[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 37 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1829-S1837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND 
             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 933.
  The clerk will report the bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 933) to make appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other 
     departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2013, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Mikulski-Shelby) modified amendment No. 26, in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       Harkin-Cardin amendment No. 53 (to amendment No. 26), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Inhofe amendment No. 29 (to amendment No. 26), to prohibit 
     the expenditure of Federal funds to enforce the spill 
     prevention, control, and countermeasure rule of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency against farmers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request 
that I understand has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  I ask unanimous consent that it now be in order for Senator Coburn to 
call up his amendment numbered 66; that there be 60 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form for debate on the Harkin and Coburn 
amendments to run concurrently; and that upon the use or yielding back 
of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Harkin and 
Coburn amendments in the order offered; that there be no amendments in 
order to either amendment prior to the votes; and both amendments to be 
subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I note that the Senator from Oklahoma 
is on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                  Amendment No. 66 to Amendment No. 26

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 66 be called up.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 66.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To temporarily freeze the hiring of nonessential Federal 
                               employees)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FREEZE ON HIRING OF NONESSENTIAL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none 
     of the funds made available under division A, B, C, D, E, or 
     F of this Act may be used by any Executive agency (as defined 
     under section 105 of title 5, United States Code, except that 
     such term shall not include the Government Accountability 
     Office) to hire any new employee.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     hiring of an excepted employee or an employee performing 
     emergency work, as such terms are defined by the Office of 
     Personnel Management.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a fairly straightforward 
amendment. It actually follows the guidelines of the recommendations of 
the Office of Management and Budget. The administration claims that 
during this sequestration period we will have to furlough essential 
workers, which will negatively impact the daily lives of the American 
people.
  Despite dire warnings to cut TSA agents--by the way, Director Pistole 
thinks they will be just fine, which is totally opposite of what the 
rest of the administration has said. Air traffic controllers, food 
inspectors, and thousands of new Federal jobs have been posted since 
the sequester went into effect.
  Let me spend a minute on this issue. Since the sequester has been in 
effect, the Department of Treasury is looking to hire a leadership 
development specialist with a salary of $182,000. The FDA advertised 
for a social media management service to streamline management of 
multiple social media platforms. There are 23 openings on the Federal 
jobs list for recreation, which includes: recreation aide, recreation 
specialist, and recreation assistant. The Air Force is looking to hire 
several full-time painters. There is a search to pay $165,000 for a 
director of history and museum policies and programs.
  The list continues: The Department of Treasury is currently 
advertising for an outreach manager. The Department of Labor is looking 
for a staff assistant at $81,000 a year to answer the phone. There is a 
search for a policy coordinator for the Department of Health and Human 
Services to attend and facilitate meetings at $81,000 a year. There is 
an opening for a director for the Air Force history and museums 
policies and programs at $165,000 a year. There is another opening for 
an analyst for the Legislative Affairs Office at the Marine Corps for 
$90,000 a year. The Department of Agriculture is looking for a director 
of the government employee services at a range of $179,000 a year.
  There is an opening for counsel for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship 
Foundation at $155,000 a year, an opening for an executive assistant at 
the Department of Agriculture Forest Service to prepare itineraries for 
travel plans, an opening for an executive staff officer for the Air 
Force to represent the director of staff at meetings to write draft 
reports and memos at $93,000.
  These are all nonpriority hirings at a time when we are in sequester. 
What this amendment would do is simply implement OMB's guidance and 
freeze hiring for nonessential Federal positions during sequestration 
but still allow hiring of employees defined by the Office of Personnel 
Management as exempted or emergency personnel.
  If this amendment does not freeze hiring of exempted or emergency 
employees as defined by OPM--and we all know what that means--there is 
also an exemption in here that gives agencies the flexibility to know 
which positions are critical to performing duties and allows their 
progression.
  Right now the agencies are not following OMB's guidance. We hear 
about possible furloughs, but a good portion

[[Page S1830]]

of those furloughs would never be necessary if, in fact, the agencies 
would follow OMB's guidance. The government is seeking to hire travel 
specialists, recreation aides, public affairs specialists, outreach 
managers, librarians, historians, administrative assistants, and many 
other nonessential positions.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has posted a job opening 
for a travel specialist with a salary of $97,000 a year, and the job is 
to obtain domestic and international travel for HHS officials. It is 
not essential to their overall mission and actually facilitates more 
travel, which is one of the things also recommended by OMB in their 
guidance that they are not to do.
  All we are saying is follow the OMB guidance in freezing nonessential 
new hiring and we could prevent furloughs to the government workers 
carrying out essential services and mission-critical duties today.
  I have no question that some of these positions can be helpful to the 
agency which they have advertised for, but they are not necessary at 
this time until we get past this pothole in the road. Canceling job 
openings at the FAA of two community planners and four management 
program assistants would spare 1,000 air traffic controllers from 
furlough. Let me say that again. Just canceling and not hiring these 
four people at FAA could affect 1,000 Federal employees. Canceling just 
one job opening for a librarian at the Department of Agriculture could 
offset one furlough a day for as many as 750 entry-level workers at the 
Department of Agriculture.
  What we are asking is simply for the agencies to follow the guidance 
that has already been out there, and we would mandate that as part of 
this continuing resolution omnibus appropriations bill.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Coburn 
amendment. I am not going to go into the process of wanting to keep the 
bill as free of amendments as possible which has been something the 
House has requested us to do. This is the continuing resolution. It is 
not the authorization legislation and so on. We have to get this funded 
for the rest of the fiscal year 2013.
  I wish to comment about the Senator from Oklahoma in that he is often 
on to something very good. Sometimes we are so worried about clinging 
to party positions we don't listen to one another. He has been a big 
help to me on my Commerce-Justice-Science bill, where we uncovered just 
ridiculous catering situations, and we had a very good amendment one 
time that addressed an agency paying $4 for each meatball at some 
reception. I mean, truly folly, truly stupidity. So at this time, 
whether it is big government or small government but smart government, 
we do have to have a sense of frugality.
  However, I will come back to this: The Coburn amendment would propose 
a hiring freeze on all Federal employees except those deemed essential.
  In late February, OMB issued guidance instructing agencies to apply 
increased scrutiny to areas such as new hiring and to ensure that such 
actions were taken only when vital to carrying out the agency's mission 
as a result of the uncertainty in terms of agencies facing a possible 
government shutdown on March 27 and the Draconian sword of sequester 
that is already underway. The Coburn amendment would force agencies to 
rely on contracting out functions the Federal Government should be 
handling or that are more expensive to outsource simply because they 
are not allowed to hire necessary staff.
  We can debate essentials, but we are not going to do that this 
morning. What is an essential Federal employee? I have close to 300 
people working as Federal prison guards in Garrett County this morning. 
They have increasingly violent prisons. We are increasingly overcrowded 
because of the skimpy funding that even I and the Justice Department 
have to put into the prisons. We had a prison guard killed just a few 
weeks ago in our neighboring State of Pennsylvania.
  In any organization, whether it is a Federal agency or Microsoft, 
there might be a position we don't want or need or when we hear about 
it, it seems to have no value. Let's take the travel specialist. I am 
not standing here with a manual of all the civil service jobs, but here 
is what I think a travel specialist does.
  The Department of HHS has to travel, whether it is the CDC, whether 
it is NIH. They are involved with other agencies in other parts of the 
country and they are involved with counterparts in other parts of the 
world. They have to get the best deal when they travel. How many of us, 
when we have tried to book an airline--booking an airline is similar to 
commodity trading; one day it is this, one minute it is that if I call 
Delta. Maybe American is going the way I want to go, but they only land 
at 7:17, when I have to be there at 12:14. So it is akin to being a 
commodity trader. Should Sebelius be doing that on her own? I don't 
think so. Should the head of CDC be doing that? No. They need a travel 
specialist who knows how to work it and maybe, in the long run, provide 
safe travel.
  I support the direction the Senator is going in. He told me something 
I didn't know about, where some of these VA international conferences 
take over 50 people, for which I don't know what more than 50 people 
would do. So he is on the right track with many things. I think we have 
to be very careful when we are dealing with the entire civil service--
millions of people, 2 million people who work for the Federal 
Government--and put a freeze on them. Some Federal agencies have had a 
hiring freeze for some time. The Department of Defense is already under 
a civilian hiring freeze.
  It is important to recognize a hiring freeze would only have limited 
savings. A hiring freeze does not solve these problems, and it is just 
one more blow to a battered civil service. Remember, we have had civil 
service pay freezes in effect. So we have now frozen their pay for 
several years. They are facing increased costs in their pension program 
and now they are going to face furlough, and then we are going to tell 
them we don't think a lot of you are essential.
  I come back to what I said a few days ago. If we are going to have a 
democratic government, we need to have an independent civil service. We 
might not always like what they do. We might not like every position 
that is in an agency. We need a civil service that goes beyond party, 
goes beyond the administration, and performs their jobs based on 
educational qualification and a skill set, and one that is meritocracy 
based. We then can focus on making sure we have the best civil service 
in the world so we can point to what a real civil service is; thereby, 
encouraging new, emerging democracies to be able to follow our lead.
  I hope we do not accept the Coburn amendment. I hope if we are going 
to talk about the size of the government, we should do that next week 
on the budget bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. First of all, I am so excited with the chairman and 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I have to say, since I 
have been in the Senate, I have found these two individuals more than 
capable to work with and more than willing to work with me and I wish 
to congratulate them on bringing their bill to the floor.
  I have to very adamantly disagree because I think the chairman of the 
committee has missed my point. Every American family over the last 5 
years has been making tough decisions about priorities. By not hiring 
some of what most Americans--a wall can get painted 6 months later. It 
doesn't have to be painted today. As a matter of fact, if we go over to 
all the Senate and House office buildings, we see the Architect of the 
Capitol repainting all the walls, with wet signs out there, while we 
can't let the visitors into our buildings. There is something wrong 
with us in the way we are managing. We are painting walls that don't 
have to be painted at the same time we make citizens wait in line for 
an hour and a half to get into our buildings.
  It is about priorities. The fact is, if we don't fill some of these 
superfluous positions that are not absolutely necessary right now, many 
Federal employees will not get furloughed. That is the point I am 
making. I can't believe

[[Page S1831]]

we have to have a research librarian right now at the Air Force at a 
time when we don't have the money to put our pilots in the air to keep 
them trained.
  So we are not talking about essential employees. By the way, 
essential and excepted employees are prison guards. Not one of them 
will be furloughed. So if we care about Federal employees, we do not 
want to spend money on positions that are truly not necessary right 
now, given the priorities, so the rest of the Federal workforce can be 
there.
  Let me go back through this list again. Is it important to hire a 
lawyer for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship Foundation at a salary of 
$155,000 right now? Is that important? How many people in the Federal 
Government would that keep from being furloughed and the services 
continue if we don't fill that position? How about an executive 
assistant to the Department of Agriculture Forest Service to prepare 
itineraries and briefing and information material packages at $57,000.
  What we don't get is all the rest of America is doing this already 
and now the OMB has recommended we do it and the agencies will not do 
it. We ought to tell them to do it for the benefit of the Federal 
employees who are working for us right now because they are the ones 
who are going to get furloughed. By not hiring these absolutely--I 
don't doubt they are positions we can use and are effective in many 
areas, but they are not a priority right now. I would think the 
priority right now would be having the people we have employed working.
  How about a leadership development specialist at Treasury; is that 
really a priority right now, at $182,000 a year? That is a priority, 
while laying off IRS employees so people get their refund back? Tell me 
which one is more important. I would think the American taxpayers would 
rather get an answer than a busy signal when they call the IRS versus 
us hiring a leadership development specialist. There are 23 openings 
related to recreation at the FDA right now--for recreation. Is that 
truly a priority for us right now?
  We have a 60-vote limit on this. I am fine with a 60-vote threshold. 
But America is going to vote 80 percent or 90 percent with what I am 
recommending. We have a 60-vote threshold so we can make sure it 
doesn't happen, so we don't apply priorities, so we don't apply common 
sense, and everybody knows that if this was at a 50-vote margin, it 
would fly through here. The reason it is 60 is so we can protect people 
politically and not do the best right thing for America.
  This bill is going to go through here. We are going to pass it. The 
government isn't going to be shut down. We are going to conference it 
and get it worked out. Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski will get 
that job done. We have absolute confidence in them.
  This isn't a deal killer; this is common sense. This is what every 
business, every family in America is doing right now. They don't spend 
money they don't have on things that aren't absolutely necessary, and 
that is all this amendment does.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COBURN. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the first amendment vote today will be on 
the amendment I laid down yesterday on the Labor-HHS part of this so-
called continuing resolution.
  As I pointed out yesterday, the amount of money I am dealing with in 
my amendment is exactly what is in the CR. There is no additional money 
in there, but you need to understand whoever negotiated this package 
kept Labor-HHS, NIH, and others in a CR rather than in a bill form.
  Interestingly enough, in the package before us Defense receives a 
full-length appropriations bill, as well as Homeland Security, 
Agriculture, Military Construction, Commerce-Justice-Science. They 
receive a full appropriations bill but not Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education and Related Agencies. Interesting.
  The one bill which speaks to educating our young, ensuring working 
families have adequate childcare protection, increasing our medical 
research to NIH, protecting food safety and drug safety through the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--this must be on autopilot 
from last year and the year before. Therefore, my amendment costs 
exactly what is in the underlying CR.
  What is in this amendment was agreed upon by the House Democrats and 
House Republicans, Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats in our 
negotiations last December in the Appropriations Committee.
  There is a lot of talk about being bipartisan around here. We engaged 
in bipartisan negotiations last fall. It took us months, and we reached 
an agreement in December. That is bipartisan work. My amendment mirrors 
exactly what that agreement was. I am told now all Republicans are 
going to vote no. Why? Why, I ask?
  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act under the CR contains 
no increase. Under my amendment, there would be a $125 million 
increase.
  Title I for poor kids in school has a $107 million increase in my 
amendment and no increase in the underlying bill.
  NIH in the underlying bill contains a $71 million increase and under 
my amendment a $211 million increase.
  Childcare in the underlying bill is $50 million and my amendment is 
$107 million.
  AIDS drugs, there is no increase in the underlying bill but a $29 
million increase in my amendment.
  These are things we hammered out through tough negotiations last 
December.
  I know the Senator from Alabama has said there were some open items 
we didn't include. No, of course I didn't include open items, because 
they weren't agreed to. What I have in my amendment is what we agreed 
to, with one exception. As I said yesterday, there is no additional 
funding for health care reform, which Republicans are objecting to. It 
is not in my amendment, and still they are objecting.
  Republicans say this amendment will kill the whole package. I must 
ask why funding these and keeping within the same dollar level as in 
the underlying bill kills the bill?
  Chairman Rogers, a Republican on the House side, helped negotiate 
these numbers last December. I hear a lot of talk on both sides of the 
aisle about how much they support NIH, how much they support biomedical 
research. I say to my Republican friends, here is the time to prove it, 
$211 million versus $71 million. There is no increase in my amendment 
of the underlying bill at all. Because we did a bill rather than a CR, 
we may move numbers around a little bit.
  I want to know, where are the champions of NIH? Where are they? This 
is the chance to vote on it and not increase spending one single dime.
  I would point out a number of medical groups and research groups have 
endorsed this amendment: the American Cancer Society, the American 
Dental Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American 
Heart Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, BIO, 
Parkinson's Action Network, and more. Almost 300 patient advocacy 
groups and scientific societies support this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent a list of these groups be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                   Groups Supporting Harkin Amendment

       Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding, AIDS Institute, 
     AIDS United, American Association of Community Colleges, 
     American Association of School Administrators, American 
     Cancer Society, American Dental Association, American 
     Diabetes Association, American Federation of Government 
     Employees, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, American Federation of Teachers 
     American Heart Association.
       Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of 
     Assistive Technology Act Programs, Association of Community 
     College Trustees, Association of Farmworker Opportunity 
     Programs, BIO, Center for Law and

[[Page S1832]]

     Social Policy, Child Care Aware of America, Coalition on 
     Human Needs, College Board, Committee for Education Funding, 
     Community Action Partnership, Council for Adult and 
     Experiential Learning, Council for Advancement of Adult 
     Literacy.
       Corporate Voices for Working Families, Corporation for a 
     Skilled Workforce, Council for Exceptional Children, Council 
     for Opportunity in Education (TRIO), Council of Chief State 
     School Officers, Council of the Great City Schools, Early 
     Care and Education Consortium, First Five Years Fund, Friends 
     of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research 
     (FNIDCR), Great City Schools, Insight Center for Community 
     Economic Development, Jobs for the Future, National 
     Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC).
       National Association of Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS), 
     National Association of State Alcohol & Drug Abuse Directors, 
     National Association for the Education of Young Children, 
     National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, National 
     Coalition for Literacy, National College Transition Network 
     at World Education, Inc., National Council for Workforce 
     Education, National Education Association, National Head 
     Start Association, National League of Cities, National 
     Network to End Domestic Violence, National PTA.
       National School Boards Association, National Skills 
     Coalition, National Title I Association, National Transitions 
     of Care Coalition, National Women's Law Center, Ovarian 
     Cancer National Alliance, Parkinson's Action Network, PACER 
     Center (Minnesota), Sargent Shriver National Center on 
     Poverty Law, Teach for America, The Corps Network, Trust for 
     America's Health, Wider Opportunities for Women, Zero to 
     Three.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I say why would this amendment kill 
the bill? It was agreed to by the distinguished chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers, last December. This is what 
we agreed to. Why is it the one bill in Appropriations which speaks to 
the human needs of our country, the educational needs of our kids, the 
scientific and research needs we need for addressing some of our 
chronic illnesses in this country--why is this bill singled out? Why is 
it singled out to not have a full-standing bill but must be in the 
continuing resolution at the same level on autopilot as last year? I 
submit we can make these decisions. We can decide we are going to do 
these kinds of increases, keeping within the same dollar level as we 
have in the underlying bill.
  I don't believe this will kill the bill. I believe those who don't 
want these increases, who don't want to see an increase in NIH will 
hold us up and say, yes, it will kill the bill. This is an idle threat. 
That is what it is, simply an idle threat. This is the third year now 
where they have put these programs on autopilot.
  I daresay if we don't do this, this will be the last, we have seen 
the last of the Labor-HHS appropriations bills ever passed in this body 
or the other body for many years into the future. We will still be on 
autopilot. Now is the time to step up, break that trend of putting us 
on autopilot every year. Now is the time for us to make these 
decisions. I hope the champions of NIH, who say they are champions of 
NIH, will step up and support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 53 offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Under the previous order 
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is 
rejected.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 66

  Under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment No. 66, 
offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 2 minutes. After my remarks, I ask that the senior Senator from 
Arizona be recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask that I be recognized when the 
senior Senator from Arizona has finished his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I don't yet want to call up my 
amendment--I have been working with Chairman Mikulski on this--until 
they get an agreement. However, I will discuss for a moment amendment 
No. 83, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Isakson of Georgia. It 
does help us restore what Senator Mikulski has been working toward, 
which is regular order in this Chamber.
  This is an amendment having to do with some language dealing with a

[[Page S1833]]

pilot project with customs and privatization that Senator Landrieu has 
supported. I have spoken to Senator Landrieu about this issue, and we 
need to talk through some other things. If we are going to do regular 
order the way we need to, this language should come in front of the 
Finance Committee to work out these issues, where Senator Isakson and I 
sit. I think we should not succumb to the temptation to legislate 
through appropriations, and this would be one way of doing that.
  Later I will ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 83, sponsored 
by me and Senator Isakson. I appreciate the forbearance of Senator 
McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. BROWN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the chairwoman, Senator 
Mikulski, for allowing me to speak as if in morning business.


                                 Syria

  On March 15, 2011, thousands of Syrian men, women, and children in 
the city of Deraa gathered together in a public square that is known 
today as Dignity Square. They came together to peacefully protest 
against the Syrian regime's decision to arrest and torture a group of 
15 teenagers whose crime had been exercising their universally 
recognized rights to free speech. Their crime was speaking truth to 
those in power in Syria. They sketched on the wall of their school a 
statement that remains true in Syria today: ``The people want the 
regime to fall.''
  Since these peaceful calls for change were first heard in Syria 2 
years ago, more than 70,000 men, women, and children have been 
massacred by the Assad regime. More than 1 million refugees have fled 
their country at a rate of 8,000 people each day as of last month, and 
2.5 million people have been displaced within their country. Only the 
genocide in Rwanda and the first Iraq war have driven more people to 
refugee status over a similar period of time.
  These facts and figures are startling. Behind each statistic is a 
profound human tragedy to which we cannot grow numb as the conflict in 
Syria presses on into a third year. I certainly cannot.
  Last April Senator Joe Lieberman and I visited a Syrian refugee camp 
in southern Turkey, and earlier this year I traveled together with 
Senators Whitehouse, Ayotte, Blumenthal, and Coons to the Zaatari 
refugee camp in Jordan. I have seen my share of suffering and death, 
but the horror I saw in those camps and the stories I heard still haunt 
me today. There were men who had lost all their children, women and 
girls who had been gang-raped, children who had been tortured, and none 
of these were the random acts of cruelty that sadly occur in war. 
Syrian Army defectors told us that killing, raping, and torture was 
what they were instructed to do as a tactic of terror and intimidation. 
So if I get a little emotional when I talk about Syria, that is why.
  The cost--both strategic and humanitarian--of this conflict has been 
and will continue to be devastating. Earlier this week UNICEF released 
a report detailing the impact of Syria's 2-year conflict on the 
children of Syria. The report states:

       In Syria, children have been exposed to grave human rights 
     violations, including killing and maiming, sexual violence, 
     torture, arbitrary detention, recruitment and use by armed 
     forces and groups, and exposure to explosive remnants of war. 
     . . . As millions of children inside Syria and across the 
     region witness their past and their future disappear amidst 
     the rubble and destruction of this prolonged conflict, the 
     risk of them becoming a lost generation grows every day.

  The conflict in Syria is breeding a lost generation--a whole new 
generation of extremists. Earlier this year I met a Syrian teacher in 
the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan who told me that the generation of 
young Syrians growing up in these camps and inside Syria will take 
revenge on those who did nothing to help them in their hour of greatest 
need. We should be ashamed of our collective failure to come to the aid 
of the Syrian people. But more than that, we should be deeply 
concerned. As much as I want to disagree with that Syrian teacher, I am 
haunted by the belief that she is exactly right.
  As the conflict of Syria enters its third year, we cannot lose sight 
of the clear trend toward escalation both in the nature and quality of 
the killing. In recent months the use of SCUD missiles against 
civilians fits into a pattern of forced escalation by the Assad regime 
over the past year.
  In January 2012 the regime began to use artillery as Syrian 
opposition forces became more capable against regime ground forces. In 
June 2012 Assad escalated his use of air power because the rebels were 
gaining control of the countryside. Today the regime is intensifying 
its air campaign by firing SCUD missiles at civilian populations, which 
is taking a deadly toll, particularly in the north where thousands of 
civilians have been killed over the past several weeks.
  The regime's escalation to Scud missiles--which can be used as 
delivery vehicles for chemical weapons--should be alarming to us all. 
According to a recent report from the Washington Institute for Near 
East Policy, Scud missiles can deliver a 1,000-pound, high-explosive 
warhead or a chemical agent and, as the report states:

       The rebels have no means of knowing when the missiles have 
     been fired, where they are going, or what kinds of warheads 
     are on board. In fact, even with good intelligence 
     collection, there is no reliable way to know which Scuds have 
     been uploaded with chemical warheads.

  Let there be no doubt that the threat of chemical weapons is real. I 
note this morning's headline from the Associated Press: ``Israel's 
Military Intelligence Chief says Syria's Assad readying to use chemical 
weapons.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Washington Post be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Israel's Military Intelligence Chief says Syria's Assad Readying to Use 
                            Chemical Weapons

                         (By Associated Press)

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2013]

       Jerusalem.--Israel's military intelligence chief says 
     Syria's embattled president, Bashar Assad, is preparing to 
     use chemical weapons.
       Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi told a security conference in the 
     coastal town of Herzliya that Assad is stepping up his 
     offensive against rebels trying to oust him.
       Kochavi claims Assad is making advanced preparations to use 
     chemical weapons, but has not yet given the order to deploy 
     them.
       He did not disclose information about why he thinks Assad 
     is preparing to use them.
       Israel has long expressed concerns that Assad's stockpile 
     of chemical weapons could end up in the hands of groups 
     hostile to Israel like Hezbollah or al-Qaida inspired 
     organizations.
       Israel has kept out of Syria's civil war, but it is 
     concerned that violence could spill over the border into 
     northern Israel.

  Mr. McCAIN. This is a dangerous and unfair fight, and the costs to 
the United States are significant. Russia and Iran are Assad's 
lifelines in this brutal fight. Iran continues to use Iraqi airspace to 
fly fighters and large quantities of weapons to Syria to help Assad 
with the killing. As many as 50,000 Syrians, militiamen, in Syria are 
being supported by Tehran and Hezbollah, according to a Washington Post 
report. Meanwhile, Russia continues to ship heavy weapons to Assad--
including, as senior Obama administration officials have stated, the 
very helicopter gunships the regime is currently using to bomb and 
shatter civilians.
  As the United States and the international community stand idle, the 
consequences are clear. Syria will become a failed State in the heart 
of the Middle East, threatening both our ally Israel and our NATO ally 
Turkey. With or without Assad, the country will continue to devolve 
into a full-scale civil war that is increasingly sectarian, repressive, 
and unstable. In the meantime, more and more ungoverned space will come 
under the control of al-Qaida and its allies. Violence and radicalism 
will spill even more into Lebanon and Iraq, fueling sectarian conflicts 
that are still burning in both countries. Syria will turn into a 
battlefield between Sunni and Shia extremists, each backed by foreign 
powers which will ignite sectarian tensions from North America to the 
gulf and risk a wider regional conflict. This is the course we are on 
in Syria, and in the absence of international action, the situation 
will only get worse.
  Although Secretary Kerry and other administration officials have said 
our goal in Syria is to ``change Assad's calculus'' and make room for a 
negotiated transition, the truth is, in the absence

[[Page S1834]]

of a shift in the balance of military power on the ground, that is a 
hopeless goal. What the administration does not seem to realize is what 
President Bill Clinton came to understand in Bosnia--that a diplomatic 
resolution in conflict such as this is not possible until the military 
balance of power changes on the ground. As long as a murderous 
dictator, be it Slobodan Milosevic or Bashar al-Assad, believes he is 
winning on the battlefield, he has no incentive to stop fighting and 
negotiate.
  Our European powers--led by the French and British--seem to 
understand this clearly, which is why they are urgently working to 
persuade their allies to lift an embargo to supply arms to the Syrian 
opposition. They understand that only a change in military power will 
bring this conflict to an end.
  The same is true for the regime's foreign supporters. Despite 
destroying Russia's reputation in the Arab world, the Russian 
Government has stuck with Assad for nearly 2 years now. What makes us 
think President Putin is about to change course now, when Assad is 
still a dominant power on the ground?
  The Syrian opposition needs our help to change the balance of power 
on the ground. I have had the honor of meeting one of the key leaders 
of the Syrian opposition led by a man named Sheikh al-Khatib, the 
President of the Syrian National Coalition. Sheikh al-Khatib and the 
national coalition are doing everything the international community 
asks of them. They have worked to bring together credible moderate 
members of the Syrian opposition. They are building institutions, both 
civilian and military.
  While the United States and our partners deserve credit in helping 
and pushing them to do so, when the opposition coalition asks 
responsible nations for support--when they ask us to help them in 
coordinating the distribution of aid, governing the liberated areas, 
and ultimately forming a transitional government--when they have asked 
us for this assistance, what have we done for them? Next to nothing.
  Sheikh al-Khatib and the other moderate leaders of the Syrian 
opposition are struggling desperately to be relevant to their fellow 
citizens who are fighting and dying every day inside the country. I 
believe most Syrians do not support al-Qaida. But many of us in the 
West are still mired in our own internal debates about whether to 
provide nonlethal assistance or whether to continue to provide 
assistance through international NGOs--many of which, I would add, 
still function with the permission of the Assad regime and deliver most 
of their aid in Damascus--the fight in Syria is being won by 
extremists.
  Al-Qaida fighters are showing up in greater numbers in the liberated 
areas of Syria with capable fighters and food and medicine and other 
aid. Is it any wonder, then, that extremists are gaining ground in 
Syria?
  It is this simple: What is left of the moderate Syrian opposition is 
in a race against time to survive the radicalization of this conflict 
and, right now, the world is failing them. The longer we fail them, the 
worse the outcome will be for us all.
  The time to act is long overdue, but it is not too late. I know many 
wish to avoid this reality by telling themselves and others there is 
nothing we can do in Syria, that our only options are to let the 
Syrians fight it out alone to the bitter end or to launch a massive and 
costly military intervention. But the truth is there are many options 
that we have the capability to undertake that would save lives and 
protect our important strategic interests in Syria.
  First, the fact that the opposition in Syria is doing better 
militarily thanks to external support seems to validate what many of us 
have been arguing for months; that opposition forces have enough 
organization to be supportable and that our support can help them to 
further improve their organization and command and control. This is an 
argument for doing more, not less, to aid the rebel fighters in Syria, 
including providing responsible members of the armed opposition who 
share our goals and our values with the arms they need to succeed.
  In a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, I 
asked Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey whether they agreed with a proposal 
reportedly developed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 
former CIA Director David Petraeus last summer to have the United 
States arm and train members of the Syrian opposition. I was very 
pleased to hear both Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey state that 
they supported this proposal which, unfortunately, was refused by the 
White House. What this means is that the President overruled the senior 
leaders of his own national security team who were in unanimous 
agreement that America needs to take greater action to change the 
military balance of power in Syria.

  Beyond providing arms to the opposition, we have other capabilities 
at our disposal that could make a decisive difference on the ground and 
save lives. I will give just two examples. NATO has deployed PATRIOT 
missile batteries in Turkey that are capable of shooting down Syrian 
aircraft as far south as Aleppo. We could establish a limited no-fly 
zone using these systems and, believe me, after the first few Syrian 
aircraft are shot down, I doubt Assad's pilots will be lining up to fly 
missions anymore. Another option would be to destroy Assad's aircraft 
on their runways with cruise missiles and other standoff weapons. 
Either way, we can take Syrian air power off the table.
  Once defended, these safe havens could become platforms for increased 
deliveries of food and medicine, communications equipment, doctors to 
treat the wounded, and other nonlethal assistance. They could also 
serve as staging areas for armed opposition groups to receive 
battlefield intelligence, body armor, and weapons--from small arms and 
ammunition to antitank rockets--and to train and organize themselves 
more effectively, perhaps with foreign assistance. The goal would be to 
expand the reach of these safe havens across more of the country.
  Would these actions immediately end the conflict? No. But would they 
save lives in Syria? Would they give the moderate opposition a better 
chance to succeed and marginalize the radicals? Would they help the 
West regain the trust of the Syrian people? Do we have the capability 
to make a difference? To me, the answer to all these questions is 
clearly yes. Yes, there are risks to greater involvement in Syria. The 
opposition is still struggling to get organized. Al-Qaida and the other 
extremists are working to hijack the revolution, and there are already 
reports of reprisal killings of Alawites. These risks are real and 
serious, but the risks of continuing to do nothing are worse.
  What is needed is American leadership. What is needed is a reminder 
of the words Abraham Lincoln spoke in his annual message to Congress in 
1862: ``We--even we here--hold the power, and bear the 
responsibility.''
  As we mark 2 years of this horrific conflict, if there were ever a 
case that should remind us of this responsibility, it is that of Syria.
  A few months ago, The Washington Post interviewed a young Bosnian man 
who had survived the genocide of Srebrenica in 1995. This is how he 
sees the ongoing slaughter in Syria:

       It's bazaar how ``never again'' has come to mean ``again 
     and again,'' he said. It's obvious that we live in a world 
     where Srebrenicas are still possible. What's happening in 
     Syria today is almost identical to what happened in Bosnia 
     two decades ago.

  He could not be more correct. The conflict in Syria today is nearly 
indistinguishable from that in Bosnia during the 1990s. As Leon 
Wieseltier wrote earlier this week in ``The New Republic''--I ask 
unanimous consent that the complete column by Leon Wieseltier be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Syria, Bosnia, and the Old Mistakes

                          (By Leon Wieseltier)

       ``One could never have supposed that, after passing through 
     so many trials, after being schooled by the skepticism of our 
     times, we had so much left in our souls to be destroyed.'' 
     Alexander Herzen wrote those words in 1848, after he 
     witnessed the savage crackdown on the workers' rebellion in 
     Paris. Having been disabused by history of any illusions 
     about the probabilities of justice, the great man was 
     surprised to discover that he had not yet been completely 
     disabused--that his belief in the betterment of human 
     affairs, however mutilated by experience, was still intact; 
     and what apprised him of his irreducible idealism was his 
     broken

[[Page S1835]]

     heart. In 1995, I cited Herzen's pessimistic optimism, or 
     optimistic pessimism, in an angry article about Bosnia and 
     the Western failure there, and glossed the lacerating 
     sentence this way: ``They did not suppose that they had so 
     much left in their souls to be destroyed! What basis for 
     bitterness do those words leave us, who have witnessed 
     atrocities of which the nineteenth century only dreamed, who 
     have watched totalitarian slaughter give way to post-
     totalitarian slaughter, and the racial and tribal wars of 
     empire give way to the racial and tribal wars of empire's 
     aftermath? But bitterness is regularly refreshed . . .'' 
     Forgive my quotation of myself, but I have been reading in 
     the old Bosnian materials, in the writings of the reporters 
     and the intellectuals who campaigned for American action to 
     stop a genocide. I have been doing so because my Bosnian 
     bitterness has been refreshed by Syria.
       I am finding crushing parallels: a president who is 
     satisfied to be a bystander, and ornaments his prevarications 
     with high moral pronouncements; an extenuation of American 
     passivity by appeals to insurmountable complexities and 
     obscurities on the ground, and to ethnic and religious 
     divisions too deep and too old to be modified by statecraft, 
     and to ominous warnings of unanticipated consequences, as if 
     consequences are ever all anticipated; an arms embargo 
     against the people who require arms most, who are the victims 
     of state power; the use of rape and torture and murder 
     against civilians as open instruments of war; the universal 
     knowledge of crimes against humanity and the failure of that 
     knowledge to affect the policy-making will; the dailiness of 
     the atrocity, its unimpeded progress, the long duration of 
     our shame in doing nothing about it. The parallels are not 
     perfect, of course. Only 70,000 people have been killed in 
     Syria, so what's the rush? Strategically speaking, moreover, 
     the imperative to intervene in Syria is far more considerable 
     than the imperative to intervene in Bosnia was. Assad is the 
     client of Iran and the patron of Hezbollah: his destruction 
     is an American dream. But his replacement by an Al Qaeda 
     regime is an American nightmare, and our incomprehensible 
     refusal to arm the Syrian rebels who oppose Al Qaeda even as 
     they oppose Assad will have the effect of bringing the 
     nightmare to pass. Secretary of State Kerry seems to desire a 
     new Syrian policy, but he is busily giving our side in the 
     conflict--if we are to have a side by the time this is over--
     everything but what it really needs.
       We must mark an anniversary. It has been two years since 
     fifteen teenagers in the town of Dara'a scrawled ``the people 
     want the regime to fall'' on the wall of a school, and were 
     arrested and then tortured for their temerity. The protest 
     that erupted in Dara'a, in the area in front of a mosque that 
     was dubbed ``Dignity Square,'' was a democratic rebellion, 
     and it swiftly spread. In Dara'a it was met by a crackdown 
     whose brutalities were documented in an unforgettably 
     chilling report by Human Rights Watch a few months later. 
     Dissolve now to Aleppo in ruins, where the dictator is 
     hurling ballistic missiles at his own population. Two years. 
     The Obama administration may as well not have existed. Though 
     two years into the Bosnian genocide Bill Clinton was still 
     more than a year away from bestirring himself morally and 
     militarily, so what's the rush? Clinton acted after the 
     massacre at Srebrenica. But Syria has already had its 
     Srebrenicas, and Obama is still elaborate and unmoved. He 
     also worries about a Russian response to American action, 
     when Putin's obstructionism in fact perfectly suits Obama's 
     preference for American inaction. People around the White 
     House tell me that Syria is agonizing for him. So what? It is 
     hard to admire the agony of the bystander, especially if the 
     bystander has the capability to act against the horror. Obama 
     likes to drape himself in Lincoln's language, so he should 
     ponder these words, from the Annual Message to Congress in 
     1862: ``We--even we here--hold the power, and bear the 
     responsibility.'' Obama wants the power but not the 
     responsibility. Unfortunately for him, the one brings the 
     other.
       Not even the advent of Barack Obama can abrogate what was 
     learned in Bosnia in the antiquity of the twentieth century: 
     that in the case of moral emergencies, those with the ability 
     to act have the duty to act; that even justified action is 
     attended by uncertainty; that military force can do good as 
     well as evil, and that war is not the only, or the worst, 
     evil; that the withdrawal of the United States from global 
     leadership is an invitation to tyranny and inhumanity; that 
     American foreign policy must be animated by principle as well 
     by prudence, though there is nothing historically imprudent 
     about setting oneself resolutely on the side of decency and 
     democracy. ``How do I weigh tens of thousands who've been 
     killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are 
     currently being killed in the Congo?'' Obama recently told 
     this magazine, as an example of how he ``wrestle[s]'' with 
     the problem. Do not be fooled. It is not wrestling. It is 
     casuistry. He has no intention of coming to the assistance of 
     Congo, either. Obama is a strong cosmopolitan but a weak 
     internationalist. And he is, with his inclination to 
     disinvolvement, and his almost clinical confidence in his own 
     sagacity, implicating us in a disgrace, even we here.

  Mr. McCAIN. Again, as Leon Wieseltier wrote earlier this week in the 
New Republic:

       I am finding crushing parallels: A President who is 
     satisfied to be a bystander, and ornaments his prevarications 
     with high moral pronouncements; an extenuation of American 
     passivity by appeals to insurmountable complexities and 
     obscurities on the ground, and to ethnic and religious 
     divisions too deep and too old to be modified by statecraft, 
     and to ominous warnings of anticipated consequences, as if 
     consequences are ever all anticipated; an arms embargo 
     against the people who require arms most, who are the victims 
     of state power; the use of rape and torture and murder 
     against civilians as open instruments of war; the universal 
     knowledge of crimes against humanity and the failure of that 
     knowledge to affect the policy-making will; the dailiness of 
     the atrocity, its unimpeded progress, the long duration of 
     our shame in doing nothing about it. The parallels are not 
     perfect, of course. Only 70,000 people have been killed in 
     Syria, so what's the rush?

  We must ask ourselves: How many more innocent people must die before 
we take action?
  Amidst these crushing parallels, there is one key difference. In 
Bosnia, President Clinton finally summoned the courage to lead the 
world to intervene and stop the killing. It is worth recalling his 
words upon ordering military action in Bosnia in 1995:

       There are times and places where our leadership can mean 
     the difference between peace and war, and where we can defend 
     our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic, 
     strategic interests. [T]here are still times when America and 
     America alone can and should make the difference for peace.

  Those were the words of a Democratic President who led America to do 
the right thing in stopping mass atrocities in Bosnia, and I remember 
working with my Republican colleague Senator Bob Dole to support 
President Clinton in that endeavor.
  The question for another Democratic President today, and for all of 
us in a position of responsibility, is whether we will again answer the 
desperate pleas for rescue that are made uniquely to us as the United 
States of America, and whether we will use our great power, as we have 
done before at our best, not simply to advance our own interests but to 
serve a just cause that is greater than our interests alone.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, may I take this opportunity to thank 
Senator McCain for his call to our consciences on the massacres in 
Syria by the tyrant Assad. I thank him for his reminder to us all that 
in the case of moral emergencies, those with the ability to act have 
the duty to act, and I thank him for his efforts to call us to that 
duty.
  While he is here on the floor, I would like to also take this chance 
to join in the warm remarks from colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
on this 40th anniversary of his release from captivity in North 
Vietnam--an anniversary that could have come a good deal sooner had he 
not been so courageously stubborn in refusing to leave his comrades in 
captivity.


                           Order of Procedure

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess 
following my statement until 2:15 p.m. and that the first-degree 
amendment filing deadline be at 3 o'clock today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Climate Change Obstructionism

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today, as I have at least two 
dozen times in the past year, to say again that it is time for us to 
wake up to the stark reality of the climate changes carbon pollution is 
causing.
  Elected officials bear a responsibility every once in a while to 
escape the grip of the polluting special interests and to act in the 
interests of regular Americans. We need to wake up and start talking 
about the negative consequences, the harms of climate change. We need 
to wake up and mitigate--take steps to protect ourselves--and adapt to 
the consequences that are already hitting our coasts and our forests, 
our cities and our farms, our economy and our way of life.

[[Page S1836]]

  But, of course, the climate deniers and the polluters do not want 
that. The deniers want to prevent discussion of climate change 
altogether. In the past few years, in this body, climate science has 
become a taboo topic.
  I watched, when my back was out in the last few days, one of the 
Harry Potter movies on television. Lord Voldemort was called ``He-Who-
Shall-Not-Be-Named'' in those Harry Potter stories. Well, carbon 
pollution is the ``Pollution Which Shall Not Be Named.'' Climate 
change--the harm that is caused by that pollution--is the ``Harm That 
Shall Not Be Named.''
  The obstructionists want to squelch any discussion of the ``Pollution 
Which Shall Not Be Named'' so as to let big polluters continue dumping 
carbon and other greenhouse gas into our oceans and atmosphere.
  Take, for instance, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence 
and Global Warming, created in 2007 as a forum for confronting the 
economic and security challenges of our dependence on foreign fuels. 
When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011, 
they disbanded that committee. End of discussion.
  Between May 2011 and December 2012, our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives, Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush, who were the Democratic 
ranking members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, wrote 21 letters--21 letters--to 
Chairmen Fred Upton and Ed Whitfield requesting hearings on climate 
change. To date, there has been no response, no hearings. End of 
discussion.
  House Republicans have tried to prevent the Department of the 
Interior and the Department of Agriculture from funding their climate 
adaptation plans--commonsense efforts to preserve our resources, 
protect our farmers, and save taxpayer dollars. But, no, end of 
discussion.
  I am sad to say that it is not just the House of Representatives. In 
the Senate, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, Democrats 
have been informed that there will be opposition to any legislation 
that mentions climate change. It is one thing to want to oppose any 
legislation that does anything about climate change. This is a further 
step. The mere mention of climate change is enough to provoke 
Republican opposition. End of discussion.
  The taboo is being applied elsewhere in this Chamber. Just this week 
a Republican Senator demanded that the following language be stricken 
from a noncontroversial Senate resolution. We pass resolutions here in 
the Senate all the time by unanimous consent. A Republican Senator 
said: No, I am going to withhold my consent. I am going to deny the 
ability of the resolution unless this offending language is removed. 
What was the offending language? I will quote:

       [W]omen in developing countries are disproportionately 
     affected by changes in climate because of their need to 
     secure water, food, and fuel for their livelihood.

  This body unanimously approved identical language in the last 
Congress, but today that mention of climate change in an otherwise 
noncontroversial resolution draws automatic Republican opposition. 
Again, end of discussion.
  And they are not just trying to squelch the legislative branch. In 
the executive branch, they have tried to defund salaries for White 
House climate advisers and withhold U.S. funds from the United Nations 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Again, end of discussion.
  Now, you might think that in these efforts to attack funding, at 
least they are motivated by a desire to cut spending. But then what 
would be the motivation behind House Republicans blocking a no-cost 
restructuring of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
that would have created a National Climate Service that is akin to the 
National Weather Service--a simple reorganization that would have 
centralized information about climate change, information which is in 
high demand by State and local governments and by the business 
community? Again, the purpose is obvious: try to end the discussion.
  I would remind my colleagues who are trying to silence this 
discussion with political power that history teaches, quite plainly, 
that in contests between power and truth, truth always wins in the end. 
The Inquisition tried to silence Galileo, but the Enlightenment 
happened anyway, and the Earth does still spin around the Sun.
  Chris McEntee, who is the executive director of the American 
Geophysical Union, said:

       Limiting access to this kind of climate information won't 
     make climate change go away.

  And shareholders and directors of corporations should consider what 
it will mean for the corporations that used their power to suppress the 
truth once that truth becomes inescapable, once it is undeniable and 
the denial campaign is seen as a fraud.
  This Republican policy of climate change denial is alive and well at 
the State level too. In 2010 Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli 
used his powers of office to harass former University of Virginia 
climatologist Michael Mann and 39 other climate scientists and staff. 
As a UVA grad, I am proud that the university fought back against this 
political attack on science and on academic freedom.
  Said UVA:

       [The attorney general's] action and the potential threat of 
     legal prosecution of scientific endeavor that has satisfied 
     peer-review standards send a chilling message to scientists 
     engaged in basic research involving Earth's climate and 
     indeed to scholars in any discipline. Such actions directly 
     threaten academic freedom and, thus, our ability to generate 
     the knowledge upon which informed public policy relies.

  The victim of this harassment, Professor Mann, was more blunt. He 
called out this witch hunt as ``a coordinated assault against the 
scientific community by powerful vested interests who simply want to 
stick their heads in the sand and deny the problem of human-caused 
climate change, rather than engage in the good faith debate about what 
to do about it.''
  I would note that the Virginia Supreme Court ruled Attorney General 
Cuccinelli's so-called investigation groundless. But that was not 
enough for obstructionists in Virginia. Last year the Republican 
Virginia Senate struck from a joint resolution titled ``Requesting the 
Virginia Institute of Marine Science to study strategies for adaptation 
to relative sea-level rise in Tidewater Virginia localities''--they 
struck from that title the phrase ``sea-level rise'' both in the title 
and again in the text of the resolution. News outlets reported--get 
this--that this was because ``sea-level rise'' was believed to be a 
``left-wing term.'' Add ``sea-level rise'' to the ``Harms Which Shall 
Not Be Named.''
  In North Carolina, you can still say ``sea-level rise,'' but you 
cannot predict it or plan for it. That is because last year North 
Carolina's Republican-dominated legislature passed a bill requiring, as 
a matter of law, that North Carolina coastal policy be based on 
historic rates of sea-level rise rather than on what North Carolina 
scientists actually predict. This means that even though North Carolina 
scientists predict 39 inches of sea-level rise within the century, 
North Carolina, by its own law, is only allowed to prepare for 8. King 
Canute would be so proud.
  Further down, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 
wrote a report more than a year ago on the risks climate change poses 
to the Palmetto State, but it was never released to the public. The 
State newspaper managed to obtain a copy of that study. The report 
calls for South Carolina to prepare for increases in wildlife disease, 
loss of prime hunting habitat, and the invasion of non-native species. 
But to Republicans, these are more ``Problems Which Shall Not Be 
Named.''
  In South Dakota, the Republican legislature, in 2010, even passed a 
nonbinding resolution calling for teaching in public schools that 
relies on a number of common and thoroughly debunked climate denier 
claims--in short, bringing climate denier propaganda into public high 
school science classes.
  Who might be behind this concerted effort to make climate science and 
climate change taboo subjects--``Problems Which Shall Not Be Named''? 
Well, look at ALEC, the conservative American Legislative Exchange 
Council, which peddles climate denier legislation and undermines local 
and national efforts to protect against climate change. Look at ALEC's 
board of directors, comprised of lobbyists from ExxonMobil, Peabody 
Energy, and Koch Industries. Look at the array of

[[Page S1837]]

bogus denial organizations propped up to create doubt in this debate.
  Against this tide of propaganda and nonsense stands States, including 
Rhode Island, that already cap and reduce carbon emissions. Nineteen 
States have climate adaptation plans completed or in progress. Thirty-
one States have a renewable and/or alternative energy portfolio 
standard.
  Twenty-three States require State buildings to meet Leadership in 
Energy and Environmental Design or LEED standards.
  The obstructionists may be well funded by the polluting special 
interests, but the majority of the American people--the vast majority 
of the American people--understand that climate change is a very real 
problem. They want their leaders to take action. Americans want their 
leaders to listen to the climate scientists. They want us to plan and 
to prepare, to limit, to mitigate, and to adapt to the changes that are 
coming.
  Here in Congress it is long past time to move forward with meaningful 
action. That is why I am working with several colleagues to establish a 
fee on carbon pollution. As I said in my remarks last week, the idea is 
a simple one. It is basic market 101, law 101, and fairness 101. If you 
are creating a cost that someone else has to bear, that cost should be 
put back into the price of the product.
  The big carbon polluters should pay a fee to the American people to 
cover the cost of their dumping their waste into our oceans and air. It 
is a cost they now happily push off onto the rest of us, allowing them 
an unfair and improper market advantage, in effect to cheat against 
rival energy sources. The deniers want to make this the problem which 
shall not be named. But I am here to name it, as are many others. I am 
here to shame them if I can, if shame is a feeling a big corporation 
can even have. I am here to see to it that we wake up and that we get 
to work.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________