[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 65 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3308-S3319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to
support a bipartisan amendment I worked on with Senator Wicker to make
our communities more resilient in an era of extreme weather that we
live in. No corner of America is being spared: blazing wildfires in the
West, massive tornadoes in the South, crippling droughts in the
Midwest, routine hurricanes battering the gulf coast and the northeast
coast.
We cannot accept the status quo. I think we must do more, because as
we have seen in New York, the storm of the century has literally become
the storm of the year. In 2011, we saw widespread and devastating
damage from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. One year later,
Superstorm Sandy hit us harder than we could have ever imagined.
The Federal Government must step in. It must step up to do the hard
work, to lead the way in preparing for and protecting against these
extreme weather events. This does not mean just building a higher flood
wall or moving public infrastructure out of the flood zone; it means
taking a smarter, longer term regional approach to disaster planning.
Along with saving lives, this makes smart economic sense. For every
$1 we spend to reduce disaster risk, we save $4 in recovery costs. Our
bipartisan amendment can help achieve this goal. It is called
Strengthening the Resiliency of Our Nation on the Ground--the STRONG
Act--to give the Federal Government a real plan to strengthen our
resiliency.
First, the bill would investigate effective resiliency policies,
identify the gaps, and identify the conflicting policies. Knowing what
resources we have, what works, what does not, we can write and
implement a national resiliency strategy to support the local efforts.
This would include a one-stop shop to gather and share data to
develop smarter resiliency policies, incorporating existing databases
and ongoing efforts across a range of sectors, from weather and climate
to transportation and energy. It also eliminates redundancies, ensuring
all levels of government are coordinating effectively and efficiently,
sharing their expertise, their data, and information.
This national resource will work hand in glove with local efforts,
providing the most recent scientific information and best practices to
help our communities plan for and survive the worst. As we learn the
lessons of Superstorm Sandy and other natural disasters, we need to
ensure that our communities are thinking broadly about resiliency
across all sectors of society. The STRONG Act is the foundation to
build smarter and stronger cities, States and a nation. Only with
communities built for the 21st century can we withstand the extreme
weather of our time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ObamaCare
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to talk a bit about the health
care bill. Every time I am home, I hear more and more concerns from
more and more families and more and more individuals and more and more
employers. In 2009, the President repeatedly said that if you like your
health care plan, you can keep it. Notice nobody is saying that
anymore.
Maybe that is not what the measure should be because that is
certainly not going to happen. I think the question is, are you going
to have health care and can you afford it. During the Presidential
campaign, the President said he liked the term ``ObamaCare.'' So I feel
a little more free to use that than I did previously. I do not mean it
to be disparaging in any way. I just happen to think it is a plan that
will not work.
In the 3 years since the Affordable Care Act became law, it has
become increasingly clear that this plan will only deliver more broken
promises and bad news. Opponents have long warned this overhaul is bad
for the economy. There are now over 20,000 pages of new regulations. In
talking to the people I work for, they say they were concerned when
people did not read the 2,000-page bill. Since the election, there have
been 20,000 pages of regulations. There will be at least 159 new
bureaucracies, boards, and programs.
A number of recent reports have reinforced everybody's concerns,
noting that the health care bill will burden Americans with $1 trillion
of new taxes over 10 years and penalties. It will stifle job creation.
Investors Business Daily noted that retailers are cutting worker
hours at a rate not seen in more than three decades, a sudden shift,
according to them,
[[Page S3309]]
that can only be explained by the onset of ObamaCare's employer
mandates--only explained by the onset of ObamaCare's employer mandates.
In the April job figures, 288,000 people moved from full-time work to
part-time work.
Almost all of us in the Senate, as we talk to people in the States we
represent, have talked to somebody who is figuring out how they can
replace full-time employees--when they leave or maybe earlier than they
wanted to leave--with part-time employees. The Congressional Budget
Office warned that the President's health care plan will slash
approximately 800,000 jobs, increase government spending by $1.2
trillion, and force 7 million Americans to lose their employer-
sponsored coverage.
On that last one, I think that is optimistic. I think it will be more
than 7 million people who 2 years from now do not have health
insurance, who had some kind of health insurance 2 years ago or even up
until today. I think setting the standard that they have to meet that,
and if they cannot meet that standard, just pay the penalty and do not
provide anything is going to put people in a position they are going to
find themselves very troubled to be in.
A leading health care advocacy group recently noted that millions of
people will be priced out of the health insurance market under
ObamaCare thanks to a glitch in the law that hurts people with modest
incomes who cannot afford family coverage offered by their employers.
Of course, the only thing the employer gets any credit for offering in
the new world we are about to move into is individual coverage.
In fact, if someone has a family member who is covered in their
family policy, the person they work for appears to get no credit for
that coverage. An independent study by the Society of Actuaries--these
are people who try to calculate benefits and life expectancy and all of
that--estimates that insurance companies will have to pay out an
average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health
policies by 2017.
Why would that be? Remember, these are health policies that there is
a small penalty for not having but the insurance company has to issue
to you whenever you decide you want it.
I have talked to more than one hospital group that said we will just
put the insurance forms in the ambulance.
Under the law, as I have read the law, you can fill out the insurance
form on the way to the hospital in the ambulance, and the insurance
company still has to give the so-called guaranteed issue no matter what
your health is.
For Missourians, this study shows that medical claims costs could
increase by almost 60 percent--the exact amount is 58.8 percent--per
person. This actuarial study in my State says insurance claims costs
could increase by 58.8 percent, making my State's projected cost
increase the eighth highest in the country.
At a time when millions of Americans are still searching for jobs,
the last thing we should be doing is discouraging job growth, but every
single person here has heard somebody that they work for in the State
they represent say: We are not going to grow above 50 people or we are
not going to hire full-time employees.
Next year job creators will be forced to start complying with the law
or pay a penalty. This will lead employers to reduce hours for full-
time employees to avoid paying those penalties or providing health
care--either one.
State governments, such as the State of Virginia right across the
river from where we are working in the Nation's Capital, said that
after July 1 none of their part-time employees will be allowed to
work--that is the beginning of their spending year--that after July 1
none of their part-time employees will be able to work more than 29
hours. Why would the entire State of Virginia be saying that? Because
the Federal Government says 30 hours is the time when you have to
provide a benefit.
Once we start saying something as a government that you have to do
something, suddenly it seems to be OK to meet the exceptions. Companies
that for five decades after World War II have done everything they
could to provide benefits for health care at whatever level they
thought they could because they thought it was either the competitive
thing to do or the right thing to do or both, those same companies are
now saying: Well, the exception in the law says I don't really have an
obligation to provide you health care, and so I am not going to.
As we see people move toward the part-time workforce, I believe we
are going to see people having more than one job, but none of those
jobs will have benefits. The person who served your breakfast or sells
you your coffee in the morning may be the same person you see at a meal
later that same day at another place because they are working two jobs,
not one, and neither of those has benefits.
For those employers who decide it is cost-effective to pay the
penalty rather than comply with the law, those people who worked for
them obviously will see their plans change or lose their plans
altogether. Maybe that is why my friends across the aisle are beginning
to say the things they have said about this.
Everybody has heard the Senator Baucus comment that warned that
implementing this bill will be a ``huge train wreck coming down.''
Senator Wyden said:
There is reason to be very concerned about what's going to
happen with young people. If their premiums shoot up, I can
tell you, that is going to wash up on the Senate in a hurry.
The New York Times reported that Senator Ben Cardin told
White House officials that he was concerned about big rate
increases being sought by insurers in his State, one of the
first States to report what the new rates would be.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen noted that she is ``hearing from a lot of
small businesses in New Hampshire that do not know how to comply with
the law.''
Senator Jay Rockefeller said that he is of the belief that the health
care act ``is probably the most complex piece of legislation ever
passed by the United States Congress.'' He noted, ``It worries me,
because it is so complicated. And if it isn't done right the first
time, it'll just simply get worse.''
The Secretary of HHS said, ``There may be a higher cost associated
with getting into that market.''
As I said, even the top health care official in the country, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, said that
there might be a higher cost associated with getting into this market
where folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the
first time--or not. What she did say was that this insurance may cost
more than what your employer used to think they could afford to provide
to you, and now maybe they are not providing anything at all. Maybe
they are providing something that meets new standards--not what the
person paying the bill thought they could afford but what was the only
option available.
This isn't like, if you can do some of this, fine, you will just pay
part of the penalty. It is not like that at all. In fact, what this
really is, if you don't meet the standards that the Federal Government
has decided should be the standards for employees of yours whom they
have never seen, whom you pay $100 a day if you try to offer insurance
that doesn't meet the insurance, per employee--that is, $36,500 a year
is the penalty if you don't offer the insurance exactly as the
government says it has to be offered at a minimum. If you decide not to
offer any insurance at all, it is $2,000 a year.
So now we have gotten to the point where the government is so right
that it is a $36,500 penalty if you don't offer exactly the insurance
they say you have to offer and it is a $2,000 penalty if you don't
offer any insurance at all. What kind of parallel universe is this that
this has taken us into that we have that kind of ridiculous situation
develop?
Last week President Obama said there may be ``glitches and bumps'' in
the rollout of his massive government overhaul. The Chicago Tribune,
one of his hometown newspapers, after he said that, said in an
editorial: Give us the choice of ``train wreck'' or ``glitches and
bumps,'' we are betting on train wreck.
This is his hometown paper that is saying that. This is certainly not
what the President and congressional leaders promised us when this
became the law.
We can all agree that we must fix our health care system. I think the
path we are on is the wrong path to take. There are a number of things
we could do: medical liability reform, more vigorous competition,
buying across State lines, more individual ownership of policies set
up, high-risk pools that work. The
[[Page S3310]]
choice should never have been ``you can do this or we can do nothing at
all.'' There were things in the great health care system we had that
could have been improved and still had the benefits of that great
system. It appears that none of these are being allowed to happen until
we see for sure that the new system either will work or won't work.
I recently voted for the amendment to defund the program. Let's go
back to the drawing board and see what we can do to get started again.
I think this is a flawed concept. I think we have to replace this
concept with commonsense reforms that put patients and doctors in
control of health care, not new bureaucracies in Washington.
I thank the Chair.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to lay out what we are
going to do, and it will take me about 6 minutes maximum.
The good news for the Senate--I am glad you don't object to good news
because it is not always good news. What we have seen on this WRDA bill
is that we have handled a number of amendments both through the
managers' package that we substituted for the original text and in
individual amendments. What we have seen is that the Boxer-Vitter
substitute strengthened participation of environmental agencies in
project delivery. We have addressed challenges in every part of the
country. We reached agreement with appropriators on future harbor
maintenance trust fund expenditures. We authorized additional regional
programs. We accelerate investment in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Here on the floor, we adapted amendments to set up an oceans trust
fund and a new program to address Asian carp. We have made sure that
agencies are treated fairly in the WIFIA Program. We require
performance measures for levee safety grants. These are good amendments
offered by both sides of the aisle.
We are about to, as soon as we do this little technical change to an
amendment number--and it looks as though it has been done--we are about
to adopt Senator Blunt's very important amendment that has so much
support on both sides of the aisle for resilient construction, meaning
we are going to make sure that as we enter a phase of extreme weather
situations, we use the best materials on these projects. That is the
Blunt amendment.
Then we go to the Sessions amendment, which is land transfer to help
his local communities--uncontroversial.
There is a Coburn amendment to deauthorize projects that have been
inactive for a very long time. This saves us money.
Also, there is a Warner amendment that makes technical corrections
for Four Mile Run.
We will set aside the Inhofe amendment and that number, amendment No.
797, that would be pending.
I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the Blunt amendment No.
800 in the previous order, the following amendments be the next
amendments in order to the bill: Sessions No. 811, as modified with the
changes that are at the desk, Coburn No. 823, Warner No. 873, and
Inhofe No. 797; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order
to any of these amendments or the Blunt amendment prior to the votes in
relation to the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 800, 811, as modified, 823, and 873, en bloc
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments,
which have been cleared by both sides, be considered and agreed to en
bloc: Blunt amendment No. 800; Sessions amendment No. 811, as modified;
Coburn amendment No. 823; and Warner amendment No. 873.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
Amendment No. 800
(Purpose: To provide for the consideration of resilient construction
techniques in certain studies relating to extreme weather events)
Redesignate sections 11001, 11002, and 11003 as sections
11002, 11003, and 11004, respectively.
At the beginning of title XI, insert the following:
SEC. 11001. DEFINITION OF RESILIENT CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE.
In this title, the term ``resilient construction
technique'' means a construction method that--
(1) allows a property--
(A) to resist hazards brought on by a major disaster; and
(B) to continue to provide the primary functions of the
property after a major disaster;
(2) reduces the magnitude or duration of a disruptive event
to a property; and
(3) has the absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and
recoverability to withstand a potentially disruptive event.
In section 11002(b) (as redesignated), strike paragraph (2)
and insert the following:
(2) an analysis of--
(A) historical extreme weather events;
(B) the ability of existing infrastructure to mitigate
risks associated with extreme weather events; and
(C) the reduction in long-term costs and vulnerability to
infrastructure through the use of resilient construction
techniques.
In section 11003(b)(5) (as redesignated), strike the
``and'' at the end.
In section 11003(b) (as redesignated) redesignate paragraph
(6) as paragraph (7).
In section 1003(b) (as redesignated), insert after
paragraph (5) the following:
(6) any recommendations on the use of resilient
construction techniques to reduce future vulnerability from
flood, storm, and drought conditions; and
Amendment No. 811, as modified
(Purpose: To require the Tennessee Valley Authority to grant certain
use restrictions)
At the end of title V, add the following:
SEC. 5011. RELEASE OF USE RESTRICTIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Tennessee
Valley Authority shall, without monetary consideration, grant
releases from real estate restrictions established pursuant
to section 4(k)(b) of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of
1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)(b)) with respect to tracts of land
identified in section 4(k)(b) of that Act, provided that such
releases shall be granted in a manner consistent with
applicable TVA policies.
Amendment No. 823
(Purpose: To ensure environmental infrastructure activities are not
exempt from review by the Infrastructure Deauthorization Commission)
Section 2049(b) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
(6) Application.--For purposes of this subsection, water
resources projects shall include environmental infrastructure
assistance projects and programs of the Corps of Engineers.
Amendment No. 873
(Purpose: To include a provision relating to Four Mile Run, city of
Alexandria and Arlington County, Virginia)
On page 216, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 3019. FOUR MILE RUN, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA AND ARLINGTON
COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
Section 84(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1974 (Public Law 93-251; 88 Stat. 35) is amended by striking
``twenty-seven thousand cubic feet per second'' and inserting
``18,000 cubic feet per second''.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider and lay those motions on the table.
The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. I wish to thank everybody. We have made great progress on
this bill. We will still be working very hard tomorrow, Saturday,
Sunday, and Monday. We urge you, if you have amendments, we are just
saying let them be relevant and not controversial. We can't solve every
problem in America on this water bill, but we are trying our best to
get a really good bill through the Senate.
I understand from the House that they intend to look at our bill,
work off our bill, and make their changes. Then we will go to
conference and hopefully have a very good result.
It is 3 o'clock on a Thursday, and we have disposed of numerous
amendments. We are still looking at more. We are trying to resolve all
of those. One way or the other, it is our plan to finish this bill next
week. It is very rare to have a bill that is so bipartisan, that will,
in fact, support over 500,000 jobs, and that has the support of
business, labor, and all kinds of community groups. With that, I thank
my colleagues for working with us.
I have talked to the majority leader. There will be no further votes
today. Next week we will finish this bill. I thank you very much.
I thank my friend from Missouri. It has been a pleasure working with
him and staff on his excellent amendment with Senator Nelson. We are
very pleased we were able to clear this.
I also thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Durbin. They had some
issues, but they stepped back and let us move forward with these
amendments.
People are working together, and they are working very hard, and I am
very pleased about where we are. I thank my colleague from Missouri.
[[Page S3311]]
I yield the floor.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the chairwoman for her work.
As this bill progresses, I will remind my friends on the floor that
one of the major bills we passed last year was the highway bill in the
last Congress that she and Senator Inhofe worked on. Now she and
Senator Vitter are bringing another important bill to the floor that is
significant.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Economy
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I recently had a great conversation with
an individual, August Busch, III, the longtime president and CEO of
Anheuser-Busch. We talked about the state of the economy. We talked
about the desire to get jobs created and the country back on solid
fiscal footing.
That conversation reminded me of the opportunities we have here in
the Senate and the Congress to work together to see that we enact
policies here in the Nation's Capital that would make a real difference
in the everyday lives of Americans by creating jobs, by making certain
our business climate is beneficial to large and small businesses. In
that climate, they then would have the opportunity to add additional
employment opportunities for all Americans.
In this overly partisan climate of Washington, DC, it is easy to lose
sight of the fact that we should all be working toward that same goal
of getting our economy back on track.
I think the No. 1 issue standing in the way of robust economic growth
is the uncertainty that continues to be there--as described, in part,
by my colleague from Missouri in regard to the Affordable Care Act--
with Americans in general and people making family as well as business
and investment decisions about where we are headed with our national
debt and our deficit spending.
As elected officials, Americans expect us to confront our Nation's
fiscal challenges and not push them off into the future. But last
year's budget shortfall--just to remind us of the facts--reached $1.1
trillion, the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. This
out-of-control too much spending we have in our government has
increased our national debt to a record $16 trillion, which is more
than the entire U.S. economy produced in goods and services in 2012.
The fact is our current fiscal state is the responsibility of many
Congresses and several Presidents from both political parties. It is
not always the opportunity we sometimes take to point fingers, but it
is that over a long period of time we have allowed ourselves to live
way beyond our means, and it has gone on far too long.
When I was elected to the Senate, just about 3 years ago, I was
invited to the White House to have a conversation with my colleagues
and President Obama. The conversation was all about deficit spending,
the national debt, and the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Unfortunately, since that time, it has been pretty much business as
usual in Washington, DC, and almost no progress has been made. It is
time for us to get beyond the conversations and the rhetoric that too
often is pretty empty around here and get down to the business of
making real changes in the way we conduct our business.
First and foremost, we must reduce the government drag on the private
sector. Startups in small businesses--the real job creators in this
country--are being held down under the weight of a 74,000-page
convoluted Tax Code and $1.75 trillion worth of redtape.
Every single job creator I meet, whether it is at a townhall meeting
back home in Kansas or here in Washington, DC, tells me their story and
asks for our help. What they tell me is we have to reduce the massive
regulatory burden. The overwhelming cost of compliance prevents many
small business owners and entrepreneurs from hiring new employees,
expanding their facilities, and growing the economy.
Second, in addition to the regulatory environment, we have to say no
to spending and yes to projob measures. This will help reduce the
uncertainty in the marketplace, encourage business investment, help us
become more competitive in the global economy and, most important,
create jobs.
The President's solution is to raise revenues to balance the budget.
But the President's tax increase proposals would only cover the deficit
for just a few weeks. I would be pleased to be convinced that if we
increase taxes, the money would be used to pay down the debt. I don't
think I am overly cynical, but my view of history, my review of the
facts suggests that every time there is more revenue--more money sent
to Washington, DC--more money is spent. History shows money raised in
Washington, DC, only results in more spending in Washington, DC.
The revenues we need to balance our books are not from increasing
taxes but revenues that come from a strong and growing economy. We are
not immune from the laws of economics that face every nation. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that government spending on
health care entitlements, Social Security, and interest on the national
debt will consume 100 percent of the total revenues by 2025. What that
means is that money the government spends on national defense,
transportation, veterans, health care, and other government programs
will have to be borrowed money. That drives us further and further into
debt.
So regulations, getting the deficit under control and on the right
path toward a more balanced budget, and then, third, we must take
serious action to address the $48 trillion in unfunded obligations
found in Social Security and Medicare.
These programs represent promises that were made to Americans and, in
my view, are promises that must be kept. Because of my family's
circumstance--my parents--I pretty much know what life is like for
people who utilize Social Security and Medicare and the benefits they
provide for their lives at that stage in life we all aspire to reach.
When Social Security was signed into law by President Franklin
Roosevelt, the average life expectancy was 64 years of age and the
earliest retirement age to collect the benefits was 65. Today,
Americans live 14 years longer, retire 3 years earlier, and spend two
decades in retirement.
So we have gone from a time in which Social Security was envisioned
to be used for a short period of one's remaining life expectancy to a
Social Security System that now is a source of income and support for
people through a couple decades of retirement. That means we have to
change the way we support Social Security in order to fit today's
demographics: more people retiring, more people living longer with
insufficient revenues to meet those programmed needs.
When this year's kindergarten class enters college, spending on
Social Security and Medicare, plus Medicaid and interest on the debt
will devour all tax revenues. Congress can and should begin today--and
should have started a long time ago--to address these questions
concerning the sustainability of these very important programs.
Lastly, to get our country's fiscal house back in order, Congress
should consider adopting many of the bipartisan recommendations put
forth by the President's own deficit reduction commission. The cochairs
of the Commission have warned--this is the Simpson-Bowles Commission--
if we fail to take swift action and serious action, the United States
faces ``the most predictable economic crisis in history.''
In other words, we know it is coming. One would expect that people
who know something bad is on its way--an economic crisis is coming--
would take evasive action to avoid the consequences. Yet the President
and Senate leadership have ignored the recommendations contained in the
Simpson-Bowles report and generally continue to spend borrowed money
without regard for those consequences--without regard for what we know
is coming.
I don't want Americans to experience the day when our creditors
decide we are no longer creditworthy and we have to suffer the same
consequences as those countries that ignored their financial crisis.
One needs to look no further than places in Europe--Greece, Italy,
Spain--to see what high levels of national debt will do to a country's
economy. Out-of-control spending is slowing America's economic growth
[[Page S3312]]
and threatening the prosperity of future generations that will have to
pay for our irresponsibility.
Thousands and thousands of young Americans will be graduating this
month. Typically, I would guess many of my colleagues will be giving
graduation addresses and encouraging our graduates to go forth and
pursue a great life. We ought to also be telling ourselves that for our
college graduates to go forth and pursue that wonderful life, we need
to make changes in the way we do business and get our country's
economic condition and fiscal state to a place where the American dream
can be expected to be pursued and, in many cases, achieved.
I am fearful that while my parents' generation handed off a country
where the expectations were high--we all felt we could live the
American dream--my generation is failing to do the same for the
generation that follows ours. We must not fail to take action now and
leave it for another Congress, another year, another session, another
election. If we fail to take the action we need to take today because
we believe it is too difficult; that we can't afford the political
consequences of making what some people describe as very difficult
decisions, we clearly will reduce the opportunity of the next
generation to experience the country we know and love, and we will
diminish the chances they can pursue and achieve the American dream.
I had someone in my office recently who travels the globe, and he
indicated to me that every place he goes, people around the world know
what the phrase ``the American dream'' means, and they all want to
pursue the American dream. But the reminder was that more and more the
American dream is pursued outside of America because of the inability
of this Congress, the failure of past Congresses and Presidents to come
together and do the things that are responsible for today but, more
important, responsible for the well-being of Americans in the future.
Not one of us was elected to ignore problems. People tell us, each
one of us, all the time of some circumstance or condition that is a
challenge to them. I have no doubt that each one of us in the Senate
tries to figure out how we can help. The American people are
experiencing a problem. Our country faces a challenge, and we ought to
respond in the same way we respond individually to our own constituents
when we say: How can we help? What can we do? We know the answer to
those questions. We just need to have the will, the courage, and the
desire to work together to address the issues and make certain America
is a place we are proud to pass on to the next generation and that no
American, because of our inability to act, is unable to pursue that
beautiful American dream.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, may I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Water
Resources Development Act. I congratulate Senator Boxer and Senator
Vitter for showing how two Senators of opposite parties can work
together, which is something that is sorely needed around here. I thank
them for clearing the amendment Senator Blunt and I offered on
resilient construction, to study the need to improve our infrastructure
in order to withstand extreme weather conditions and events such as
hurricanes.
The last time we passed a water bill was back in 2007. The gridlock
the American people are seeing so much of now is part of what has
delayed us passing a new water bill--and the controversy over earmarks.
But all of this inaction since 2007 puts our ports, beaches, and
environmental restoration projects such as the Everglades restoration
in jeopardy.
This water bill is going to authorize new flood protection,
navigation, and specific restoration projects which are so important to
our State of Florida, such as Everglades restoration. Also this bill is
going to authorize important updates to our Nation's ports. Our ports
obviously are a main part of the economic engine of this country. All
of these projects are now in this bill and will be able to proceed.
This Senate water bill means good news for Florida's beaches,
waterways, ports, and the Everglades. Rather than talk about the
specific projects, I want to say Congress made a promise 13 years ago
to restore the Everglades and this bill puts us on the path to finally
fulfilling that promise and restoring as much of that extraordinary
ecosystem known as the Everglades as it could be in the way Mother
Nature designed it.
I also want to talk about another part of this bill that is extremely
important to the State of Florida. People think California has the
biggest coastline. Not so; Florida's coastline is much larger.
Actually, Alaska's coastline is the longest, but when it comes to a
coastline with beaches, almost all of Florida's coastline is beaches.
So beach renourishment is exceptionally important to us. It is
important to our economy, with all of our tourism that comes to
Florida. It is important to our environment. Beach restoration saves
lives, mitigates property damage, and it keeps the recovery costs down.
Beach renourishment is one of the reasons I support the bill. I come
from a State that has more beaches than any other State, so naturally
our beaches are of critical importance to us. It is important not only
from an environmental standpoint but also from an economic and tourism
standpoint.
There is something known as the lateral drift, which is from north to
south. It takes sand off the beach and pushes it south. When we have a
cut in the beach--such as an inlet--that goes into a port, it all the
more aggravates beach erosion. When the storm comes, watch out, because
the beach can completely disappear.
So I strongly oppose any efforts to cut the funding of beach
renourishment. This is about protecting our communities from natural
disasters. These investments save lives, mitigate property damage, and
keep recovery costs down.
For every $1 that is spent on shoreline protection, we see a return
of $4. In Florida, we have several coastal communities anxiously
waiting for the reauthorization of beach renourishment programs because
they are so vulnerable to erosion caused by hurricanes and the rise of
the sea level. This is pretty simple for us. We have to protect coastal
communities from flooding and storms by adding sand to the beach.
I will continue to try to prevent any kind of cut that we seek. As a
matter of fact, we are going to see a Coburn amendment that is going to
try to take money out of the beach renourishment. I will urge my
colleagues to vote no on that Coburn amendment.
Suspicious Arrests
Before I conclude, I wish to talk about a very disturbing
circumstance which occurred about a week ago in the Turks and Caicos.
There was an arrest and jailing of two older American tourists on
ammunition charges at the Turks and Caicos Islands Airport. These two
Americans were arrested on back-to-back days.
The first person arrested was a 60-year-old businesswoman from Texas,
and that was on April 25. The second person arrested was an 80-year-old
retired neurosurgeon from Florida, and that was the next day. Both were
on vacation in the Turks and Caicos and arrested at the airport. The
reason they spent days in jail is because after their luggage was
checked--and supposedly examined by the authorities--they found a
single bullet in the luggage.
Does that sound suspicious? I found it to be even more suspicious
when I heard that both of the American tourists--who were on vacation--
have said adamantly that they had no ammunition and, therefore, had no
way of putting a bullet in their luggage.
It sounded even more suspicious when I was told that after they were
arrested and hauled off to jail, they had to pay $4,000 cash for bail
in order to get out of jail and to return home.
The Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, and I sent a letter to the Charge
d'Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in the Bahamas--which includes the Turks
and Caicos--to ask them to investigate this
[[Page S3313]]
matter. We want to know if there have been similar cases this year to
make American tourists a target under a similar kind of scheme. We are
asking him to examine this so he knows we are very concerned on behalf
of our constituents.
In essence, we want to know whether this was a shakedown operation or
legitimate. The fact that this happened on two successive days with a
single bullet found in the luggage of American tourists gets to be
awfully suspicious.
I ask unanimous consent that our letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
May 9, 2013.
John Dinkelman, Charge d'Affaires,
American Embassy
Nassau, The Bahamas.
Dear Mr. Dinkelman: We are very concerned over the recent
arrests of two older U.S. tourists at Providenciales
International Airport in the Turks and Caicos Islands, both
on charges of carrying ammunition a single bullet.
These two Americans are our constituents. One of them is
80-year-old Horace Norrell of Sarasota, Florida, a retired
neurosurgeon who was forced to spend three nights in jail,
and then pay $4,000 cash bail to return home.
The other is a Texas businesswoman, Cathy Sulledge Davis,
who also had to post $4,000 cash bail.
We understand appropriate local officials have begun an
investigation stemming from these arrests.
While we do not seek to interfere in the judicial matter,
we ask that you convey to the proper authorities that the
investigation needs to be expeditious, thorough, transparent
and independent.
We also want to know whether any other Americans have been
arrested there on similar charges since January.
Your immediate attention to this matter is greatly
appreciated, as is keeping our offices fully apprised of any
developments as they occur.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Session
Mr. REID. Madam President, this is important. I have a unanimous
consent request that we have been working on for a long time.
I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me, in
consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed to executive
session to consider Calendar No. 92; that there be 1 hour of debate
equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back
of that time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or
debate on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that
no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements
related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that President
Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate
then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I am reserving my right to
object.
I say to the leader, through the Chair, I am on the floor, as is
Senator Nelson, to speak to the WRDA bill and to offer two amendments.
I ask that I be allowed to do that before we move to executive session
so the amendments can be offered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, through the Chair to my friend from New
Mexico, I am not managing the bill. However, it is my understanding
that there have been objections raised to offering more amendments.
We could get the chair back here or somebody to manage this bill, but
that is where we are.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I totally respect the
leader and the discussion he has had with the chairman. I have tried
today to contact the chairman. I have called her. I wanted to talk to
her about this issue, and I want to get these amendments in.
I know Leader Reid has been encouraging us throughout this debate to
wrap this up and try to get amendments in. So I am here to offer my
amendments, and I would like to do that.
Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the UC? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, as you may have noticed a
minute or so ago, I had a discussion with the leader, and he was moving
to executive session. I have been down here--along with Senator Nelson
and other Senators--to try to move the WRDA bill forward. Leader Reid
said that was the business of the day. We are trying to move this
forward, and we are trying to get our amendments in. I hope we can do
that and do it in an efficient order.
I am going to speak to both of my amendments. Senator Bennet is here,
and I know he has a statement he wants to make on immigration. I ask
that the Presiding Officer give me notice when I am in the 5-minute
range so I can wrap up and get everything in at that point.
My message is simple on the NEPA and WRDA process. Despite what we
hear, environmental reviews protect people, taxpayers, and the
environment.
On average, it takes the corps just 2 to 3 years to complete a
feasibility study once funding is available. Studies of complex and
highly controversial projects may take longer, but these are exactly
the projects that require more indepth review.
The administration has warned that the streamlining provisions in S.
601 ``may actually slow project development and do not adequately
protect communities, taxpayers, or the environment.''
The real causes of project delays are, No. 1, limited funding; No. 2,
poor project planning that does not focus on national priorities or
identifying the least possible damaging solution to a water resource
problem.
Project studies take the longest when the project developers insist
on pushing outdated, damaging, and extremely costly projects instead of
adopting low-impact modern solutions that could quickly gain broad-
based support.
I have two amendments that go to the heart of making sure we have a
good WRDA bill. The first is Udall amendment No. 581. Streamlining is
an empty promise if the backlog is not addressed. The corps currently
has an estimated backlog of more than 1,000 authorized activities,
costing an estimated $60 billion to construct. WRDA 2013 will add to
this backlog. It authorizes more than 20 new projects and increases
costs by $3.4 billion over the next 5 years.
The plate is full. Cutting corners on environmental reviews will not
change that. It will just hurt communities. The plate has been full for
over 25 years. Project authorizations far exceed the money to pay for
them.
According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1986 and
2010 Congress authorized new corps projects at a rate that
significantly exceeded appropriations. In 2010 dollars, the annual rate
of authorizations was roughly $3.0 billion and the rate of
appropriations for new construction was roughly $1.8 billion.
Completing project studies is not the problem. A newly authorized
project will still have to wait. It has to compete for funding with
1,000 other projects already on the books.
This amendment would go directly to that process and solve it.
Udall amendment No. 853 talks about the value of a pilot project. The
current environmental review process has been used successfully for
decades resulting in better and less damaging projects. It saves
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
There is no evidence that the process proposed in S. 601 would
actually speed up project planning, there is no evidence that the
process will speed up project construction, and there is absolutely no
evidence that the process would produce better projects. It is quite
the opposite.
The evidence shows that the streamlining provision will lead to more
damaging and more costly projects and will hurt communities, taxpayers,
and the environment. The corps does not want Congress to enact these
changes. The resource agencies don't want these changes, the
environmental community does not want these changes, the legal
community does not want these changes, and the public does not want
these changes.
[[Page S3314]]
Once again, I wish the floor managers were here on this bill. I am
here, as Leader Reid has requested us to be, to put in amendments. As
soon as we get back, I want to bring up these amendments, make them
pending, and continue with this procession. I am very discouraged that
we can't move forward as our leader has said. This is a bill that is on
the floor. The managers need to be here to manage this process. I am
here to meet with the leaders and try to move this along.
Thank you.
I will yield to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet, but I want to
say one thing. He has done such great work on immigration. He has been
a marvelous Senator ever since he has been here. This Gang of 8 has
contributed something that is very important to this country. So I hope
everybody listens very carefully to his words because he is giving us
very wise advise as to how to proceed.
I yield for the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNET. I wish to thank, through the Chair, the Senator from New
Mexico for his kind remarks and for keeping it brief today. I know it
is an issue of great importance to him and to his State.
This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee began working on the
Border Security Economic Opportunity and Modernization Act, otherwise
known as a bill to fix our broken immigration system. As we are here
today, they are continuing to work on that bill and I think will work
into the night.
Working with this group of 8--I call it a group of 8, not a gang,
because Senator McCain doesn't like the term ``Gang of 8,'' so in
deference to him I call it the group of 8--has been one of the most
rewarding experiences during my time in the Senate. My Senate
colleagues in this group include Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin,
Graham, Menendez, Rubio, and Flake. I come to the floor today first to
thank them for their leadership and courage to move past the talking
points on this issue and to produce this bipartisan product the
committee is now considering today.
This is a bill that has been applauded by editorial boards from the
Wall Street Journal to the New York Times--two editorial pages that
seldom agree on anything. In Colorado, editorial boards from across the
State, including the Denver Post, the Colorado Springs Gazette, and
Durango Herald, have all praised this bill. It has the support of a
wide-ranging and extremely diverse coalition from the left and the
right, from business and from labor, rural and urban all across the
United States.
All of this is to say the pieces are in place today to actually get
something done in this town, in Washington, DC, and in Congress. That
is not a small feat for a place where stalemate has become standard
operating procedure. I would say we have a golden opportunity to rise
above politics as usual, to do something big and something real--
something that lasts and endures. We have the chance to pass
commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will strengthen our economy
and our families, better protect our borders and our communities, and
offer a tough but fair path to citizenship for those currently here
without any legal status at all. In this way we have the chance to act
together to do something great for our Nation and for its future.
It is a cliche--uttered many times in this Chamber, including by me--
that America is a Nation of immigrants, and, of course, that is true.
But we are so used to saying and hearing that phrase we rarely take the
time to act or to think: What does that even mean? There is literally
no other country in the world, on this planet, for which immigration is
so central to its history and to its identity as the United States of
America. All of us in this Chamber--and, more importantly, every family
back home we are privileged to represent--can tell us when and how
their family came to this country. Did they come in a boat in the 17th
century? Did they come by plane in the 20th century? Did they come by
foot or by bus, with papers or without? Every one of us has a story.
My family has one of its own that won't surprise my colleagues to
know I find pretty interesting. It is also utterly ordinary for this
country. When I was in the second grade, my class was given an
assignment. We were asked to research whose family had been in America
the shortest time and the longest time. So we interviewed our parents
and grandparents, we traced our genealogies, and we came up with our
answer as a class. The answer was me. My family was the answer to both
of these questions--the longest time and the shortest time.
My father's family came over on one of those 17th century boats. For
nearly 400 years, the Bennets, in nearly one form or another, have
lived in this country. Then there is my mother. She was born in Poland
in 1928, while Nazi tanks were massing on the border. She and her
parents endured that war in and around Warsaw. They and an aunt were
the only members of their family to survive. Everybody else in their
family perished at the hands of the Nazis.
They lived in Poland for a couple of years after that, but then by
way of Stockholm and Mexico City, my mother and her grandparents
arrived in New York City in 1950. She was 12 years old in 1950. As is
the case with so many children of immigrants, she was the only one in
the family who could speak any English at all. But the three of them
were alive, they were free, and they had made it to America.
My mother and grandparents were able to rebuild their lives and
succeed here because America welcomed them. It greeted them not with
prejudice but with opportunity. They worked hard--extremely hard--to be
worthy of that great gift. It was a gift my grandmother, Halina
Klejman, who loved this country as deeply as anyone I have ever known,
taught me and my brother and my sister never to take for granted.
So my family's history happens to run through both Plymouth and
Poland, but it is not so different from the ones millions of Americans
tell. Stories such as the town of San Luis, CO. San Luis is Colorado's
oldest town, founded in 1851. The town was established by Latino
settlers from New Mexico who migrated under a land grant issued by the
Mexican Governor in Santa Fe. These immigrants were the pioneers of the
Colorado settlement 25 years--25 years--before Colorado officially
became a State.
The narratives of how we come here matter because they tell us who we
are and where we have been. But they matter just as much for where we
are going as a Nation. The future of this country will be determined
not just by those of us who are in this Chamber or in this city, or
even in this country today. It is going to be written by people who
have yet to step foot in the United States of America. Because over our
history, it is the refugees fleeing persecution--the parents seeking
opportunity for their children--who make America the America we love.
They are the ones who keep us fresh and free-thinking and free.
They are all of us. They are every single one of us--a nation of
immigrants.
Unfortunately, today's immigration policies do not reflect the
history or the values that shaped it. Neither do they reflect our 21st
century economic needs. Instead, our system is a hodgepodge of
outdated, impractical, and convoluted laws. It is a mess of unintended
consequences that hurts our businesses and families and keeps America
at a competitive disadvantage in an ever-shrinking world.
There is an old Visa slogan--I mean capital V, Visa slogan--that says
something like ``Life Takes Visa.'' Well, in the United States, work
takes a visa--and our visa system is working against us today. It is
stifling growth and making us less competitive. Travel around my home
State of Colorado, as I do, and people will see what that looks like.
People will meet vegetable growers in Brighton and peach farmers such
as Bruce Talbott from Palisade who fear they will not have enough labor
to harvest their crops season after season. They are part of Colorado's
$40 billion agricultural industry--the lifeblood of our State and so
vital to our Nation--yet they have no confidence--and for good reason--
that a legal, reliable, and competent workforce will be available for
their farms and ranches.
[[Page S3315]]
Fifty-seven million tourists visited Colorado in 2011. I don't know
whether the Presiding Officer was among them, but we would love to have
her back. If people were to talk to our ski resort operators and
restaurant owners, they will hear loudly and clearly that we need a
program for low-skill workers to come into this country and fill jobs
Americans don't want. In cities such as Denver and Boulder a person
will find high-skilled immigrants with graduate degrees in science and
engineering--the kind who are 3 times more likely to file patents and
30 percent more likely to create new businesses.
In fact, more than 40 percent of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies were
founded by immigrants and their children. Forty percent of the largest
companies in the United States of America, which once were small
companies and grew to become large companies, were created by
immigrants. These companies employ more than 3.6 million people in this
country and generate more than $4.2 trillion in revenue every single
year.
You will also see thousands of foreign students with these highly
technical advanced degrees who are being turned away. You will hear
them say they have no choice but to go back to India, go back to China,
and use whatever they have learned at American universities to compete
down the line with American workers.
Students such as Wolfgang Pauli, a German psychology and neurocience
Ph.D. student who had attended the University of Colorado-Boulder--
Wolfgang was studying under a temporary visa sponsored by his adviser
at the University of Colorado, but because of the inflexible nature of
our visa system, his adviser wasn't able to keep him for an advanced
research project despite his advanced skills and unique experience. The
position went unfilled. It is a loss for the project, for innovation,
and for Wolfgang.
I have been to India. I have been to Hyderabad. I have seen people
sitting in front of computer screens in a room with a clock on the wall
that said underneath it ``East Hartford, CT.'' I said to the guy who
ran the show there: Why does that clock say East Hartford, CT, on it?
He said: Because they are redesigning the engines for Pratt & Whitney
in East Hartford. Two shifts a day, by the way, 24 hours a day. They
are up when people in East Hartford, CT, are up. I asked: Where were
the people sitting at those computers educated? He said: Half were
educated in my country, in India, and half were educated in your
country. What we know is if they were given the opportunity to stay
here and contribute, to build their business, to apply their intellect
here, many of them would, but today we are sending them away. This is
crazy.
It doesn't end there. Go into our schools all across America, as I
did when I was superintendent of the Denver public schools, and you
will see kids, meet kids--great kids, hard-working students--enter
their junior and senior years, their peers making college visits and
considering careers, and you will see what it looks like when those
students fully realize, in the starkest and most heart-breaking terms
imaginable, what it means to live in a country without legal status;
what it means to live in a place they got to through no fault of their
own, without legal status.
Many of these young people--inspiring young people such as Octavio
Morgan, who graduated third in his class from Bruce Randolph High
School in 2011--managed to carve out a future against all odds. But I
don't know how we as a Nation can continue to look them in the eye and
preach opportunity and social mobility without dealing with their legal
status.
You will hear about dangerous border crossings. You will hear about
separated families and disrupted dreams. Yes, if we are being honest,
you will also hear about jobs that went to new neighbors, and gang
violence, and overcrowded schools. You will see, as we study this, and
hear and feel a system that hardly qualifies as one. But that is the
system we are living in unless we do something about it.
For years, even though Congress has done nothing, immigration has
become a poster child for the kind of dysfunctional politics the
American people have rejected, but we keep on practicing it. We keep on
practicing this dysfunctional set of policies. That is the way it has
been in Congress. I hope it is now changing. But thankfully, for a lot
of us who are here, that is not what we see back home--not even close.
(Mr. COONS assumed the chair.)
A few years ago, a small group of us in Colorado began working on a
set of principles to begin a more pragmatic and productive immigration
discussion. Utah launched a similar effort in 2010, so I would like to
recognize the leadership of our friends to the west for paving the way.
I was very pleased to take part in my State's effort, along with
former Senator Hank Brown--no stranger to some of the people in this
Chamber. Senator Brown, a Republican, is one of Colorado's greatest
statesmen, with a long record of working across the aisle to get things
done.
Over the course of 18 months, we traveled over 6,300 miles in
Colorado--which is, by the way, not a hardship; a lot of people fly
over oceans to get there to have their vacations, but still, 6,300
miles--and held about 230 meetings in the State. We talked to farmers
and business owners, law enforcement officials and educators, faith
leaders and Latino leaders, and all are struggling with different
broken pieces of our immigration system. But we found far more
agreement on what immigration reform should mean and what it ought to
look like than you would ever think was possible if you listened to the
politicians here in Washington or the pundits on TV.
Together, we developed a commonsense blueprint called the Colorado
Compact. It puts its emphasis on a strong economy and strong national
security; it cares for families while keeping our citizens safe. I am
glad we developed these principles, and I am glad it was done in such a
bipartisan way, in rural parts of the State as well as urban and
suburban parts of the State, and that we had such a broad coalition of
people, including my former opponent for this very seat, whom we
assembled in support of it.
One of the things we all agreed on was that, as promising as efforts
like this are--the effort in Colorado, the effort in Utah--this issue
needs more than piecemeal reforms. No State's effort can be a
substitute for a smart, sensible, national strategy to overhaul our
immigration system, and with this new Senate proposal, that is exactly
what we have.
The bipartisan Senate bill we have introduced addresses each of the
issues we mentioned in the compact, and it does so in a way that is
reasonable, that is compassionate and respects the rule of law. It
recognizes that we must take concrete steps to further secure our
borders.
We are building on steps already taken. Since 2004, the United States
has doubled the border patrol. We have tripled the number of
intelligence analysts working at the border. We are seizing a higher
volume of contraband weapons, currency, and drugs, and net migration
from Mexico is at its lowest level in decades.
Our bill would make substantial further investments at the border,
including new fencing and technologies--motion sensors, virtual
monitoring systems, inexpensive surveillance, and other innovative
approaches--that enable us to secure the border more cheaply, more
effectively, and with a smaller footprint.
However, there is still more we can do. With 40 percent of illegal
immigration due to visa overstays, we need to ensure a better system
for tracking people who come to our shores, who enter and exit our
borders, which is why our bill provides for a stronger and more
comprehensive entry/exit system.
This is a very interesting point that a lot of people do not know.
Forty percent of the 11 million people who are here who are
undocumented entered the country lawfully on a visa. We have a system
to check them on the way in, but we do not have a system today to check
whether they ever left. This is one of the ways, by the way, that the
bill will prevent our finding ourselves back where we are today to
begin with.
We need to secure opportunity, also, for those who are already in
this country. Our bill provides a fair but tough pathway for many of
the Nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, especially young
people whose parents brought them here as children, just like my mother
was, in search of a better life. Those here without status
[[Page S3316]]
today would be required to undergo a background check, pay a $2,000
fine, pay all of their back taxes. They would have to go to the back of
the line, which is what both parties have said for years, behind those
who have gone through the proper process to immigrate. That is only
fair and it is only right.
This is not just a humane thing to do, but it is sound economic
policy. Conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin estimates that
immigration reform will generate $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction and
help grow the economy. Some estimates have said this bill would grow
the economy by more than a percentage point of GDP. It is $1 trillion
or so over a 10-year period. A path to citizenship would lead to higher
wages in this country, more consumption of goods, and increased
revenue.
Our bill proposes a more coordinated effort across Federal, State,
and local governments, in partnership with private organizations, to
help new immigrants and refugees integrate into their communities. Our
immigration title, which was influenced by cities such as Littleton and
Greeley, CO, would help provide immigrants with greater access to
English language classes and civics education and help us cultivate
stronger citizens with a greater appreciation for our Nation and her
history.
With a broken immigration system hurting our businesses and workers
as well, we propose an efficient, sensible, and flexible visa system
that would be more aligned with our changing 21st-century economy.
As I mentioned earlier, roughly 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies
were founded by immigrants. We want an immigration system that
harnesses the world's innovation and talent here in the United States
of America.
There is no place where this is truer than the State of Colorado,
where 1 in 10 entrepreneurs is an immigrant. Colorado has a high-tech
sector that includes more than 10,000 companies and 150,000 workers who
produce almost $3 billion worth of exports each year--$3 billion worth
of exports each year--as well as a new patent office opening soon.
We want the next Facebook or iPhone or clean energy technology and
breakthrough medical device to be built in our State or at least in
America. That is why we create a new INVEST visa for foreign
entrepreneurs who want to start new businesses here in the United
States. A new category of visas proposed in our bill provides this
investment opportunity. Immigrant entrepreneurs who have launched
successful startups could stay or come and continue to create jobs and
fuel our economy if they can show they have been backed financially.
We make it easier for foreign students who graduate with advanced
degrees in STEM fields to get a green card--I know this has been of
great interest to the Presiding Officer--and increase the number of H-
1B visas. This will help us attract and retain highly skilled and
educated talent to fill labor shortages in some of our fastest growing
industries, including bioscience and computer engineering.
Our bill also creates a new--this is a lot to take in, I know, Mr.
President, and I hope people will have the chance to study this. This
is why I am so glad we took the time we did to negotiate this bill with
the eight of us, but now it is going through the committee on which the
Presiding Officer serves, the Judiciary Committee, to have hearings, to
have a markup, to have everybody have their chance to offer--I think
when I last heard, there were more than 300 amendments to the bill--to
offer those amendments and then to get it to the floor where we can
debate it. There is going to be time to do all this work, and this
requires time to understand it.
Our bill creates a new W visa, a program for lesser skilled workers
to come into the country. This, in addition to several other reforms
that are made throughout our bill, will ensure that we can continue to
fill our labor needs in sectors such as hospitality and our vibrant ski
industry, which hosts 56.5 million visitors every year.
There was complete agreement among Democrats and Republicans who were
meeting in this group that our visa system must protect American
workers and prevent exploitation, such as requiring efforts, first, to
recruit American workers. It also must be paired with a reliable, cost-
effective employment verification system that prevents identity fraud,
protects our civil liberties, and is critical to stopping future
illegal immigration.
That is one of the key objectives of this legislation. We do not want
to end up right where we are today, with 11 million undocumented
people, and we have put the systems in place--including, very
importantly, this employment verification system--to deal with that. We
have had broad bipartisan support on this part for many years in this
Congress, and it is now part of our legislation.
This all has to come with a determination to crack down on employers
who knowingly hire illegal workers. Simply put, if we want to reduce
illegal immigration, we need to make legal immigration a much more
straightforward process in this country. That is one of the reasons I
was glad to take part in the agriculture negotiations around this bill
under the leadership of Senator Feinstein and with Senator Rubio and
Senator Hatch. This bill alone is going to stabilize our agricultural
workforce for years to come and is critical to protecting and growing
our agricultural economy, which has a $40 billion economic impact in
Colorado.
This bill provides a faster path to citizenship for agricultural
workers to be able to do the important work of producing our Nation's
food and fiber and, increasingly, our energy. It also creates a new
streamlined program for agricultural guest workers that is more usable
for employers while maintaining critical worker protections.
It is the first time we have had an ag jobs title of this bill that
is endorsed by both the farm workers and the Farm Bureau. I thank them
for taking part in these negotiations and for the willingness of both
sides to give a little up for the greater good. Their example is one we
should embrace as we go forward on this bill.
As I said earlier, I feel the same way about the bipartisan
colleagues who worked on this bill. In crafting this bill, we all had
to give a little--just a little--to get a lot. Each of us had to come
to the table with our diverse perspective, representing different
constituencies. We each would have written certain pieces differently
were we left to our own devices, but this type of compromise needs to
happen if you are crafting a bipartisan and complex bill to fix the
immigration system in a country of 300 million people.
Every single member of the group was committed to working together to
accomplish that goal. In particular, I wish to again thank Senators
Schumer and McCain especially for driving this process forward. As the
committee begins its important work, I would like to acknowledge the
work and leadership of Chairman Leahy to see it through.
In the spirit of our partnership, I think it is important to remind
ourselves, on an issue where emotions can run so high and so hot, that
all of us are trying to do right by the American people, as each one of
us sees it.
Every proposed path to citizenship is not amnesty, and this proposed
path to citizenship is not amnesty. And every opponent of these reforms
is not anti-immigrant. We need to do more to secure our borders, but we
do not need to treat people trapped in a failed system as criminals.
These changes will be difficult. It is understandable that people
worry about what this is going to mean for their jobs, their schools,
their businesses. But if we just apply a very basic test--is it smart
and it is right--then I am confident we can find common ground and move
forward.
I would like to close with one last reflection on my own
grandparents' experience. On my first birthday, which was November 28,
1965, my grandparents gave me a birthday card and sent me a gift. In
that card, they wrote:
The ancient Greeks gave the world the high ideals of
democracy in search of which your dear Mother and we came--
They wrote this in English, by the way. Remember, when they came to
this country, they spoke none.
The ancient Greeks gave the world the high ideals of
democracy in search of which your dear Mother and we came to
the hospitable shores of beautiful America in 1950. We have
been happy here ever since, beyond
[[Page S3317]]
our greatest dreams and expectations, with Democracy, Freedom
and Love and humanity's greatest treasures.
They continued:
We hope that when you grow up, you will [have a chance to
help] to develop in other parts of the world a greater
understanding of these American values.
Democracy and freedom and love, in my grandparents' view: humanity's
greatest treasures, and they called them American values.
This is a lesson my wife Susan and I are now trying to teach our
three little girls. Opportunity is indeed a precious gift this country
will give each generation, asking only that they in turn not squander
that inheritance but increase it and pass it along to the next. That is
our responsibility as we consider this piece of legislation, and for
that matter any other.
If history is any guide, someone waiting in line for a visa at this
moment or someone waiting to enter what my grandparents called
``beautiful America'' will go on to become a brilliant artist or a
talented surgeon or a path-breaking businessperson. Someone whose
father picked grapes will grow up to found the next Apple. Someone
operating a ski lift at Vail is going to be the parent or grandparent
of a President or, God help us, of a Senator. That person will stand in
our shoes a generation from now, and they will know whether we had the
courage to do what was smart and what was right and what was hard.
Now is not the time to pat each other on the back. We have a long way
to go, as the Presiding Officer knows. But what we do have is some
momentum--I think a lot of momentum--and a balanced reasonable piece of
legislation. There are going to be some difficult discussions and
challenges ahead. There is no doubt about that. But what I know is if
we use the efforts and insights of the Colorado Compact as a guide, we
will arrive at that shared, sensible middle ground. We will pass
legislation that is worthy of the great hope of my grandparents and the
future generations in this country.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King.) The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Postal Reform
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about an
issue I think does not get enough discussion in the Senate but is of
great concern to the American people in general; that is, the need for
Congress to pass comprehensive Postal Service reform as soon as
possible.
The Postal Service is of enormous importance to tens of millions of
people, people in rural States like Maine or Vermont, to businesses all
over this country, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of
employees who serve us so well in the Postal Service.
About 2 years ago, the Postmaster General of the United States came
up with a plan for the Postal Service that would have--let me just tell
you and the American people what it would have done. It would have
eliminated about 220,000 Postal Service jobs, including the jobs of
many American veterans. It would have closed about 15,000 post offices
throughout the country, many of them in rural areas like the State of
Vermont. It would have eliminated half of the mail processing plants in
this country. It would have substantially slowed down the delivery of
mail by eliminating overnight delivery for first class mail. It would
have ended Saturday mail delivery.
Many of us in the Senate and in the House thought that plan was a
disaster for our country, for our economy, and for American workers. We
all organized and fought back against that plan. The goal was to
convince the Postmaster General to substantially revise the ideas that
he had brought forth.
Instead of closing down 15,000 post offices, the Postal Service, in
fact, came up with a plan to reduce the hours of service at about
13,000 post offices throughout the country, and many in the State of
Vermont. Was I happy with that? No, to be frank with you. Was it better
to see a reduction of 2 hours or 4 hours than seeing the entire rural
post office shut down? It was.
Instead of closing down half of the mail processing plants in this
country, the Postal Service decided they would keep about 100 of the
mail sorting centers that were originally on the chopping block open.
In other words, they did shut down some but not nearly as many as they
had intended to shut down.
Instead of ending overnight delivery standards, the Postal Service
has adopted a plan to keep overnight delivery going, although not as
strong as it previously was. Although it took an act of Congress
through the appropriations process, the Postal Service, for the time
being at least, has decided to obey the law of the land and not
eliminate Saturday mail delivery.
Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive postal reform bill. That
did not go as far as I would have liked, but it was certainly a
substantial improvement over what the Postmaster General had proposed.
We won that vote with 62 or 63 votes. There was bipartisan support for
it.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives failed to even schedule a
vote on the floor of the House for any postal reform bill. As a result
nothing was signed into law last Congress, forcing us to start this
process all over again.
What I fear the most is that all of the work the Senate did last
Congress--and the committee of jurisdiction worked hard on it. Some of
us put together an ad hoc committee of 15, 16 Members of the Senate who
worked hard on that issue. But I fear very much that all of that work
to save the Postal Service will go for naught if Congress does not get
its act together and pass a comprehensive postal reform bill as soon as
possible.
In my view the time has come to send a very loud and clear message to
the leadership of the House, the leadership of the Senate, the
Postmaster General of the United States, and the President of the
United States; that is, in the midst of this terrible recession which
has significantly impacted the middle class and working families of our
country, it is imperative that we do not destroy thousands and
thousands of decent-paying, middle-class jobs, including the jobs of
many veterans. That is what happens when you make the kinds of cuts the
Postmaster General has been talking about. In the midst of this
terrible recession, it is important that we do not harm small
businesses that depend upon the Postal Service to sell their products.
Just yesterday I met with some businesses in the State of Vermont for
whom it is enormously important that they know there is a strong Postal
Service that can provide rapid delivery of the packages they produce.
It is terribly important that as we talk about postal reform, we
understand many senior citizens depend upon the post office for their
prescription drugs.
It is also important, again, for the economy, that we not slow down
the delivery of mail, that we do not close half of the mail processing
plants in this country.
Here is the important point: There is no question that the Postal
Service has financial problems. Nobody disagrees with that. I think
many people do not understand the basic causes of the Postal Service's
financial problems; that is, the Postal Service today is in terrible
financial shape because of a congressional mandate signed into law by
President Bush in December 2006, forcing the Postal Service to prefund
75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period.
Let me repeat that. The Postal Service, as a result of a decision in
2006, is forced to prefund 75 years--75 years--of future retiree health
benefits over a 10-year period. Clearly, no other government agency at
the Federal level, State level, or local level comes anywhere close to
that kind of onerous burden. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no
private sector corporation in this country is burdened with a mandate
anywhere near that extreme.
This prefunding mandate is responsible for about 80 percent of the
Postal Service's financial losses since 2007. Let me repeat that. You
are going to read often, and we read often, the Postal Service is
facing severe financial problems. Let me repeat: This prefunding
mandate is responsible for about 80 percent of the Postal Service's
financial losses since 2007.
[[Page S3318]]
Before this prefunding mandate was signed into law, the Postal
Service was making a profit. In fact, from 2003 to 2006, the Postal
Service made a combined profit of more than $9 billion. That is a
significant profit.
I should also note that despite what we read in the media, the Postal
Service actually made a profit of $100 million during the last quarter
sorting, processing, and delivering the mail. If we are serious about
dealing with the financial problems facing the Postal Service, the
first thing we have to do is end this prefunding mandate once and for
all and allow the Postal Service to use the $48 billion sitting in that
future retiree health fund to keep the Postal Service healthy and
thriving for years to come.
When we talk about the financial problems facing the Postal Service,
we have to understand that to a very significant degree some 80 percent
of the problem was caused by the Congress as a result of a decision
made in 2006. It is clear to me, and I think to all Americans, that we
live in the year 2013. The world is changing. We are becoming more and
more a digital economy, but it is also clear to me that the Postal
Service does not survive by cutting back on its services to the
American people and to the business community.
In order to save and strengthen the Postal Service, I have introduced
the Postal Service Protection Act, S. 316. I am very proud to say that
bill now has 23 cosponsors.
Let me thank all of the Senators who are cosponsoring this bill:
Senators Baucus, Blumenthal, Brown, Casey, Cowan, Franken, Gillibrand,
Harkin, Heinrich, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Manchin, Menendez, Merkley,
Schatz, Stabenow, Tester, Tom Udall, Warren, and Wyden.
Mr. President, I would ask that Senator Cardin be added as a
cosponsor to S. 316.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. I am delighted that we are making progress on real
postal reform not only in the Senate but in the House as well. I thank
Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon for his leadership efforts in
cosponsoring the exact same bill in the House as we have in the Senate,
and that now has 139 cosponsors.
We have 24 cosponsors now in the Senate, and in the House that bill
has 139 cosponsors, which tells me the American people and their
representatives in Washington understand how terribly important it is
that we pass serious postal reform.
Let me very briefly talk about what is in that legislation, what the
legislation, if passed, would accomplish. That bill would reestablish
strong overnight delivery standards to ensure the timely delivery of
mail. When people put a letter or a package in a mailbox or go to the
post office, they want to know that letter or package is going to be
delivered in a timely manner, and we do that.
In order to make sure we do have timely mail delivery, this
legislation would prevent the closure of hundreds of mail processing
plants throughout this country and save the jobs of tens of thousands
of workers. This legislation would end, once and for all, as I just
mentioned, the disastrous prefunding mandate that is the major problem
facing the Postal Service.
This legislation would allow the Postal Service to recoup over $50
billion it has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System. This
legislation would prevent the Postal Service from ending Saturday mail
delivery. Further, and significantly, our bill would give the Postal
Service the tools it needs to compete in the 21st century.
I understand, we all understand, the world has changed. It is not
simply a question of finances, it is a question of giving the Postal
Service the ability to compete in today's market and to allow it to
sell innovative new products, new services, and, as a result, raise
more revenue. We need a new vision for the Postal Service. This
legislation would provide that vision.
Many Americans don't notice, but right now Federal law is tying the
hands of the Postal Service in terms of the products and services it
can provide. We say to the Postal Service that we are upset they are
not making enough revenue, and yet we tie their hands and prevent them
from going forth in producing new products and services to raise the
revenue that would help their bottom line.
This legislation unties the hands of the Postal Service and would
develop a process to allow the Postal Service to explore offering the
best products and services that would raise the most revenue.
Let me just give an example of some of the absurdities under which
the Postal Service is now operating.
If you were to go into a post office in Maine with a document and say
to the clerk who is waiting on you: Listen, I need you to notarize this
letter, the clerk would tell you: Sorry, it is against the law for me
to notarize that letter. Now, that is pretty absurd.
If you were to walk into a post office, as I am sure everyday people
do, and say: Listen, I need you to give me 10 copies of this document
because I have to send it out to 10 different people, they would say:
Sorry, it is against the law of the United States of America for me to
make 10 copies, 3 copies, or 1 copy of your document.
Furthermore, it is against the law for post offices to sell fishing
or hunting licenses. Well, in my State, we are a rural State. People
might, in certain parts of the State or other parts of America, like to
be able to walk into a post office and say: Hey, how do I get a fishing
license? How do I pick up a hunting license?
It is against the law right now. If somebody has a check that needs
to be cashed, it is very difficult to cash that check in a post office.
What you see, by the way, all over America are payday lenders who are
charging outrageous rates to low-income people to cash a check, a
service I suspect the Postal Service could do to make some money and
also save people a whole lot of money by not having to pay these
outrageous rates.
If you were to pick up a case of beer or a case of wine and you
wanted to send it to a relative in California, it is against the law
for the Postal Service to deliver wine or beer. Currently, it is
against the law for the United States Postal Service to engage in e-
commerce activities.
We say to the Postal Service: We want you to go out and we want you
to be competitive. By the way, you can't do this and you can't do that.
On top of that, we are going to cause a massive financial problem for
you demanding that you prefund 75 years of retiree health care in a 10-
year period. Good luck. Well, that has a lot to do with why the Postal
Service is facing the serious financial problems it is today.
We have to give the Postal Service a lot more flexibility, and we
have to give them the opportunity and the ability to develop a very
different business model than it currently has. In my view, we need to
give the Postal Service the authority to do what other countries
throughout the world are doing to respond to the shift toward
electronic mail and away from hard copy mail. Fewer and fewer people
are using first class mail. We understand that. They are using e-mail.
That is the reality and we have to respond to that.
Let me give a few of them, really just a few, of what other postal
services around the world are doing.
In Sweden, the post office will physically deliver e-mail
correspondence to people who are not online or don't have access to a
computer. Could that work here? I don't know. It is an interesting
idea.
In Switzerland, people can have their physical mail received,
scanned, and delivered into their e-mail boxes by the postal service.
In Germany, the post office will allow customers to communicate
through secure service.
I think people are increasingly and legitimately concerned about who
is going to get into their e-mail. In Germany they provide secure
services. Could that work here in the United States? I don't know. Is
it worth exploring, worth looking into? I think it is.
The point is that the Postal Service must be given the opportunity to
innovate and implement an expanded business strategy for a changing
world. We can't keep doing the same old-same old in a world that is
changing.
For over 230 years, and enshrined in our Constitution, the Postal
Service has played an enormously important role for the people of our
country and, in fact, for our entire economy. A strong Postal Service,
a Postal Service
[[Page S3319]]
that delivers mail and packages in a timely manner, is extremely
important for our economy.
That mission remains as important as it has ever been. Let's stand
together and fight to save the Postal Service, not destroy it. Let's
stand together in the midst of this recession to fight and save
hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I again want to thank the 23 cosponsors on my legislation. I look
forward to having more, but let's go forward together to save the
Postal Service.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this afternoon we have been trying to move
forward on the WRDA bill--the Water Resources Development Act--and
significant progress has been made. One of the issues we are trying to
work out is an issue dealing with Senator Landrieu. She has been, more
than anyone else in the Senate, concerned about what happens when
places flood, and she has every reason to feel this way because of what
happens in Louisiana with flooding. She is concerned about flood
insurance.
I have worked with Senator Boxer, Senator Boxer's staff, I have
worked with the Republicans, and it appears to me this is something
that has made great progress today. The staff is going to work on this
over the weekend. We will be here on Monday. I will file cloture in a
few minutes, but if, in fact, cloture doesn't need to be voted on, we
can always move forward without doing that. We can vitiate the cloture
vote.
So I hope the good work done by Senator Landrieu, her staff, and
other staff members here--and Senator Landrieu has been here, as she is
now. I don't mean this in a negative sense, but she is like a bulldog.
Whenever she gets hold of something, it is hard to get her to loosen
that jaw. She has been here all afternoon working on this, so I hope
something can be worked out during the next 48 hours on this matter.
Cloture Motion
I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 601, a bill to
provide for the conservation and development of water and
related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and
harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Tom Udall, Richard Blumenthal,
Max Baucus, Bill Nelson, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Harkin, Al
Franken, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Brian Schatz, Thomas R.
Carper, Jeff Merkley, Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Sherrod
Brown, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Ron Wyden.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required
under rule XXII be waived and that the vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on S. 601 occur at 12 noon on Tuesday, May 14.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
____________________