comprehensive guide that collected all R&D partnering authorities, pursuant to the Technology Transfer Act. He has assisted in the negotiation and resolution of complicated legal issues involving the licensing of ERDC-developed technologies. He also has played a key role in supporting ERDC's laboratories with the drafting and negotiating of domestic and international patent licenses, cooperative research and development agreements, education and interagency partnership agreements, and service agreements. These instruments have seen ERDC partner with State and local governments, other Federal agencies, colleges, universities, and private companies.

Since the early 1990s, Bill has also provided legal advice and assistance for the Department of Defense's High Performance Supercomputing Modernization Plan. He was essential to the establishment of DOD's first High Performance Computing Resource Center and recently addressed issues involving access to DOD's high performance supercomputing facilities.

In short, Bill has been vital to the Engineer Research and Development Center management team and its success. His friendly, outgoing personality only adds to his professionalism. On a personal note, I would add that he has been a close friend of mine for over four decades and his wife Dianne has been a lifelong friend. I wish them both the best in this new chapter of their lives.

I thank the distinguished President pro tempore.

Mr. President, I wish to spend a few moments speaking about national defense.

As we all know, last week, in a much anticipated address to the Nation, President Obama outlined a plan to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. I want my colleagues to know I intend to do my part to make this plan a success.

I am not alone in hoping this goal to defeat--not contain--ISIS will replace the half measures and disengagement that has defined the President's foreign policy to date. The President's previous comment that ``we don't have a strategy yet'' sent the wrong signal to our allies and to our adversaries.

In response to the President's address last week, Congress and the American people are now seeking specifics about the new strategy. I am hopeful the new plan is strong enough and broad enough to be successful long term. U.S. leadership and the projection of military might are critical to defeating the ISIS extremists.

Thirteen years after September 11, 2001, Americans need to send a unified message that we remain resolved to fight the scourge of global terrorism. ISIS is part of that scourge, reeking havoc in Iraq and Syria, with torture, mass executions, crucifixions, and plans for a seventh century-style Islamic caliphate. As we all know, ISIS broadcasts its savagery through gruesome propaganda online, including the horrific murders of two Americans and a British aid worker.

It is clear our efforts to date have been insufficient to overthrow this well-funded, well-equipped, and sophisticated army. It will take more than limited air strikes and the modest deployment of military advisers to curb the rapid spread of ISIS across northern Iraq and Syria. The United States must be committed to building a coalition that fosters regional cooperation, dismantles the group's considerable financial network, and assists the Iraqi, Kurdish, and Free Syrian forces. I wish to help the President in his request for authorization to train and equip these forces.

This coalition needs to include Muslim-majority nations that are all in with a demonstrated resolve to defeat the Islamic terrorists in their own neighborhood.

The cost of inaction is already high. The rise of ISIS in northern Iraq and its operations in Syria have threatened regional stability and the security of our allies in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Kuwait. The involvement of foreign fighters raises fears of potential terrorist plots here at home. Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said there are more than 100 U.S. citizens with passports fighting for the terrorist group. He went on to say, ``There may be more. We don't know.''

Secretary of Defense Hagel, who will testify tomorrow before the Armed Services Committee, has called ISIS, ``An imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else.'' Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed similar alarm, saying, ``The wickedness it represents must be destroyed.'' I agree. But if these statements are true, then we should respond to them aggressively.

Similar to Secretary Hagel and Secretary Kerry, the American public is concerned about the threat of ISIS to the United States. A new report by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News says nearly 7 in 10 Americans believe military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is in our national interest.

Americans are ready for a bold international strategy to confront these extremists whose ruthless campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing has survived for too long. These radicals have driven tens of thousands of Iraq's Yazidi and Christian minorities from their homes in fear. According to news reports, thousands of civilians have been slaughtered across northwestern Iraq.

GEN Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, and Danielle Pletka, a senior vice president at the American Enterprise Institute, put it this way in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed:

A U.S.-led international coalition can provide the military

capability, including air interdiction to deny ISIS freedom

of movement, take away its initiative to attack at will in

Iraq, and dramatically reduce its sanctuary in Syria.

In other words, with U.S. leadership and international cooperation, we can defeat this enemy, and we ought to get about the business of doing it.

I believe Congress should support our Commander in Chief in the fight against ISIS, a fight that can result in a victory and a peace that can be sustained. I look forward to hearing more

details about the President's plans when Secretary Hagel and GEN Martin Dempsey testify before the Armed Services Committee tomorrow.

There are still questions to be answered. For example, if public opinion turns, will the administration lose its resolve? How long will it take to win? How long will it take to crush ISIS? What is the definition of success? What is the definition of victory in this case? If we accomplish our objectives, will we once again abandon our gains, as we did after the surge in Iraq? What is the plan to eliminate the terrorist group's financial network? Are the President and congressional leaders willing to find a solution to defense sequestration in order to fulfill the mission if more resources are required? And more resources will be required.

Addressing these questions is important to understanding the specific goals and aims of the President's strategy, which are yet to be fleshed out. Americans and Congress deserve this clarity.

Congress has the responsibility to provide for the resources our U.S. military needs for its missions. We do this through appropriations, through the power of the purse, and the National Defense Authorization Act, which has garnered bipartisan support for the past 52 years.

Under the capable leadership of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe, the Armed Services Committee approved a bill more than 3 months ago. So has the full House of Representatives. It has passed its authorization act. I hope that even at this late date, Majority Leader Reid will allow our country's major defense policy bill to come to the Senate floor for consideration soon. An annual blueprint of the military priorities is vital to making sure that our troops have what they need to protect our national security interests at home and abroad.

This year's bill, for example, includes a provision to stave off drastic cuts to the U.S. Army which would put troop strength at levels not seen before World War II. Well-trained units such as the 155th Heavy Brigade Combat Team in my home State of Mississippi should not be jeopardized by shortsighted and ill-considered proposals by the Obama administration. Instead, under the committee bill, an independent commission would have the opportunity to make recommendations on force structure and size before the National Guard personnel could be cut or the Apache attack helicopters could be transferred.

Another provision of the bill would allow for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to modernize their amphibious warships. These incredibly versatile ships signal to the world that America's fighting forces can respond to threats rapidly. Currently our fleet is significantly smaller than the number needed to perform required missions, and many of the ships are near the end of their service lives. The Defense authorization bill as passed on a bipartisan basis by the committee would authorize the construction of a 12th LPD 17 warship ensuring that the men and women who defend us in perilous corners of the globe have world-class hardware for their missions.

I believe it would be a fitting tribute to Senator Levin, who is retiring at the end of this year after decades of distinguished service in the Senate, to take up this bill in regular order and pass it as a tribute to our retiring chair.

In conclusion, we have work to do. The Senate Armed Services Committee and the House of Representatives have passed the Defense authorization bill. It is time for the Senate to follow suit. America has the most formidable fighting force in the world and this presence must remain resilient as dangerous groups such as ISIS put our interests at risk. The rapid rise of the barbaric terrorists is a wake- up call for U.S. leadership. Now that the President has declared his intention to degrade and destroy ISIS militants, we must ensure that the mission is fulfilled.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to subscribe to the views of my colleague from North Dakota on the importance of developing our great resource of natural gas and turning it into a liquefied form and solving a lot of the problems we face around the world. I also commend Senator Hoeven and Senator Wyden for the exchange they had briefly a few moments ago on a bipartisan approach to funding our infrastructure problems in the immediate and in the long-term sense.

I note, as I move to the topic of ObamaCare, the absence of any such bipartisan accord during 2009 when the Affordable Care Act was being debated in the Senate. Thus, we have what in April of 2003 Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus called a huge train wreck. He was right in seeing the train wreck coming on the rollout of the Web site, but it also has turned out to be a train wreck in far more ways than the Web site glitches and the ultimate fiasco.

The train wreck of the affordable health care act continues in the way the law is affecting health care coverage and the way it is affecting the pocketbooks of American families. These families were flatly told their health care premiums would go down. They were not told their health care premiums would moderate; they were told their health care premiums would go down. Instead, we have all of the problems we are facing with regard to ObamaCare in the way it affects women, in the way it affects wage-earners, and in the way it affects people who are looking for full-time employment. Frankly, the ObamaCare law continues to drag down our economy and our chances for economic growth.

Instead of seeing premiums drop by $2,500 on average each year as President Obama promised, families and individuals are spending more of their hard-earned dollars on health care costs under this so-called Affordable Care Act. The sticker shock will only worsen, and it is going to happen right around the corner.

In recent weeks several States have announced preliminary estimates for next year's premiums. The Wall Street Journal reports that many of these States' largest health insurers plan to increase premiums by between 8.5 percent and 22.8 percent. These are annual increases coming up right around the corner of 8.5 percent up to 22.8 percent. For many Americans, this means either paying a lot more or simply not being able to have coverage at all. The administration is trying to downplay the costs, but it is clear that once again ObamaCare is failing to live up to its billing.

Some States are particularly vulnerable to higher rates next year because of low enrollment among young adults or because few insurers have joined the exchanges. For example, in my home State of Mississippi 94 percent of enrollees are eligible for Federal subsidies, which means we have little competition to drive down rates. According to this year's numbers, my home State of Mississippi already has the third highest premiums in the Nation, and we can't afford them. Competition cannot flourish when the government is involved in setting mandates for benefits and controlling rates. Without a market-based approach, which I advocated in 2009, consumers lose out on choice and cost.

Particularly hardhit by the President's health care law are women and younger wage earners. With regard to women, for example, they are more likely to pay higher out-of-pocket costs under ObamaCare with plans with high deductibles because they typically visit the doctor more. As 57 percent of the part-time workforce, women are also more likely to have their hours cut because of the employer mandate.

I note that the employer mandate is increasingly unpopular among Democrats and Republicans.

Additionally, the law's limited physician networks have forced many women to choose different specialists for themselves and their children, thus making it less convenient for these women to get care for themselves and their children.

Stories from women across the country underscore these difficult realities. Last year a woman from Columbus, MS, wrote to tell me that her original health care plan was $500 per month before it jumped to $1,500 a month because of the ACA.

One woman from North Carolina gave this reaction to unaffordable premiums. She said:

I've never worked this hard in my life. But I'm gonna

continue working every day and keep hitting the books at

night. I'm just trying to keep my head above water.

Another woman from Texas who could not find an obstetrician who would accept her insurance said this:

It was mind-numbing, because I was just sitting there

thinking, I'm paying close to $400 just for me to have

insurance that doesn't work. So what am I paying for?

Women make approximately 80 percent of the health care decisions in America. More choices and lower costs would give them the flexibility they need to get the right insurance plan.

With regard to younger workers, they are generally healthier but earn less, and they are faced with daunting realities because of the health care law. Specifically, younger workers are forced to pay higher premiums to subsidize coverage for older Americans.

I was contacted by a constituent from Greenville, MS, whose healthy 27-year-old son lost his health insurance because of ObamaCare. The cost of his coverage went from $70 per month to nearly $350 per month even though the benefits improved only slightly. Although this young man had health insurance for 7 years, since he was 20 years of age, he is now questioning whether he can afford it.

Finally, all Americans are affected by a health care law that destroys jobs. Last month the economy added 288,000 jobs, but only a fraction of them were full time, as we know. The Obama economy is a part-time economy. Millions of Americans want full-time work.

The President's health care law was pushed through with no bipartisan input and in defiance of public opinion. After the Massachusetts special election, this Senate should have gotten the message that we needed to regroup and rethink this disastrous law, but the majority party pushed forward regardless. So it is no surprise that the law remains deeply unpopular today. According to a recent poll, 55 percent

of Americans wish it had never passed and 44 percent said America is now worse off because of the ACA.

In summary, under the affordable health care act women are worse off, younger workers are worse off, and people seeking full-time jobs are worse off.

Elections have consequences, and November will be no different. The American people have an opportunity to change the course of this disastrous law in 106 days.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak about a very troubling issue--to speak about innocent lives being stolen from communities and neighborhoods across our country and around the globe. I speak of the issue of human trafficking.

Last month, in more than 100 U.S. cities--just last month--168 children were rescued from sex trafficking and 281 pimps were arrested on Federal and State charges.

The weeklong campaign known as Operation Cross Country was conducted by the FBI, law enforcement officials, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It underscores a heartbreaking reality: Human trafficking is not a far-away problem. It is happening right here in America, in all 50 States.

Each year thousands of men, women, and children are robbed of their basic freedom to live as they choose. They become victims of a rampant and evil crime, coerced through intimidation and even through violence to work as laborers or prostitutes. According to estimates from the Polaris Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting human trafficking, there were more than 5,000 potential trafficking cases in America last year. However, the precise number of domestic victims is unknown.

It should be noted that sex trafficking affects individuals of all backgrounds and races, but it disproportionately impacts women, both domestically and internationally. According to the Polaris Project, 85 percent of sex trafficking victims in the United States are women. Although news headlines often glibly refer to a ``war on women'' in political terms, we as policy makers might well devote more of our energy to the issue of sex trafficking--a real war, a daily war, a nightmarish war--faced by the most vulnerable among us--young women who are bought and sold against their will for sex.

I stand with colleagues from both political parties in calling for an end to this nightmare. We must not ignore the horror stories on our doorsteps. Earlier this year 16 children ranging in age from 13 to 17 years old were rescued from a sex trafficking operation at the Super Bowl, one of our most celebrated events--the scenario of horror for these 13- to 17-year-olds. These young Americans deserve justice and they deserve rehabilitation.

Our friends in the House of Representatives have recently passed a package of bills on antitrafficking, and I hope we will soon consider similar efforts in the Senate. To highlight a few, Senator Rubio has introduced a bill to help protect children in foster care from becoming victims of trafficking; Senator Cornyn has introduced legislation for increasing federal resources available to trafficking victims; and Senator Klobuchar has introduced legislation to help ensure that minors who are sold for sex are not prosecuted as perpetrators but properly treated as the victims they really are.

This week I have introduced the End Trafficking Act of 2014. Similar to the legislation put forward by my colleagues, my bill would ensure victims of trafficking receive the treatment they need to lead healthy, free, and productive lives. One proposal in my bill would be a court- based pilot program modeled after Hawaii's girls courts, similar to the Federal drug court system. Rather than being correctly treated as victims, trafficked juveniles are often charged with a delinquency offense and detained. Many do not receive the counseling or support they need while in detention and some even return to the trafficker who abused them.

My bill supports a specialized court docket and integrated judicial supervision that would put the well-being of the victim first. Detention does not amount to rescue, and these victims need to be rescued. They should have an opportunity to return home and receive treatment.

Human trafficking is a complex problem that demands multifaceted solutions. Supporting the victims is only one part of the equation. We must also target those who perpetuate these atrocious crimes. The legislation I have introduced also seeks to punish those responsible for trafficking--the providers and the buyers--the pimps and the johns. First, there should be strict enforcement of laws already on the books that prohibit the purchase of sex with minors. Second, child victims should have a longer statute of limitations period during which to file civil lawsuits against their traffickers. Finally, those who distribute or benefit financially from commercial advertising that promotes prostitution should face criminal charges also. My bill would do all three.

We have seen the value of coordination among local, State and Federal agencies to fight trafficking. This was certainly true in Operation Cross Country. Working together, agencies and law enforcement partners can improve the ways they target traffickers to help victims.

We all need to realize that in the United States--the freest, most prosperous nation in the world--traffickers still find and transit victims. Our efforts to fight trafficking within our borders are important to fight against trafficking worldwide. There are some 21 million people around the world who endure this cruel form of modern day slavery. There is no other way to put it. Although the United States cannot single-handedly eradicate the problem, we can serve as a model for other countries to follow by preventing trafficking and supporting victims here at home.

Again, the title of the bill is the End Trafficking Act of 2014-- introduced this week. I am looking for cosponsors. I am looking for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to come forward and say with a unified voice that this Senate, this Congress, this Federal Government, intends to put the full weight of our efforts toward combating this serious national and international problem.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and, following procedure, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between Republicans and Democrats for the remaining period of morning business.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank my two colleagues from the other side of the aisle for joining with us today in this colloquy.

Let me say how proud I was as a Republican Senator from Mississippi to

stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleague from Maryland Ben Cardin. There are probably many places in Maryland he would rather have been at the beginning of July 2014, but he is someone who year after year has taken the time to travel to sometimes some rather unknown capital cities such as Baku or Chisinau, Moldova, and represent the United States in our partnership with the OSCE on the Helsinki Commission.

As Senator Cardin said, the 1975 Final Act of the Helsinki Commission recognized 10 principles that 57 countries in Europe and Eurasia said we believe we can stand by and live with and live under, issues such as territorial integrity, sovereignty, refraining from the use of force-- very important cornerstones of peace, democracy, self-determination and the rule of law in Europe.

It is certainly a fact well known within the OSCE and the delegations that come from far and wide to attend these that Ben Cardin is respected internationally, that his word carries weight, that he speaks on behalf of the United States of America, and on behalf of the OSCE countries with authority, evenhandedness, and fairness. So I think it meant a lot for someone of Senator Cardin's stature to come forward and present these.

Indeed, we did have overwhelming support for the supplemental item authored by Senator Cardin. The amendments to water it down by the Russian delegation were rejected time and again by overwhelming votes. In the end the final resolution was adopted by over 90 votes in favor of the Cardin resolution and only 30 votes against it. Of course, the delegates from the Russian Federation and several of their closest allies and neighbors voted against it. But country after country, delegation after delegation, small brave nation after small brave nation voted in favor of it because internationally we realized that the words of the resolution were correct.

The action of Russia in Crimea--invading this defenseless peninsula and annexing it illegally--that action violated all 10 principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and it needed to be said. It needed to be said not only by the United Nations, which has in effect said this in the General Assembly, and it needed not only to be said by a major power like the United States of America, through our State Department and through the Congress, but it also needed to be said by the collective body that represents these 57 countries from Europe and Eurasia.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the final supplemental item as adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly be printed in the Record.

It may be that Senator Harkin will want to touch on this issue also, but I think it is significant that we have such great leadership in both bodies--in the Senate and in the House--with the OSCE, people who are willing to take the time to get to know our European neighbors at the parliamentary level and have that exchange there, people such as Congressman Robert Aderholt, who is a vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly and who has been very diligent, again, in traveling to some of these exotic locations that nobody perhaps envies; and Congressman Chris Smith, a veteran House Member who speaks out so eloquently and so firmly not only for the rule of law and human rights internationally, but he has actually been recognized by the Parliamentary Assembly as a special representative on the issue of human rights and trafficking. I commend our colleague from the House of Representatives Chairman Smith for his leadership in getting passed a resolution condemning the trafficking of minors internationally and getting the Parliamentary Assembly to make a strong statement on the record on this very serious problem that faces, not only us here domestically, but also on the international front.

Indeed.

Madam President, I congratulate my colleague from Iowa, a senior Member of this body, someone who is respected around the globe for being willing to meet fellow parliamentarians and to successfully put forward language that was adopted by consensus.

If I could mention a couple of other matters that pertain to this trip, First of all, it is interesting that the capital of Azerbaijan, Baku, on the western shore of the Caspian Sea, would be the host of this parliamentary assembly.

Azerbaijan is an important ally of the United States. I think it is important for Americans and for Members to know that their neighbor to the north is Russia and their neighbor to the south is Iran. This is a very tough neighborhood that our ally exists in. Yet they are oriented to the West. They are oriented to the United States. They want to be allies of ours. They were steadfast friends of ours in Afghanistan and have been during the entire time we have been there. They are steadfast allies of the Nation of Israel. Again, I think for a majority Muslim State such as Azerbaijan to take that stand in a troubling neighborhood speaks well of them. There are steps we wish they would take further toward transparency and openness and the rule of law, and maybe their elections weren't all we hoped for in the past, but they are an ally that continues to make progress. So I salute our host nation.

I think it should also be said, and I will yield to Senator Cardin on this point, that we stopped back by Chisinau, Moldova, on our way back from Baku, a member of the OSCE, a nation that is also in a troubling neighborhood that feels the breath of Moscow breathing down their collars and the threats by people from the Russian Federation who would like to exert undue influence on that great little nation.

It happened that we were there on the day the Moldovan Parliament ratified the agreement associating Moldova with the European Union. This was a wonderful day for the friends of freedom and the European- oriented citizens of Moldova. It was great to see the young people walking through the city with the flag and hear Beethoven's Ode to Joy, the European anthem, as it were, and to be there for this very significant, pivotal day in the history of Moldova and to say we will continue to stand with the great people of that country. I know Senator Cardin was thinking of those things when he scheduled that stop.

Madam President, I will let Senator Cardin have the last word on this matter, and I see there are others who want to speak on other issues. Let me emphasize to everyone within the sound of our voices that diplomacy and foreign policy are carried out not only through the executive branch, the State Department, the other good offices that we have in the executive branch. Foreign policy is alive and well through the participation of Members of the House and Senate, the parliamentary assembly, and in the OSCE. It is important we keep our role there.

My hat is off to the leaders of this Congress--House and Senate--who have, over the years, been willing to exercise leadership and to earn credibility in the OSCE. I am proud to have stood with them this year in this delegation. I believe we came back with a better understanding.

I appreciate the role of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in covering our participation there and getting that out to the rest of the world.

I am proud to have stood with this delegation--eight Members from the House and Senate, senior Members and relatively new ones. We stood for the principles of the rule of law and transparency and democracy among our allies in Europe and Eurasia.

I yield for my friend.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.