[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S210-S219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF ROBERT LEON WILKINS TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Robert Leon Wilkins,
of the District of Columbia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia Circuit.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we begin 2014, I hope we can set aside
our differences and do what is best for this country by confirming
qualified nominees to fill critical vacancies facing our Federal
judiciary. We can do this today by voting to end the filibuster of
Judge Robert Wilkins, who has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Judge Wilkins was nominated last June,
and it is time that he received an up-or-down vote on his nomination.
Last month, before we adjourned the Senate, we were able to confirm two
other exceptional nominees to this court--Patricia Millett and Nina
Pillard. Once Judge Wilkins is confirmed, the DC Circuit, which is
often considered to be the second most important court in the Nation,
will finally be operating at full strength. The American people deserve
no less.
Judge Wilkins is an outstanding nominee. He was unanimously confirmed
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia less than 3
years ago. He has presided over hundreds of cases and issued
significant decisions in various areas of the law, including in the
fields of administrative and constitutional law. Prior to serving on
the bench, he was a partner for nearly 10 years in private practice and
served more than 10 years as a public defender in the District of
Columbia.
During his time at the Public Defender Service, Judge Wilkins served
as the lead plaintiff in a racial profiling case, which arose out of an
incident in which he and three family members were stopped and detained
while returning from a funeral in Chicago. This lawsuit led to landmark
settlements that required systematic statewide compilation and
publication of highway traffic stop-and-search data by race. These
settlements inspired an Executive order by President Clinton,
legislation in the House and Senate, and legislation in at least 28
States prohibiting racial profiling or requiring data collection.
Despite the progress made in the past several decades, the struggle
to diversify our Federal bench continues. If confirmed, Judge Wilkins
would be only the sixth African American to have ever served on the DC
Circuit.
Judge Wilkins earned the ABA's highest possible rating of unanimously
``well qualified.'' He also has the support of the National Bar
Association, the Nation's largest professional association of African
American lawyers and judges, as well as several other prominent legal
organizations. I ask unanimous consent to include a list of support in
the Record.
I urge my fellow senators to end the filibuster on this outstanding
nominee. This Nation will be better off with Judge Robert Wilkins
serving on the DC Circuit.
I would also note that on December 31, 2013, before the new year,
Chief Justice Roberts once again issued his annual year-end report on
the Federal judiciary. In this report, he focused on the significant
financial strain on our Federal courts. The cuts from sequestration
have had a real impact for Americans seeking justice and pose real
threats to the dedicated public servants who work in our Nation's
Federal courts as well as to members of the public. I hope that we can
return to regular order in our appropriations process and ensure that
our courts have the resources they require. As the Chief noted, the
Federal Judiciary's entire budget ``consumes only the tiniest sliver of
Federal revenues, just two-tenths of 1 percent of the Federal
government's total outlays.'' We receive the benefit of the greatest
judicial system in the world for less than 1 percent of our entire
Federal budget. It makes no sense to indiscriminately cut services from
our independent Federal judiciary. There are better and smarter ways to
save taxpayer dollars.
Another threat facing our courts which is unaddressed in the Chief's
year-end report are the continuing vacancies experienced by the Federal
courts. Over the last year, the number of vacancies has hovered around
90 because obstruction in Congress has led to filibuster after
filibuster of qualified nominees. And the unfortunate action taken by
Republicans at the end of the first session of this Congress will only
mean further delay in filling these vacancies--Republicans, for the
first time ever, refused to allow any currently pending judicial
nominees to be held over so that they could be ready for immediate
action this year. For purely political reasons, Senate Republicans are
forcing us to duplicate work this year that we already completed in
2013. In the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee alone, more
than 65 judicial and executive nominees were returned to the President
and had to be renominated this week. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars
and valuable resources that could be spent addressing the difficult
issues facing our Nation. We must not take for granted that we have the
greatest justice system in the world, and ensuring this continues
requires the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and
consent.
Fortunately, due to the procedural posture of the nomination from
last year, we did not have to send the nomination of Robert Wilkins to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit back to the President for
renomination. I thank the majority leader for prioritizing this
nomination in the first week of the second session of this Congress. I
hope my fellow Senators
[[Page S211]]
will join me today to end the filibuster of the nomination of this good
man to serve on this important court.
Vote Explanation
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was unable to attend the roll
call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert
Wilkins to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit. Had I been
present for this vote and the two related procedural votes, I would
have voted aye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized to proceed as though in morning business for 15 minutes, but
prior to that I be able to yield to Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5
minutes and that not be counted against my time; and that I then be
recognized after he is done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the Senator from Michigan is recognized and yields
to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Unemployment Insurance
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan,
my chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I simply wish to make
a few comments about this afternoon's proceedings with respect to
unemployment insurance. The reason we were here, and we can't lose
sight of that, is that 1.3 million Americans, as of December 28, lost
their extended unemployment benefits. They are without the modest
support of roughly $300 to $350 a week. Every week, 73,000 more
Americans lose this support. We are going to see this number grow and
grow and grow and grow while we talk and talk and talk and talk.
Along with Senator Heller, we proposed a very straightforward
mechanism: a 90 day extension and picking up retroactively those who
had lost it, unpaid for, so we could work on some of the difficult
issues my colleagues have all explored this afternoon.
In listening to my colleagues, we made the determination there was a
sincere concern and desire on the part of my Republican colleagues
particularly that any extension of benefits be paid for. Most
frequently, we don't pay for these benefits. We have on occasion, but
most times we consider it emergency spending. We go ahead and authorize
the payments and we don't offset it. But the concern was raised
repeatedly and very strenuously that these benefits should be paid for.
Also, there were several proposals to do that.
So working closely with my colleagues, we considered the best
approach for it was not simply to bring up the Reed-Heller bill, the 90
day extension, but to respond as best we could to these concerns. So
the provision we brought up today is fully offset, but it goes beyond
90 days because the simple logic was that going through the travail of
finding pay-fors is not something we want to do every 90 days. It is
something we should do seriously but for as long as possible. So our
provision would be able to carry these benefits through to the middle
of November, and it required finding offsets.
The other thing we have heard from our Republican colleagues is that
we shouldn't use any revenue--no tax provisions. In the Democratic
caucus we have seen this extension of extended unemployment insurance
benefits come up so many times under Republican Presidents and
Democratic Presidents completely unpaid for. But also in terms of
seriously and thoughtfully balancing the way we pay for provisions, we
have many times suggested, which I think is common sense, let's have a
mix of revenue and other provisions--spending provisions. Let's do
that; 50-50 or some fair combination. In fact, I think the American
people would see that as the most sensible approach to doing the work
of government. But once again we yielded to the perceptions and the
demands, in some respects, that there be no revenue provisions in this
bill.
As a result, we had to look for a series of pay-fors that didn't
involve revenues. That was a deliberate attempt to reach across and to
say: We hear you. You want it fully paid for, you want no spending, and
you want provisions that will not involve revenue. So we proposed a
major provision--an extension of the mandatory sequestration--that was
included in the budget agreement and that had overwhelming support in
the Senate--for a bit over an additional year, which gained us,
roughly--and these are rough figures--about $17 billion.
Then we took one of the provisions that was offered by my colleague
Senator Portman, who has been working very assiduously and very
thoughtfully on these issues, with respect to the double collection of
both SSDI benefits and unemployment compensation benefits and we tried
to focus it and make it narrower, and that resulted in $1 billion,
giving us sufficient funds to carry this program through--if we voted
today, starting as soon as the House passed it--all the way to the
middle of November. That is where we are today.
We still are open to alternatives to try to deal with this issue. I
know many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have a long list of
revenue provisions. In fact, Chairman Levin has, through his work, a
list of what many would call--many Americans--egregious loopholes that
corporations enjoy. But certainly there are other ways to pay for this.
But we are still trying to work through this.
We are still trying to find a bipartisan approach to deal with the
issue of the moment, the crisis of the moment, and that is 1.4 million
Americans today--and that number is growing--who worked hard and
through no fault of their own lost their job and who are now struggling
to get by with a modest $300 or $350 a week.
One final point. This is a crisis of the moment. I know some of my
colleagues are talking about an issue--the issue of military pensions--
that doesn't become effective, as I understand it, until 2015. There
are other ways to deal with it. But that is a fair position to advance
at any time, and I have great sympathy for that position.
I would hate to see other issues, systematic reform of our training
programs--which takes time, effort, and focused attention by committees
typically--essentially prevent a response to the immediate crisis of
people who are without jobs, who are desperately looking, and now don't
have very modest support to pay for their rent, pay for their heat, and
provide some support for their families.
We are still engaged. We will have a vote Monday. I hope we can
succeed on that procedural vote. Regardless, we are going to come back
and back, because this number of Americans--growing each week by
approximately 70,000--needs our response, not just our comments on the
floor of the Senate.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Iraq
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the current situation in Iraq is deeply
disturbing. The violence there is a human tragedy, and the resurgence
of Al Qaeda-affiliated forces in Fallujah and elsewhere represents a
threat not just to the people of Iraq but to our own security and that
of our friends and allies in the region. So I very much share in
concerns many of us have expressed about recent developments in Iraq.
The United States has announced it will expedite military assistance,
including delivery of unmanned aerial vehicles and HELLFIRE missiles.
That is appropriate. The administration has stepped up intelligence
sharing to help Iraq security forces in their fight. That is
appropriate. The administration is holding ongoing conversations with
Iraq about other ways in which the United States might assist, and that
is appropriate.
One form that assistance might take is in the sale of weapons such as
attack helicopters to Iraq. The issue is not whether such aircraft
would help Iraq fight violent extremists; they would. The question is
whether the Maliki government would use those aircraft, for instance,
only against violent extremists, and whether we receive credible
assurances that such weapons will be used to target Iraq's real enemies
and not to further sectarian political objectives. With credible
assurances, it would be appropriate to provide Iraq such assistance.
What it is wrong to do is to blame the Obama administration for the
political failures of Iraqi leaders. Blaming the administration for
failures and decisions by the Iraqi Government ignores not only
history, it also leads to policy approaches that would not be in our
interest or in the interests of the Iraqi people.
[[Page S212]]
For example, here is what Senator McCain and Senator Graham said
recently:
When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq in
2011, over the objections of our military leaders and
commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the
vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge
as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that
reality is now clearer than ever.
That argument ignores some important history. First, it ignores the
fact that the 2011 withdrawal date for U.S. forces in Iraq was not set
by President Obama but by President Bush. In December of 2008, just
before he left office, President Bush signed an agreement with the
Iraqi Government that called for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraqi
cities in 2009, and the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end
of 2011. President Bush himself, standing next to Prime Minister Maliki
in Baghdad as they announced their agreement, said, ``The agreement
lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq.''
So the 2011 withdrawal date was set by President Bush, not by President
Obama.
As to whether our military commanders objected to our withdrawal from
Iraq, here is what happened: While there was no mention from President
Bush or Prime Minister Maliki when they announced their agreement of a
U.S. troop presence after 2011, Secretary Gates and others discussed
the possibility of some U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011. Then,
during 2011, the Obama administration entered into negotiations with
the Iraqi Government with the goal of keeping some U.S. troops, in
limited roles, in Iraq to assist Iraqi security forces after the 2011
withdrawal date set by President Bush. I and many other Members of
Congress supported the idea of continuing a smaller, specialized U.S.
military assistance force. While there was disagreement in the
administration over the size of a residual force, what decided the
issue wasn't how many troops would remain; rather, it was the Iraqi
Government's refusal to agree to legal protections for U.S. troops,
whatever their number. In the absence of such protections, it was the
opinion of the military leaders that no U.S. forces should remain in
Iraq, regardless of whether the number was 3,500 or 20,000.
At a November 2011 Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked General
Dempsey, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the
importance of legal protections for our troops as part of any agreement
to keep troops in Iraq after 2011. This is what the questions and
answers were:
Sen. Levin: Are you willing to have those forces remain
without an agreement relative to immunity for those troops?
Gen. Dempsey: No, sir, I am not. . . . It was the
recommendation, advice and strong belief of the Joint Chiefs
that we should not leave service men and women there without
protections.
Sen. Levin: And why is that?
Gen. Dempsey: Because the--of the many institutions in Iraq
that are still evolving and immature. The Iraqi judicial
system is certainly among those. And we did not believe it
was--it was appropriate, prudent to leave service men and
women without judicial protections in a country that still
had the challenge, as we know it has, and a very immature
judicial system.
Later in that same hearing, I asked General Dempsey if our commanders
on the ground in Iraq shared that opinion. He responded:
It was the topic of many secure video teleconferences and
engagements person to person. . . . I can state that they
also believed we needed the protections, both General Austin
and General Mattis, in order to leave our troops there.
Before our committee in February of 2013, General Austin, our
commander on the ground in Iraq during the 2011 negotiations, testified
that there were extensive discussions with Iraq about a continuing U.S.
troop presence. He testified:
We worked with the Iraqi leadership all the way up until
the point in time when they decided they weren't going to be
able to give us the protections that we needed to keep our
troops there.
As Secretary Panetta put it before our committee, the key moment in
the negotiations was ``once [the Iraqis] made the decision that they
were not going to provide any immunities for any level of force that we
would have there.''
So our military leaders were very much unwilling to leave any U.S.
forces on the ground in Iraq if they could be subjected to the
vicissitudes of the Iraqi judicial system. It is therefore wrong to say
that the withdrawal took place ``over the objections of our military
leaders.'' It was Iraq's refusal to grant important legal protections
to our troops that decided the matter.
This criticism of the administration's Iraq policy also understates
the importance of factors that have come to the forefront since the
2011 withdrawal. Foremost among these has been an Iraqi Government that
has repeatedly pursued a sectarian agenda, disenfranchised Sunni
Iraqis, failed to address Kurdish concerns over the status of Kirkuk
and the hydrocarbons law, and alienated moderate Shia Iraqis who seek a
more democratic and inclusive government. Prime Minister Maliki's
governance shortfalls has stoked the sectarian tensions on which Al
Qaeda and other extremist groups try to capitalize.
Many Members of Congress have made clear that it is extremely
difficult to support more robust assistance to the Iraqi Government
unless the Iraqi leadership places the good of their country ahead of
sectarian politics and unless it produces a practical strategy for
governing Iraq on a more inclusive and less sectarian basis.
For example, last October, I joined five colleagues--Senators McCain,
Menendez, Corker, Inhofe, and Graham--in writing to President Obama,
expressing our concern about deteriorating conditions in Iraq.
I ask unanimous consent that our October 29, 2013, letter be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, October 29, 2013.
Hon. Barack Obama,
President of the United States,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear President Obama: We are deeply concerned about the
deteriorating situation in Iraq. As Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki visits Washington this week, we urge you to
press him to formulate a comprehensive political and security
strategy that can stabilize the country, enable Iraq to
realize its vast potential, and help to safeguard our
nation's enduring national security interests in Iraq.
By nearly every indicator, security conditions in Iraq have
dramatically worsened over the past two years. Al-Qaeda in
Iraq has returned with a vengeance: It has regenerated the
manpower, terrorist infrastructure, resources, and safe
havens to sustain and increase the tempo and intensity of
attacks and to penetrate deeper into all parts of Iraq than
at any time in recent years. Indeed, an analysis this month
by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy found, ``In
2010, the low point for the al-Qaeda effort in Iraq, car
bombings declined to an average of 10 a month and multiple
location attacks occurred only two or three times a year. In
2013, so far there has been an average of 68 car bombings a
month and a multiple-location strike every 10 days.'' The
United Nations estimates that more than 7,000 civilians have
been killed in Iraq thus far this year--a level of violence
not seen since the worst days of 2008.
What's worse, the deteriorating conflict in Syria has
enabled al-Qaeda in Iraq to transform into the larger and
more lethal Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which
now has a major base for operations spanning both Iraq and
Syria. As the situation in both countries grows worse, and as
ISIS gathers strength, we are deeply concerned that Al-Qaeda
could use its new safe haven in Iraq and Syria to launch
attacks against U.S. interests and those of our friends and
allies.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Maliki's mismanagement of
Iraqi politics is contributing to the recent surge of
violence. By too often pursuing a sectarian and authoritarian
agenda, Prime Minister Maliki and his allies are
disenfranchising Sunni Iraqis, marginalizing Kurdish Iraqis,
and alienating the many Shia Iraqis who have a democratic,
inclusive, and pluralistic vision for their country. This
failure of governance is driving many Sunni Iraqis into the
arms of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and fueling the rise of violence,
which in turn is radicalizing Shia Iraqi communities and
leading many Shia militant groups to remobilize. These were
the same conditions that drove Iraq toward civil war during
the last decade, and we fear that fate could befall Iraq once
again.
We therefore urge you to take the following steps as Prime
Minister Maliki visits Washington:
First, we believe the Prime Minister's visit is an
important opportunity to reengage with the American people
about the continuing strategic importance of Iraq. Though the
war in Iraq is over, Americans need to understand that the
United States has an enduring national security interest in
the development of a sovereign, stable, and democratic Iraq
that can secure its own citizens
[[Page S213]]
and territory, sustain its own economic growth, resolve its
own internal disputes through inclusive and pluralistic
politics, and cooperate as a strategic partner of the United
States--a vision of our relationship that was best expressed
in the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement.
Second, we urge you to make clear to Prime Minister Maliki
that the extent of Iran's malign influence in the Iraqi
government is a serious problem in our bilateral
relationship, especially for the Congress. Published reports
demonstrate that the Iranian regime uses Iraqi airspace to
transit military assistance into Syria to support Assad and
his forces. Furthermore, attacks against the residents of
Camp Ashraf in Iraq are reprehensible, especially because the
Iraqi government pledged to protect these people. Prime
Minister Maliki must understand that actions such as these
need to stop. Not only do they make it difficult for Iraq's
friends in the United States to build public support,
especially in the Congress, to enhance our strategic
partnership, but they also undermine Iraq's standing as a
responsible member of the international community.
Third, we encourage you to step up our counterterrorism
support for Iraq. It is in our national security interest to
enhance the effectiveness of Iraq's security forces,
especially through greater intelligence sharing. However, in
addition to our aforementioned concerns, we must see more
evidence from Prime Minister Maliki that U.S. security
assistance and arms sales are part of a comprehensive Iraqi
strategy that addresses the political sources of the current
violence and seeks to bring lasting peace to the country.
This leads us to the final and most important point that we
urge you to stress with Prime Minister Maliki: If he devises
and implements a real governance strategy for Iraq, the
United States is ready to provide the appropriate support to
help that strategy succeed. Iraq's challenges will never be
solved through security operations alone. Indeed, as the
United States learned through its own hard experience in
Iraq, applying security solutions to political problems will
only make those problems worse.
It is essential that you urge Prime Minister Maliki to
adopt a strategy to address Iraq's serious problems of
governance. Such a strategy should unite Iraqis of every sect
and ethnicity in a reformed constitutional order, based on
the rule of law, which can give Iraqis a real stake in their
nation's progress, marginalize Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other
violent extremists, and bring lasting peace to the country.
To be effective, an Iraqi political strategy should involve
sharing greater national power and revenue with Sunni Iraqis,
reconciling with Sunni leaders, and ending de-Baathification
and other policies of blanket retribution. It should include
agreements with the Kurdistan Regional Government to share
hydrocarbon revenues and resolve territorial disputes. And it
requires a clear commitment that the elections scheduled for
next year will happen freely, fairly, and inclusively in all
parts of Iraq, and that the necessary preparations will be
taken.
If Prime Minister Maliki were to take actions such as
these, he could cement his legacy as the leader who
safeguarded his country's sovereignty and laid the foundation
for the new Iraq. In this endeavor, Prime Minister Maliki and
our other Iraqi partners would have our support, including
appropriate security assistance, and we would encourage you
to provide U.S. diplomatic support at the highest levels to
help Iraqis reach the necessary political agreements before
the 2014 elections. However, if Prime Minister Maliki
continues to marginalize the Kurds, alienate many Shia, and
treat large numbers of Sunnis as terrorists, no amount of
security assistance will be able to bring stability and
security to Iraq. That is not a legacy we want for Prime
Minister Maliki, and that is not an outcome that would serve
America's national interests.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin.
John McCain.
Robert Menendez.
Bob Corker.
James M. Inhofe.
Lindsey Graham.
Mr. LEVIN. In our letter, written as Prime Minister Malaki was
visiting Washington, we supported an increase in support for Iraq's
counterterrorism efforts. But we made clear that the Iraqi Government
must provide a practical plan for using such aid and provide assurances
relative to whom advanced weapons would be used against. We wrote
President Obama as follows:
It is in our national security interest to enhance the
effectiveness of Iraq's security forces, especially through
greater intelligence sharing. However . . . we must see more
evidence from Prime Minister Maliki that U.S. security
assistance and arms sales are part of a comprehensive Iraqi
strategy that addresses the political sources of the current
violence and seeks to bring lasting peace to the country.
We further wrote:
This leads us to the final and most important point that we
urge you to stress with Prime Minister Maliki: If he devises
and implements a real governance strategy for Iraq, the
United States is ready to provide the appropriate support to
help that strategy succeed.
And:
If Prime Minister Maliki continues to marginalize the
Kurds, alienate many Shia, and treat large numbers of Sunnis
as terrorists, no amount of security assistance will be able
to bring stability and security to Iraq.
It is a tragedy for the Iraqi people and a real security concern for
the United States that Prime Minister Maliki has yet to produce a
strategy for broadly based governance in Iraq. We should not forget the
2011 withdrawal date for American troops from Iraq was negotiated by
President Bush. We should not forget the decision to reject an ongoing
U.S. troop presence after 2011 was Iraq's, because of Iraq's refusal to
assure us that our troops would have protections from Iraqi courts and
prosecution. We should not forget that our military leaders supported
the decision not to leave our troops in Iraq without legal protections
from Iraqi prosecution. We should not forget that while an ongoing
relationship is in our interests, no amount of military equipment from
us will protect the Iraqi people if their government continues to place
sectarian goals ahead of sound governance.
So we should use opportunities to assist Iraq in its struggle against
violent extremism and for stability and security, but Iraq's fate
ultimately rests with its people and their leaders.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from
Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I
conclude my remarks, Senator Murkowski of Alaska be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have been honored to serve with
Senator Levin on the Armed Services Committee. He does an excellent
job. He has spent a lot of time and many hours working to try to help
us be successful in Iraq and other areas of national defense.
I think Generals Dempsey and Austin were right to say we could not
keep our troops there unless they had immunity from local prosecutions.
But as I recall the net feeling about the President's decision to
withdraw from continued negotiations on this contentious issue, the
military felt this was not wise--at least many of them did--and they
believed that had we continued to pursue negotiations, we may have been
able to reach the kind of agreement which would allow us to help the
Iraqi Government be stable and successful. Pulling out as we did always
seemed to me to be too rapid, too precipitous, and created dangers
which could place at risk that which our soldiers fought and died
for. I do believe that is what happened. It is a tragic thing.
I was in Falluja, not long after that bitter battle. We had hundreds
wounded and almost 100 killed. The Marines performed with such valor
and courage. It was one of the great, courageous performances of the
U.S. Marine Corps. It is sad, sad to me to see that today Al Qaeda is
flying its flag in parts of that city. It is a tragedy. It did not
maintain the faith that we ought to have maintained with those that we
in Congress directed to go out and fight this war and to be successful.
Maybe yet something can be done successfully to deal with this
situation, which I feel deeply about.
unemployment insurance
Mr. SESSIONS. I am here to share some thoughts about the remarks
delivered today by President Obama on the growing problem of poverty
and our chronic unemployment that has occurred during the 6 years of
his Presidency, after he has declared that the recession is over and
was over. Just this week the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said
that ``the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer
and the middle class is under siege.''
Wages are not doing well. Americans in large numbers are not doing
well, and they are hurting. Washington Democrats, led by the President,
are now proposing increased unemployment insurance and new wage-price
controls, wage controls to mandate wages that have to be paid, to treat
the consequences of a failed economy--a stagnant, slow-growth economy
that is not creating jobs. These words and actions represent an
admission that the
[[Page S214]]
White House economic agenda has been a disaster for poor and middle
class people. It has not worked.
I know he believed it would work. I know he has advocated these
policies. I know he promised that they would work. But they are not
working. Worst still, the President remains fully committed to the
policy regime that he has been advocating, and that is not working.
These policies have failed, not just for the last 5 years; they have
failed for the last 50 years. They will never work. The President and
Majority Leader Reid are correct, a nervous American business community
is hoarding profits because they don't know what the future is going to
be like. Those struggling to get by are feeling the results of
corporate cost cutting and the policies that we are seeing executed by
the government are impacting this situation negatively. They just are.
I know the people proposing these solutions think they are caring
about people who are hurting today. But if we care about them, we will
use our heads as well as our hearts, and we will think through as to
how to make growth occur in our economy, how to help jobs be created,
how to have wages rise instead of stagnating or declining.
Mr. President, $16 trillion has been spent fighting poverty since the
war on poverty began 50 years ago, yet where do we stand today? Mr.
President, 47 million Americans are on food stamps, 91.5 million are
outside the labor force not working, and 46 million are living in
poverty. In low-income communities the pain is especially severe. For
example, in the city of Baltimore, 1 in 3 residents receives food
stamps. In Chicago, 51 percent of the city's children live in a single-
parent family. In Detroit, almost 1 in 3 households had not had a
single person working at any time throughout the year--almost 1 in 3
households. The city's violent crime rate is among the worst in the
country. More than half of all Detroit children live in poverty.
The welfare bureaucracy that the left is determined to defend and
expand is failing our fellow Americans. It is just not working. We can
do better. We have to do better. No longer can we define compassion by
how much money we spend on poverty but by how many people we lift out
of poverty.
The amount of money State and Federal governments spend on the
welfare bureaucracy each year amounts to more than $1 trillion. That is
a huge sum. It is twice the Defense Department budget. If all these
funds were converted to cash and mailed to every household in poverty,
it would equate to $60,000 per household. Yet as the President now
admits, chronic poverty and a widening income gap is the new normal.
We have huge bureaucracies, huge multiple conflicting programs, and
programs that are not working and are not helping the people we are
supposed to help. They just are not.
Isn't it time that we broke from decades of policies that are proven
not to work? Imagine how much better it would be if we combined dozens
of overlapping welfare programs into a single credit with better
oversight standards focused on the goal of helping people become
financially self-sufficient. We need fresh approaches. We have to have
fresh approaches. I believe it will happen. The sooner it happens the
better off this country will be and the better off poor people will be.
But all we get from the White House are the stale policies of
yesterday. What is the agenda the President persists in pushing?
Consider the cornerstones of the President's economic agenda, the
things he has been pushing in the Senate and the Congress and
advocating unilaterally through the powers of the executive President--
some beyond all law, it seems to me. These are the things he has
consistently advocated for. He wants a government health care takeover,
and that is proven to be a job killer. It is killing jobs and two-
thirds of the jobs this year that have been created were part-time and
in large part that has been a reaction to the Affordable Care Act.
What else? He has a hostility, a consistent hostility to the
production of American energy, which makes the country more wealthy, to
produce our own energy rather than transferring our wealth abroad, to
buy energy from abroad. It creates jobs in America, high-paying jobs.
We have proposals for more and more taxes and more and more
regulations that make it more difficult for U.S. workers to compete in
the global marketplace. It makes it harder for their companies to be
able to export and therefore create more American jobs.
We have a lawless immigration policy that undermines American workers
and their wages. It just does. They can say whatever they want to say,
but the bill that passed the Senate, the comprehensive immigration
bill, would have doubled the number of guest workers. Some say: Well,
Jeff, they are just going to be agricultural workers. That is not so.
Only a small number are going to be agricultural workers. They are
going to be a million-plus workers traveling around the country taking
jobs all over America--twice as many lawfully as would be the case
under current law. This is supposed to be immigration reform? This is
supposed to help American workers find a job or have a pay raise?
We have a weak trade policy. We have to stand up for the American
workers on the world stage and make sure that our trading partners are
accepting our products like we accept their products, and if they do
not, we have to defend the interests of the American worker. That is
the way to help them have more jobs and better pay.
We have a welfare bureaucracy that penalizes work. The President is
proposing more massive spending, creating more debt. He has had the
greatest debt increases in the history in our country. That is
destroying and weakening growth in America. It places a cloud over the
American economy, as experts have told us.
These policies have been the order of the day for 5 years. That is
what we heard. We need to spend more, we need to invest more, and we
need to tax more. We have had more regulations than we have ever had in
American history. We have had trillion dollar deficits the likes of
which we have never seen before, and people wonder why the economy is
not doing well.
We blocked oil production in the gulf for an inordinate period of
time and are only slowly allowing that to occur. We blocked a Canadian
pipeline that would create thousands of American jobs. We blocked
energy production on Federal lands. We make it harder for energy
production on private lands to occur, and we wonder why we cannot
create sufficient jobs and growth. We need lower-cost energy, cheaper
energy. That is good for the economy. Falling natural gas prices have
been a help because of new techniques in the production of natural gas.
These statist, leftist policies have been tried in America before,
and they have been tried throughout the world for decades, and they
will never work. Taxes, regulating, more government, and taking over
the health care industry will not create prosperity and jobs in
America. It just won't. If it would, we would be doing so much better.
Since the President has entered office we have added an incredible $7
trillion to the debt of the United States, and what do we have to show
for that? Real wages are lower today than they were in 1999. Take-home
pay has fallen for 5 consecutive years. Average household wealth is 60
percent lower today than it was in 2007; 1.3 million fewer people are
working today than in 2007. Have we had a recovery? We have fewer
people working today than we had 6 years ago, and every month we add
150,000 or more people, basically, to the age cohort of Americans that
could be working, because the population is increasing that much. So
you have to create real jobs to stay ahead of just normal population
growth. There is 1.3 million fewer people working today, even though
the population has grown by 14.5 million. There are 1.3 million fewer
people who are working today than in 2007, even though the population
has grown 14.5 million. That is not good.
So the President is right to be worried about the health of the
American middle class and lower-income workers in America. It sure has
not been going well. I know he thought his statist ideas would work,
and he pushed them steadfastly. He had a Senate that rubber stamped for
2 years what he wanted, including a $800 billion stimulus bill that was
supposed to create jobs and prosperity in America, every penny of that
borrowed.
If we continue down this road, I fear we are going to sentence an
entire generation of young Americans to poverty,
[[Page S215]]
joblessness, and stagnant economic growth in our economy. Majority
Leader Reid said this week that, ``We should realize that today there
is only one job available for three people seeking a job. Think about
it.''
I agree that we absolutely must think about that. We should think
seriously about it. My first thought is this. Since three people are
looking for every one job that is open, then why has the President
embraced an immigration bill that would double the flow of guest
workers into America? They will take jobs that would be available for
American workers. Why? That is what I think about.
As David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, said
recently: Immigration cannot be a substitute for training our own
workforce. Is there something wrong with him saying that? Isn't that an
honest, correct statement, speaking for the interest of the average
Briton?
We need to help struggling Americans get off welfare, off
unemployment, and into good-paying jobs.
We have a loose labor market. We don't have a tight labor market.
Byron York recently wrote an excellent column. He showed that the very
same companies that signed letters to the President and the Congress
demanding more guest workers are laying off American workers by the
thousands. Big companies are signing letters that demand more workers,
and they are laying off thousands of workers. It is a fact. He listed
them. There were 10 or 15 companies. Some of them laid off thousands of
people the very year they wrote to this Congress demanding more foreign
workers. So now we have to extend unemployment benefits because people
can't find jobs. We have to pass a law to set the wage so the wage can
be higher because it is not going up through the natural free market as
it should if we had a normal market for labor.
Whom do we work for? I know who I work for, and that is the hard-
working people of Alabama and the United States. I don't work for the
masters of the universe. They are demanding more workers from Congress
when millions of Americans are unemployed.
America is not an oligarchy. House Republicans need to firmly tell
this President that we work for the American people. We reject any
immigration plan that puts special interests or corporate interests
before working Americans. They need to say: We are going to defend the
working people of this country. They are not being defended in the
Senate by the Democratic majority, that is for sure, with regard to the
immigration policy.
A small group of CEOs don't get to set immigration policy for the
country, no matter how much money they have. How many ads do they buy?
We are not going to enrich the political class at the expense of the
middle class, and we will reject the immigration bill that passed the
Senate.
That is one of the things we could do to help improve job prospects
for Americans. It wouldn't cost us a dime. We wouldn't have to borrow
money. It would actually get people off welfare and food stamps. It
would put them back into the workforce, and put us on a better path.
If we want to reverse the middle-class decline, we need a new
economic vision. We need concrete steps to restore opportunity to the
American people without adding a penny to the national debt. We need
policies that work to create prosperity without borrowing and creating
more debt. We just have to do that.
What are some of the things that we can do? Produce more American
energy. We can turn the welfare office into a job-training center. We
can do this. We are going to have to do this. We are going to have to
move people from dependence to independence. We need to streamline the
Tax Code and make it more growth oriented, which will help us to be
more competitive worldwide. We need to eliminate every Washington
regulation that is not needed. These are regulations that kill jobs and
kill competitiveness.
We need to enforce trade rules with our partners that defend the
legitimate interest of U.S. workers. We need to enforce an immigration
policy that serves the national interest--the people's interest--and
protects jobs for Americans. We need to make our government leaner and
more accountable. Our government needs to do more for less just like
good businesses and good corporations and good companies are doing all
over America. We need to do that with our government. That will help
the economy.
We need to balance the Federal budget, restore the confidence of the
American people, the world financial community, the vitality and the
future of America, and spare our children from a lifetime of debt.
These are all positive steps that are true to our constitutional
heritage and our legacy of freedom and opportunity. Those are the
things we should be doing and we can do. They are all steps that will
create more jobs and more growth without borrowing money, and these are
all steps that will lift millions out of poverty, and help struggling
Americans realize the dream of financial independence.
I don't know what the President was thinking when he talked about a
few little promise zones--is that what he called them--around the
country. This is somehow going to deal with the unemployment problem in
America?
He announced this today. I haven't had a chance to study it yet, but
these are just a few spots on the map of the country. This is not going
to have any kind of systemic impact on our declining growth and the
weak recovery we are seeing today. If the recovery doesn't exceed 2
percent GDP growth per year, it will not create jobs faster than the
population grows.
I am afraid we are not in a good position there. We are not seeing
the growth that we had, and experts are predicting slow growth in the
years to come. We have to get off the path we are on and get on the
path to growth, job creation, and prosperity. We have to make sure our
American citizens are trained, skilled, and moved into good jobs so
they can be independent and take care of their families without being
dependent on the government of the United States.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
unemployment compensation
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it has been a disappointing week here
in the Senate. I started out the week feeling pretty good and
optimistic. I had a major presentation before the Brookings
Institution. I talked about the enormous potential in this country for
energy production and the fact that we are at the highest level of
energy production domestically than we have been in 20 years and what
great prospects we have for that. When we talk about jobs and economic
opportunity, it is really one of the bright spots out there.
Of course, the debate this week has been over unemployment
compensation and the extension, initially proposed by the President to
be a 3-month extension--an emergency, temporary extension. I was one of
six Republicans who came together and said: This is an important
conversation for us to be having at this particular point in time.
As we know, the long-term employment benefits expired on December 28,
2013. It impacted over 1 million Americans around the country. In my
home State of Alaska about 6,500 people lost long-term benefits at the
end of the year, and it was one of these cold turkey things. Those who
still had eligibility for certain benefits were cut off hard. There was
no tapering down. This is hard.
Back here in Washington, DC, we have been living with some pretty
cold weather. It is cold weather all the time in Alaska at this time of
the year. It is hard to be out of work. It is expensive to keep your
homes heated. It is expensive to live there, and so I recognize that
the safety nets we put in place are important. It is important for us
to have discussions and debates so we can argue and compromise on the
issue of long-term employment benefits. That is a conversation we
should have. I wanted to have that debate.
I wanted the opportunity for full-on amendments so we could bring up
good ideas, such as, good ideas about reform and perhaps tying benefits
to job training, retooling, giving people that opportunity to move
forward, and debate about how we pay for it. There have been times when
we extended long-term unemployment benefits with an offset, and then
there have been times
[[Page S216]]
when we extended it on an emergency basis with no offset. But let's
talk about it, let's debate it, and let's put up some amendments.
I was part of that group that really thought we would not only be
able to talk, but that we would actually be able to weigh in as Members
representing our States, presenting our ideas, and speaking for our
constituents on issues that are very important around the country.
Usually in a body such as the Senate, actions don't happen unless there
is an opportunity to vote on issues.
So this afternoon when I listened to the majority leader's statement,
he said very clearly that we weren't going to have any amendments on
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. In fact, his
words were: We get nowhere with doing amendments. I find that so
disturbing.
I have only been in the Senate for 10 years, but what I have seen in
my 10 years is a change in the process--a change in an institution
where we are no longer taking the good ideas from this side and the
good ideas from the other side through an amendment process--or even
from a committee process for that matter--and building better policy
based on the good ideas that we all have.
Why would we be afraid to vote on amendments? They may take us a
little bit longer throughout the day to go through. It disrupts our
schedules. My schedule is to work for the people of Alaska, and if that
business isn't conducted here through debate and voting, then what is
it? What is it?
I was really quite discouraged after the exchange on the floor
earlier. Colleagues have worked hard to come up with some good
proposals. These are not ``gotcha'' amendments as was suggested by the
majority leader.
I think the proposal of the Senator from Ohio--a proposal that is
actually contained in the President's budget proposal--was absolutely
legitimate. So to suggest that it is an amendment without merit is not
fair.
At the end of the day, don't we judge the merit of an amendment, of
an idea or of a proposal by presenting it to the body for a vote?
If we truly are at that point where we are simply not going to amend
bills, that we are simply going to vote straight up or down on a bill
that has been presented to us--probably not even out of the committee
process but more likely from the majority leader's chambers--that is a
tough place for us to be as a body. That is not what this process is
all about.
The minority leader reminded us yesterday that we can do better. We
can do better as an institution, but we sure didn't demonstrate that
today.
I want to work with my colleagues on the issue of unemployment
compensation. I want to be able to recognize that compassion that we
show for other Americans who are dealing with great difficulty right
now. I want to try to move this country forward with policies that are
good and strong and create those jobs.
Energy
When I started my comments, I talked about energy production being
that bright light. Look at what is happening in the State of North
Dakota where, boy, anybody who wants a job can get one. In fact, they
can get two or three jobs.
They are ground zero in this type of oil revolution. Their
unemployment rate was 2.7 percent last October. There has been a lot of
back-and-forth going on about Keystone and its potential for providing
direct jobs, direct and indirect end use jobs around the country--
42,000 jobs around the country. Wouldn't that be helpful?
When we talk about our opportunities in this country, we need to be
putting in place policies that help advance jobs and job creation and
the wealth then that comes with it. We can and must be doing more.
One of the areas we need to address is where this administration, in
my view, has seen some real policy failures; that is, in restricting
access to Federal lands for resource development, blocking and slowing
the permitting process. We need to be doing more. The President has
touted the gains made in energy production. But I think it is important
to recognize that most of those gains have been on private and State
lands. The Presiding Officer and I know there are enormous resources on
our Federal lands. Let's access them. Let's access them safely and in
an environmentally responsible way but in a way that is going to help
our economy, help the job situation in this country. I feel we can do
so much more. I am hopeful again that we will, in this body, in this
institution, be able to work together to solve some of the issues that
confront us. But, again, I am disappointed.
I did not come to the floor this evening to talk about the comments
made earlier on where we are in the amendment process and not being
able to advance an amendment process. But my colleagues can tell I care
deeply about this institution. I care deeply about our responsibility
to govern around here. I am not convinced we are governing to our
ability. We need to make some changes, and it only comes when we
acknowledge that those changes have to come and that cooperation has to
come from both sides.
Emergency Connector Road
Tonight I come to the floor to talk about a decision that came out of
the Department of Interior the day before Christmas Eve. This is a
decision that in my view is absolutely unconscionable, and it is a
decision that was made by the Secretary of the Interior the afternoon
of December 23, in which she rejected a medical emergency connector
road between two very remote Alaskan communities, the community of King
Cove and Cold Bay.
I have thought long and hard about my public comments to my
colleagues in the Senate because I have spoken out about this at home
and I was very direct. I was very direct about my anger, my
disappointment, and my frustration. I recognize I have to work with
folks in this administration, and when we are talking about the
Secretary of the Interior, I recognize she is effectively Alaska's
landlord. I need to be able to figure out a way to get along with her.
But I have to tell my colleagues that this was absolutely a heartless
decision by Secretary Jewell. It was a decision that she alone made,
and it will only serve to endanger the Alaskan Native village residents
of King Cove.
With the decision the Secretary made, she has put the interests of
certain environmental groups and the alleged peace and comfort of the
birds, the waterfowl in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge above the
lives of hundreds of Alaskans, because 950 Alaskans live in King Cove.
By the Secretary's act of denying this short road needed to ensure the
people of King Cove reliable and safe access to an all-weather airport
in nearby Cold Bay, Secretary Jewell has effectively turned her back on
the Aleut people of western Alaska. She has discarded her duty to
uphold the trust responsibility the Federal Government owes to its
Native peoples.
The uncle of the Presiding Officer served as Secretary of the
Interior. He knew full well that trust responsibility. It is a high
trust and the Secretary has turned her back on the Native people out in
King Cove.
To add insult to what could very well be real injury or even death,
Secretary Jewell did this on the day before Christmas Eve. On the day
before Christmas Eve, I received a voice mail message from the
Secretary telling me that she later in that afternoon was going to deny
the road to King Cove. What was I doing? I was doing the exact same
thing most of the people around me were doing--we were at the last
minute getting ready for Christmas. I was in the parking lot of a Fred
Meyer store going inside to get Scotch tape and wrapping paper.
The decision made by the Secretary is one that goes beyond building a
10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road between King Cove and
Cold Bay. This decision makes clear to us in Alaska that our lives--the
lives of the people, the human beings who are there--just don't seem to
matter to the Secretary. It is clear to me that either she does not
understand or she does not care about the most basic needs of our
remote residents, and it is quite clear that we have, once again,
received unfair treatment at the hands of our Federal Government.
Sometimes it just feels as though those on the outside, whether it is
the Federal Government, back here, 4,000 miles away from home, that
there is this sense that Alaskans need to be protected from themselves.
Quite honestly, that is offensive. Quite frankly, I
[[Page S217]]
have a very hard time believing that if this same situation occurred
somewhere in the lower 48, the decision would be the same. The fact is
we are out of sight, we are out of mind. There are only 720,000 people
in Alaska. There are only 950 people, or thereabouts, in King Cove. Who
is going to be upset? Well, I am upset. I am upset. Not only have the
people of King Cove been wronged, but the people of Alaska have been
wronged. This is not a decision that is going to just go away because
we all got caught up in the Christmas holidays. This is not going to be
something the people of Alaska or this Senator will forget, because we
are not done.
I have been to this floor many times--many times--in fact, I think
the Presiding Officer has been in the chair on previous occasions--when
I have come to call attention to this lifesaving road and the land
exchange that was approved by Congress, signed into law by the
President. I feel as though I have told this story so many times I
don't need to remind folks, but I am going to provide a brief
refresher.
The recent story of King Cove actually started pretty well. Congress
came together almost 5 years ago to give the Interior Secretary reason
and authority to act in the public interest when it comes to providing
access. But as is so often the case, this has become yet another
terrible example of the interests of our people put at risk by their
own Federal Government. So back in 2009 we passed--I introduced
legislation--we passed legislation that proposed to add more than
56,000 acres of State and tribal land to the Izembek Refuge in exchange
for a 206-acre road corridor through a corner of the refuge. Again, I
wish to repeat the numbers because some people say I must have
forgotten a zero: In exchange for 56,000 acres of State and tribal
land, a 206-acre road corridor. In addition to the fact that this is
basically a 300-to-1 exchange that was offered, there was agreement
that this road would be so limited--so limited as to have an
infinitesimally small impact on the refuge. The people of King Cove are
not insensitive to the fact that this is a very rich ecosystem out
there. This is a very rich area. This is where the birds come through.
They have no interest in harming or damaging the refuge.
So the agreement was for a one-lane, between 10 and 11 miles long,
gravel road, severely restricted by law--restricted by law; not just an
agreement where the mayor says, oh, during my tenure, we are not going
to use it for commercial purposes. This is in law: noncommercial
purposes, one-lane, 11-mile-long gravel road. In addition, there were
going to be roping corridors so that if a vehicle is on the road, it
wouldn't be able to go off the road and onto the refuge and lay tire
marks or impact the refuge at all.
The Department of Interior EIS clearly showed that the actual acreage
inside the refuge to be impacted by fill material was just around 2.7
acres. Again, think about the exchange. They are giving up 56,000 acres
in exchange for a 206-acre road corridor and, of that, the impact by
fill material is just about 2.7 acres. So consider also that the
exchange would have added 2,300 acres of eelgrass beds to the refuge.
This is prime habitat and feed for the black brant, and this was
something that clearly Secretary Jewell felt was very valuable because
she chose to place higher value on those black brants than she did on
human and wildlife values. That 2,300 acres, then, is about 20 times
more than the eelgrass that the EIS said might have been impacted by
erosion as a result of the road. So the rejection of this exchange just
dumbfounds me. I don't understand it.
The State of Alaska and the local tribal groups were willing to give
up 56,000 acres of land. Keep in mind, these are lands that were given
to them under the Native Land Claims Settlement Act. These lands
represent who they are, and they are willing to give up 56,000 acres of
it for a lousy one-lane, 11-mile gravel, noncommercial-use road. That
is how much this road meant to them, because it was more than a road.
It was a lifesaving connector. It was a way for them to get to an all-
weather airport, the second longest runway in the State of Alaska that
was built during World War II; an amazing runway, actually, that isn't
encumbered by the topography and the weather as the King Cove Airport
is.
So you have a people who are desperate for a solution, so desperate
for their solution that they are willing to give up their lands. The
most prized thing the Native people have in our State are the lands
around them, and they are willing to exchange them for a small road
corridor--a 300 to 1 exchange--and the proposed land that would have
been provided to the Federal Government is pristine land that is
valuable for the waterfowl, for the wildlife, certainly would enhance
and benefit the refuge.
But Secretary Jewell said no to this. She said no to this 300 to 1
exchange--an exchange that would enhance the habitat for the birds she
wants to protect. It really makes you wonder: Has there ever been such
a lopsided land exchange that has been rejected by the Federal
Government?
The former head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall, was
the one who largely picked the lands and had approved of this exchange
back in 2006--long before this legislation was ever introduced. So the
Federal agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the head of the
Fish and Wildlife Service had looked at all this and said: OK, in order
to get this corridor, there is going to have to be some exchange, so
let's figure out what it is going to be. He gave his blessing to that
back in 2006.
But what this does speak to is how strongly Alaskans feel about
protecting the health and safety of our residents, and rightly so. I
would submit to you, Mr. President, if Secretary Jewell and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service truly had--truly had--the best interests of
both the human residents and the birds of the Izembek Refuge in mind,
they would have recognized that adding 56,000 acres, while taking out
just 206 acres--and, then again, of that, the amount that would have
actually been impacted by fill is 2.7 acres--I think they would provide
far greater benefit to the refuge than any small, single-lane, gravel,
noncommercial road ever possibly could subtract.
The legislation directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
conduct an EIS for the road. So the 2009 legislation that passed the
House, that passed the Senate, that was signed into law by the
President, directed Fish and Wildlife to conduct an EIS. That agency
prepared a faulty EIS. They failed to adhere to the underlying law,
choosing a ``no action'' alternative and failing to adequately account
for health and human safety when selecting the preferred alternative.
This is more evidence of systematic disregard for the well-being of the
Aleut who have lived in this region for thousands of years.
I also want to touch very briefly upon Interior's trust
responsibility to Alaska Native peoples. The Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, Kevin Washburn, went to King Cove. He visited. He
actually spent 2 days there. In fact, they actually had some pretty
stinky weather when he was there, and I think he saw firsthand what the
residents of King Cove deal with in getting in and out. The Assistant
Secretary wrote a report for Secretary Jewell. It was not made public
until after the Secretary announced her decision, which I think was
unfortunate. But again, back to the trust responsibility--the
responsibility that the Federal Government has to protect the health
and safety of Native Americans.
But here you have the Fish and Wildlife Service, you have Assistant
Secretary Washburn, and now, finally, Secretary Jewell, who had the
opportunity to encourage or actually make a decision that would improve
the lives of the residents of King Cove. They turned their backs on
these people, and they diminished the hopes of these first peoples.
The EIS, which recommended no action--no action--to help the people
of King Cove has a clear negative impact on the health and safety of
Alaska Natives who live in that village. The official report that was
prepared by Mr. Washburn regarding his visit to King Cove, I believe,
was inadequate--wholly inadequate--and, quite frankly, very weak.
He, the Assistant Secretary, is viewed as a leading legal scholar on
Native trust responsibility. I truly have high hopes for him because I
believe that his heart clearly is in that right place. But his report
falls woefully short of his duty to the Aleut people, and I expected
more of him--truly
[[Page S218]]
I did--and I know the people of King Cove deserve better.
The health and safety of the people of King Cove is not some
speculative issue. We are not just talking about, oh, the weather is
bad there or somebody might get hurt. The fact of the matter is that
since 1980, 18 people have died, and they have died because of medevac
delays or because of the dangers connected with the medevac flights out
of the fishing village.
It is not easy to get in and out of King Cove. They have an airstrip,
yes, they do, but they are surrounded on three sides by mountains, and
a valley on one and the ocean on another. The Coast Guard describes
medevacs into King Cove as one of the more frightening, more
challenging operations that the Coast Guard is tasked to do. You might
say, why is the Coast Guard doing medevacs? Well, because medevac
flights from Anchorage--some 600 miles away--cannot get in. They say:
The risk to us to fly in for somebody who is in the midst of a
difficult labor and needs to get out to the nearest hospital--which is
Anchorage, 600 miles away--is too great or we are not willing to risk
our lives. So whom do you call? You call the Coast Guard.
In 2012, the Coast Guard was called in, I believe, five times, at a
cost of up to $210,000 to the taxpayers per trip, to bring in a crew to
medevac that individual out. So if you can fly in--if the Coast Guard
is able to do it, they will be there. But, in the meantime, you have
had people die, and you have had planes crash.
If you cannot get out, the alternative is--because there is no road;
there is no 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use connector
road--you can go across the water. Think about it. If the weather is
bad enough up in the air, think about what it is doing down in that
ocean. It is pretty tough.
So you can come across the water for hours in 15-, 20-foot seas, but
then, once you get over to Cold Bay, it is not like they can just load
you into a nice airplane on the runway there. You have to get docked,
and up off the dock to get to the airport.
The fact of the matter is King Cove and Cold Bay--it is a little bit
rustic out there. What is in this picture I have in the Chamber is
probably a little difficult to see. This is the top of the dock at
night. This is about a 20-foot drop to the ocean here. You have metal
ladders that you climb up, if you are able. But if you are able, you
probably do not need to be medevaced out. A person with a heart
condition, how is he climbing up this metal ladder--as the waves are
crashing against him in the dark and in the wind? What you are seeing
here is basically a sled that has been hoisted up on a crane, swinging
around in the wind in the dark.
I do not have the picture here of the elder who had suffered a heart
condition and could not make it up the steps. They could not hoist him
up. They put him in a crab pot and hauled him up by crane on to the top
of the dock so that they could then take him to the airport, where he
was safely evacuated out and made it to Anchorage.
As I say, when we are talking about the health and safety of the
people of King Cove, it is not speculative. People are dying. People
have died. People are afraid to fly. The testimony that the Secretary
heard, that my colleagues have heard--as the people of King Cove have
come back, they have said: Enough.
The Secretary, in her visit to King Cove in August, stood before the
schoolchildren there at an assembly--and she is very good with
children, and it was good to watch the exchange--but those children
spoke up to her and told her why they needed a road out of King Cove.
To hear a child say: We need a road so that I am not afraid to fly and
because I don't want anyone to die. This is an issue, again, where the
stories we have heard, the Secretary has heard--because I was there
with her; we heard the stories together--they are heartwrenching. They
bring tears to your eyes. The people, the families who have lived with
this have been devastated. The Secretary heard all this, and yet it
seems that she has just chosen to ignore the voices of those children,
the stories of those elders, the pictures of an elder being hauled up
in a crab pot so he can make a medevac to Anchorage.
I want my colleagues to know here in the Senate, as well as the
administration, that I am not going to let this issue die. There is a
simple reason why. Because I am not willing to let anyone in King Cove
suffer or die because they do not have emergency access out of their
village.
This decision rested squarely on the shoulders of Secretary Jewell,
who then announced this devastating news only hours before Christmas
Eve--a heartless decision delivered at a heartless time. The Secretary
said to me that there is no good time to deliver bad news, and I would
agree. But the timing of this decision was solely hers. There was no
deadline within which she had to act. She chose to announce it on
Monday afternoon, at 3 p.m., Washington, DC time, knowing that everyone
was going to be skating out of here for the holidays, hoping that
everyone was going to be distracted with their family events, hoping
that no one was going to be watching. She knew that the people of King
Cove would be upset. She knew that I would be upset--but less than a
thousand people, she thinks. That is not how you do things. It is not
how you do things.
The people of King Cove are without hope right now for one reason;
and that is because of this decision from the Secretary. I have come
here to tell the Senate what happened to them in what was supposed to
be--what was supposed to be--a season of joy and celebration. I
truthfully cannot use strong enough words to show the depth of my anger
for this decision.
I cannot fathom why she came to it, why she was willing to sign her
name to it. But I, for one, never thought that we would see a day
where, under the guise of making a public interest determination, a
Cabinet Secretary would so blatantly disregard the public's health and
safety. But we have.
So the question now is, does it stand? Are we going to do what we
know is right and make sure that those who live in King Cove are
protected? I have my answer. I am going to stand in solidarity with the
people of King Cove and others in Alaska and across the country whose
well-being is put at risk by misguided government decisions, devoid of
proper balance between human and wildlife considerations.
I have not yet identified every opportunity I may have to draw
attention to, resist, and seek redress from Secretary Jewell's bad
decision.
An obvious and perhaps an easy step would be to introduce yet another
bill. But I am not willing to concede that the last word has been
spoken on the law, the law we enacted in 2009. That law passed after a
great deal of effort. There was debate. There was significant
compromise as I have outlined. But that was a law we had all
negotiated. I do not believe that law has been properly implemented.
Who knows how and whether the courts may address that injustice.
A messaging bill might get some attention. But I am concerned that
its immediate consequence may be to legitimize in the eyes of many a
bad decision we should be fighting rather than accepting. I think the
people of King Cove deserve better.
The Department of Interior needs more balance. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service needs better direction. I am not ruling out any
possible remedy. In this case, Alaskans have been made the victim. But
I think that all Americans are at risk from this kind of unbalanced
decisionmaking. I pledge to my colleagues and my constituents that I am
going to keep fighting for what is right, both morally and legally.
This fight is not over. Again, the attention is drawn to the
residents of King Cove and a small connector road in a very remote part
of our country. But I do think it is emblematic of the bigger struggle,
the bigger fight we are seeing as a State with our own agencies, with
our own Federal Government.
I have taken a great deal of time this evening. I appreciate the
Presiding Officer's attention as I have made my case. I am certain the
administration is listening to my words as well. As I indicated at the
outset, in Alaska we have no choice but to figure out how we deal with
our agencies because they consume, they occupy so much of how we are
even able to move forward as a State. I will continue to do what I can
to work with this administration in a manner that is going to benefit
the people whom I work for. But I will always put the health and safety
and best interests of Alaskans first.
[[Page S219]]
I yield the floor and suggest 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
unemployment insurance
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today has been an eventful day on the
unemployment compensation front. We began the day working with
Republican colleagues to put together what we thought was an amendment
they would join us in pushing forward. But surprisingly and
disappointingly to me, those whom we worked with were unable to join on
the amendment.
I am disappointed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is
we gave the Republicans what they wanted. It is entirely paid for. The
amendment made structural reforms in the unemployment compensation
bill, which is something they said they wanted. The amendment includes
a proposal, much like that advocated by Senator Portman, that would
prevent people from collecting both unemployment insurance and
disability insurance at the same time.
Our amendment includes an offset that is Paul Ryan's offset. It was
the same thing we used in the Murray-Ryan budget agreement this body
supported a few weeks ago.
So it is totally paid for with something Paul Ryan suggested and we
adopted a short period of time ago. It makes structural reforms they
said they wanted--maybe not all of them, but it made structural
reforms. It is hard to understand why they cannot take yes for an
answer. Maybe it is because they do not want the legislation passed. It
is possible.
But I have not given up. I have discussions with a number of
Republican colleagues this evening. They said they are going to try to
come up with something else. I certainly hope that is the case. We need
to understand that there are 1.4 million Americans hurting. It is hard
for me to comprehend why something that meets the outlines of what we
understood they wanted is not good enough.
Maybe they do not like it because it does not give them an
opportunity to--I withdraw that. I think we have had enough talk here
today. I am not going to add to that. All I wish to close the Senate
with tonight is it is very unfortunate for a lot of people who are
truly hurting.
It is paid for with something that is certainly standard around here.
We won't be able to use that anymore. States won't be able to use the
same money anymore, but it doesn't affect the budget in any way. It
doesn't raise the deficit one penny. It sounds as if it is a very good
deal to help 1.4 million people.
Explain to somebody who is on long-term unemployment in the State of
Colorado, State of Illinois, State of anyplace, and they will say they
didn't vote for this because they didn't get to offer unlimited
amendments, even though there was a proposal that wouldn't run up the
deficit one penny. It was all paid for. It is hard for me to comprehend
that. We could explain it to someone, but it is their job to explain
it, not mine. My explanation is that it is something the American
people want, need, and should have.
____________________