[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2935-S2947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1670 and S. 1696
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that I
will make in a moment to kind of set the stage for what I am asking the
Senate to consider. We will be asking that we schedule a vote on two
pieces of legislation: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, S.
1670, which is my legislation; and S. 1696, the Women's Health
Protection Act, by Senator Blumenthal.
Very briefly, what I am trying to do is to have an opportunity for
the body to talk about two pieces of legislation that relate to the
abortion issue, the role of the Federal Government. Very quickly, my
legislation would ban abortion at the 20-week period--the fifth month
of pregnancy--based on the theory that the child can feel pain at that
point in the pregnancy and that the standard of care for the medical
community is that you cannot operate on an unborn fetus at the 20-week
period without administering anesthesia, and the reason for that is
because the child can feel pain.
There have been individuals born at the 20-week period who have
survived. But the theory of the case is not based on the medical
viability under Roe vs. Wade; it is a new theory that the State has a
compelling interest in protecting an unborn child at this stage of
pregnancy. The partial-birth abortion ban, which applies at 24 weeks,
is backed up to 20 weeks.
Here is what medical journals tell parents to do at 20 weeks: An
unborn child can hear and respond to sounds. Talk or sing. The unborn
child enjoys hearing your voice.
It is a whole list of things about the unborn child in the 20-week
period.
We are one of seven countries that allow abortions at this stage in
the pregnancy, along with China, North Korea, Vietnam, Singapore,
Canada, and the Netherlands.
So I would ask the body to consider having a debate on my legislation
about whether we should limit elective abortions at the 20-week period
and also a debate on Senator Blumenthal's legislation that basically
would allow the courts to set aside several State restrictions on
abortion. We are going to present a series of actions at the State
level. I think his legislation would allow the courts to have a literal
construction in terms of being able to strike down these provisions. I
disagree with my good friend. We are good friends, although we have a
different view. The Senator from Connecticut made a statement when he
introduced the bill that every Senator should be on the record when it
comes to this legislation. I agree. I hope every Senator would be on
the record when it comes to my legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be
determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican
leader, the Senate proceed to consideration of S. 1670, the Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and S. 1696, the Women's Health
Protection Act; that there be up to 8 hours of debate equally divided
in the usual form, to run concurrently; that there be no amendments,
points of order, or motions in order; that upon the use or yielding
back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote on S. 1670; that following
the disposition of S. 1670, the Senate proceed to vote on S. 1696; and
that both bills be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President.
Reserving my right to object, and I will object, I respect my friend
and colleague from South Carolina. We are friends, and we agree on a
lot of issues.
[[Page S2936]]
On this issue we fundamentally disagree.
I am here to remind the American people and my colleagues that this
proposal to ban abortion after 20 weeks, in my view, is irresponsible
and should not be before the Senate. But I am more than happy to cast a
vote on it, along with the Women's Health Protection Act, and I hope
they will be considered. This issue deserves to be before this body.
Neither of these proposals has yet been considered in committee. The
minority leader of this body has recently spoken about the need for ``a
vigorous committee process'' in handling bills. This bill should not be
considered in this way.
This bill would prohibit the medical profession from performing an
abortion when a fetus is older than 20 weeks and would do nothing,
frankly, to help women protect their health and the health of their
families as well as their right to have control over their health care
needs. This bill leaves the vast majority of women who may need an
abortion for health reasons after 20 weeks of pregnancy with no
options, and it punishes doctors with up to 5 years in prison for
providing a service that the doctor believes in his or her professional
medical opinion is best for the woman and her family. Our
constitutional right to privacy tells us unequivocally and emphatically
that these choices should be between the doctor and her family or her
advisers, including her clergy.
The proponents of this bill would have us believe the bill would
reduce the number of abortions in this country. In fact, the statistic
that matters in this debate shows there are a mere 1.5 percent of
abortions that occur 20 weeks after conception, and the majority of
these medical procedures occur due to a health issue that would put the
fetus or mother or both at risk.
Take for example a young woman I am going to call Laura. She is a
young mother from Connecticut. She became ill at 22 weeks into her
first pregnancy with early onset of severe preeclampsia. Laura's blood
pressure rose dangerously, her kidneys stopped, and she was at risk.
Her pregnancy was wanted. She wanted a baby and she planned for it, but
she needed to end it to protect her health. Her physician was able to
provide her with a timely and safe abortion. Although Laura felt a
future pregnancy would be too risky, she went on to adopt three
children.
Facing such severe medical risk, women such as Laura need the safest
care modern medicine can offer. With all due respect, Senator Graham's
bill ignores the health realities of women, the realities they face
every day in Connecticut and around the country. Had this bill been
law, a doctor would have had to wait for Laura to be facing death
before protecting her with the abortion she needed.
The Women's Health Protection Act would put women's rights first. The
Women's Health Protection Act seeks full and thorough consideration of
these issues, and I seek it through the regular order. Let's have
hearings, let's consider these measures in committee, and let's bring
them to the floor in a way that they can be debated insightfully and
thoughtfully, not this way. The Women's Health Protection Act protects
a woman's health and her ability to make her own decisions and her
constitutional rights.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. We already have laws in this country banning elective
abortions at the 24-week period. It is called the partial-birth
abortion ban. It has been through the Supreme Court, it went through
this body, it went through the House, and it got overwhelming support.
That bill has exceptions for rape and incest and cases that involve the
life of the mother; so would this. We are just backing it up 4 weeks,
and the reason we are backing it up 4 weeks is because at 20 weeks
people have been born and survived. I know twins who were born at 20
weeks.
But the theory of the case is that the government should have the
right to protect an unborn child, and most of the abortions are so far
along that the medical science requires anesthesia before you operate.
The question is, If we are going to require a doctor to provide
anesthesia to the baby before they operate to save its life, should we
authorize abortions at that point?
The Washington Post poll showed just a few months ago that by 56 to
27 percent, people supported the 20-week pain-capable bill--60 percent
women.
At the end of the day I hope we can have a debate on this issue. The
reason I brought it up today is because this is the anniversary of the
Dr. Gosnell case, which was one of the most horrendous cases in
American jurisprudence, where a doctor received life sentences for
three counts of murder. He was an abortion doctor aborting babies at
the latest stage of pregnancy. If the babies survived the abortion, he
would cut the spinal cord. Three women died as a result of the care
given by him. It was a chamber of horrors. It was a year ago today.
I hope people will not forget what Dr. Gosnell did, and if we can
prevent occurrences such as that, we should, and that is what this bill
is designed to do--to make sure the unborn child at this stage of the
pregnancy has a chance to continue on. There are only seven countries
in the world that allow abortions at this stage, and I hope that when
this debate is over, the United States will not be in the seven.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I respect the sincerity of my
colleague from South Carolina. The fact of one instance of possible
medical malpractice does not justify this kind of sweeping abrogation
of women's reproductive rights or women's health care. The principle is
the same whether it is 4 weeks back or 4 weeks forward. The principle
is that a woman has constitutional rights to choose health care and has
a constitutional right to privacy that would be negated by this
measure. And we are siding with improving women's health care,
enhancing and upgrading it, and giving women choices and protecting
those choices, not cutting back by 4 weeks or in any way infringing on
that fundamental right.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my
remarks, Senator Boxer be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, today the senior Senator from South
Carolina and his Republican colleagues have proposed a measure which
amounts, in my opinion, to an attack on the freedom of American women
to make their own personal health care decisions. Instead of focusing
on improving access to health care for women, these Senators are
pursuing divisive policies that jeopardize women's health and put
politicians and government between a woman and her doctor.
I object to this dangerous political game. Women's access to quality
health care is not a political game for me and some of my colleagues
who join me here today, nor is it a game for women and families across
the country and in my home State of Wisconsin. Too many States have
enacted record numbers of laws that restrict women's access to
reproductive health services and the freedom to make their own health
care decisions. These restrictions, such as the one we heard proposed
earlier this afternoon, have real and serious consequences for American
families.
I recently heard from a mother in Middleton, WI, who at 20 weeks of
pregnancy was devastated to find out that her baby would not survive
delivery. She had to undergo an emergency termination. A clinic in
Milwaukee, WI, was the only place that would do the procedure, but
because our Republican Governor was preparing to sign a law imposing
some incredible requirements and burdens on providers, this particular
clinic was preparing to close its doors and they wouldn't schedule her
for an appointment. She and her husband were forced to find childcare
for their two sons and travel to another State in order to get the
medical care she needed.
The threat in Wisconsin and in States across the country is clear:
When politicians play doctor, American families suffer. This is why my
good friend from Connecticut Senator Blumenthal and I have introduced a
serious proposal--the Women's Health
[[Page S2937]]
Protection Act. It would put a stop to these attacks on women's
freedom. Our bill creates Federal protections against restrictions such
as the Republican proposal we were hearing about today, proposals that
unduly limit access to reproductive health care, that do nothing to
further women's health or safety, and that intrude upon personal
decisionmaking. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance
this important legislation through the committee process and through
regular order.
We know today's spectacle is not meant to produce a serious debate
about protecting women's reproductive health; it is about the narrow
Republican agenda to take our country backward and to roll back
important health benefits for American families.
We have seen this with the numerous failed attempts by Republicans to
repeal the Affordable Care Act that have empowered millions of women
with more choices and stronger health care coverage. Today, women can
finally rest assured that they will not be charged more for their
coverage just because they are women, and someone's mother can get a
lifesaving mammogram without the fear of high medical bills.
Over 50 times congressional Republicans have tried to roll back this
economic security for millions of American families. Republicans, it
seems, would gladly go back to the days where being a woman was
considered a preexisting condition and insurance companies could drop
your coverage because you get sick, get older or have a baby. But we
are not going to go back to those days just as we are not going to
create a future where politicians in Washington take away the freedom
of women to make their own personal health care decisions.
I am committed to putting a stop to the relentless and ideological
attacks on American families and will continue to fight to ensure that
both men and women have the freedom to access the health care services
they need. In the United States of America, health care should be a
right guaranteed to all. That is why I and so many of us have fought
and we will continue to fight as we move our country forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask to add 10 minutes to the 10 minutes
I have already requested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I listened carefully to Senator Lindsey
Graham, who put forward a very dangerous bill for women and their
families in this country. I will explain in a moment why I think it is
dangerous, but what was interesting is that I believe he said he
brought it forward today because it is the anniversary that Dr. Gosnell
was convicted and sent to prison. This is a rogue doctor who committed
despicable and illegal acts and is now serving life in prison without
the possibility of parole for what he did--abusing the trust of being a
reproductive health care doctor. Dr. Gosnell is away, as he should be.
How does my friend from North Carolina commemorate this? By putting
forward a bill that will drive more women to rogue doctors. If we make
it illegal for a woman, regardless of her circumstance, she is going to
find a way to save her health, her life, and her family.
Women deserve to have protections. The bill that my friend proposed
simply says that after a certain number of weeks, an abortion will not
be allowed no matter what a woman's health situation is, and that is
very dangerous.
I ask--just rhetorically--how can a Senator say he is doing something
right for women and their families when there is not a health
exception? If a woman goes to the doctor and finds out she is facing
cancer, kidney failure, blood clots or some other tragic complication,
why should the government step into the middle of her family? Why
should the government and U.S. Senators be allowed to step between the
woman, her doctor, her God, and her family? It is a disgrace,
especially from a party that is known for saying: Get Government off
our backs.
This is horrible. There is no exception for rape or incest victims
who are unable to report those heinous crimes. Let's say initially they
were too frightened and then suddenly they get their courage. Well, too
bad. Have your rapist's child. This is not a government that cares
about families. This is a government that steps into our business at
the most tragic moments of our lives.
The bill is so extreme that the American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, which represents thousands of OB/GYNs, said these
restrictions are ``dangerous to patients' safety and health.'' Who do
you think stands up for the health of the women in this country? U.S.
Senators or doctors who know the women, the family, and the
circumstances of her health?
I have a letter from Christie, who lives in Central Virginia, and she
said:
My husband and I were confronted with two equally horrible
options--carry the pregnancy to term and watch our baby girl
suffocate to death upon birth, or terminate the pregnancy
early and say good-bye to our much-wanted and much-loved baby
girl.
Why should a Senator tell her what to do? It is a war on women. When
you tell a woman in that type of circumstance what to do and take away
her right to use her mind, her brain, and the love she has for her
family, her husband, and her children to make that decision, it is a
war on women.
Christie was pregnant with her second child when that happened. She
wanted this baby, but it was not until a 20-week ultrasound that she
found out her daughter would suffocate to death at birth. What U.S.
Senator has a right to make her watch that baby child suffocate to
death? I am sorry, but that is not life-affirming.
Then there is Judy from Wisconsin. She says:
I know what it is like to live without a mother. My mother
died when I was only 4 years old, and it changed my life
forever.
Four months into her pregnancy, Judy developed a pregnancy-induced
blood clot in her arm. The only guarantee she would not die and leave
behind her 5-year-old son was for Judy to terminate the pregnancy. She
and her husband made the very difficult decision to terminate that
pregnancy.
What right does a U.S. Senator--who doesn't know her, doesn't know
her husband, doesn't know her family history and how she lost her
mother when she was young--have to step into that world at that moment
and tell her what she has to do. Do we think so little of the women of
this Nation?
We just had Mother's Day. We lauded our mothers. We are crying out
for the girls who were taken by terrorists. If we all care, then why
would we support legislation such as this?
Then there is Bridget's story. At the time, she was a 25-year-old mom
looking forward to the birth of her third child. She initially had a
normal ultrasound at 13 weeks. Her second ultrasound showed a major,
complex fetal cardiac malformation, a fatal problem. Because tests
could only confirm this fatal defect later in the pregnancy, she could
not make a decision until after the 20 weeks.
What right does a U.S. Senator have to get in the middle of her most
personal, most private, most difficult decisions? There is a place for
government. It is to make life better for people. It is to say: We are
with you. We have your back. We understand what you are going through.
It is not to make life so difficult for people.
In Missouri, Julie and her husband were told relatively early in her
pregnancy that the baby they were expecting had multiple abnormalities
and would not survive outside the womb, but it took her 3 weeks to
locate an abortion provider because they had shut down so many
providers. They found out, under Missouri's restrictive laws, she would
have to travel 2 hours to a facility on two separate occasions to
comply with the State's 24-hour waiting period. When they were finally
able to get the care they needed, her pregnancy was just over 20 weeks.
What right does any U.S. Senator have to step out there and tell the
American people that we know better than their families know, that we
know better than their doctors know, and that we know better than their
clergy knows?
This bill targets doctors who risk their lives to help women who are
at risk for paralysis, infertility, have cancer, and whose lives would
be in danger if they continued the pregnancy. This bill would throw
those doctors in prison for 5 years just for providing needed health
care to their patients.
[[Page S2938]]
I don't know what kind of country people envision when we have the
government policing the private health care decisions of women and
their families. Why would we want to go back to the last century and
open battles that have long been fought? Those battles were fought in
1973 when Roe v. Wade was the decision of the Supreme Court, and do you
know what that court said? They balanced all the rights--the rights of
the fetus with the rights of the mother--and they said early in the
pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose. It is her decision, but as
she goes along with the pregnancy, then later, yes, there will be
restrictions, and that is fine as long as the health and the life of
the mother are in the forefront.
This legislation that Senator Graham wants to vote on--before it goes
to any committee as Senator Blumenthal was saying--it is not what is
best for women and their families or our communities, it is about an
extreme rightwing agenda that needs to stop. This is a moderate
country. We work together. I don't get everything I want, you don't get
everything you want, but we work it out.
To come and offer legislation that is extremely dangerous to women
is, in my opinion--I don't know what to call it. It is out of sync with
what we ought to be doing. As Senator Baldwin said, we ought to be
fighting, and she used that word ``fighting.'' We should be fighting
for health care for women, fighting for the rights of our families, so
they can have decent health care, and not putting rules in the books
that are so onerous that a woman is desperate. I don't understand it.
I believe the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, it is
unrecognizable to me. When I started out in politics--which was a long
time ago--Republicans and Democrats worked together on the environment.
Now we can't get a vote from them so we can ensure that the Clean Air
Act is protecting our people. We can't get them to address climate
change. We cannot get a vote from them. Maybe once in a blue moon we
get a vote from one or two. George Herbert Walker Bush was the
President who worked hard at Planned Parenthood, and that is where
Republicans used to be. We would come together on protecting a woman's
right to choose. There were more Republicans in Planned Parenthood than
Republicans when I got started in politics. Now the Republicans want to
run Planned Parenthood out. They want to shut down their clinics and
stop all the good they are doing to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I call it a war on women. We heard people say: Well, maybe there is
such a thing as legitimate rape. Have you ever heard of anything so
outrageous? We can't even get anyone to move forward on equal pay for
equal work around here.
I am sad to say that I think this bill is part of the war on women.
Clearly, they are the ones who will suffer, along with their
doctors. We don't put women in grave danger. We don't put up
legislation without a health exception. We don't step in the middle of
our families' most difficult decisions.
Americans want us to focus on making life better for our families.
They don't want us to create new health risks. God knows we have enough
health stressors just breathing the air out there, getting the flu and
everything else. We don't need legislation that restricts a woman's
rights when she needs to have us at her back, helping her, making her
safe. Let's not go back to the last century.
If somebody has a bill such as this, I hope they will let it go
through the whole committee process. We need these women who I quoted
today to look Senators in the eye and say: Senator, please stay out of
my life. These decisions are difficult enough, but I know I can handle
them with my family, with my God, with my support system.
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. In the early stages, a woman has
a pretty much unfettered right. As we go along, there are more
restrictions. But we never, ever turn our back on a woman's health or
her life. That is what Roe says.
Frankly, I hope this bill and others like it will not see the light
of day because it could only make life very difficult for many of our
families.
I thank the Chair. It is an honor to work with the Presiding Officer
on this issue.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Remembering Officer Stephen Arkell
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, it is with great sadness that I rise
today to honor the memory of Brentwood Police Officer Stephen Arkell.
Officer Arkell's life was tragically cut short yesterday while
responding to the call of duty--the same call of duty he courageously
answered countless times over the course of his career. A 15-year
veteran of the Brentwood Police Department, Arkell served as a part-
time officer as well as an animal control officer for the town of
Brentwood where he was born and raised. As is the case with all of our
first responders, his commitment to protecting our communities was
unparalleled. That commitment was integral to keeping our families, our
children, and our community safe every day. That same commitment, and
Officer Arkell's sacrifice, is something New Hampshire will never
forget.
Stephen Arkell's life and career epitomized the heroism of our first
responders, and all of us, every day, will be forever grateful for
that. Today my thoughts and prayers are with his family--his wife and
his two teenage daughters, his loved ones, the Brentwood Police
Department, and the entire Brentwood community, as well as New
Hampshire's entire law enforcement community. I hope they can all take
some solace in knowing that New Hampshire joins them in both mourning
Officer Arkell's loss as well as celebrating his selfless sacrifice and
his service on behalf of Brentwood and our beloved State.
Thank you, Madam President. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Being in the Majority
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, shortly after I arrived in the Senate, in
2002, Republicans--my political party--became the majority party, and I
quickly learned a few important lessons. First of all, being in the
majority is better than being in the minority. But part of the price of
being in the majority is that sometimes you have to take some tough
votes via the amendment process. In other words, when the Senate is
operating the way it was originally intended--and which it always has
until recently--any Senator has the right to seek recognition and offer
an amendment on almost any topic on almost any bill. My colleagues told
me at the time--they said: It has always been that way, and it is the
way it always should be, if we are serious about protecting minority
rights.
So why should I care, being a Member of the majority, about
protecting minority rights in the Senate? Well, in the intervening
years, my political party has gone from being in the majority in the
Senate to being in the minority. That is one reason to care. The other
reason to care is because every Senator was elected by their
constituents in their State to represent their State, and when any
Senator--whether they are in the majority or the minority--is shut out
of the process, their constituents are shut out of the process. That is
not what the Constitution contemplates when it says that each State has
a right to send two Senators to Washington. If you can tell one of
those or both of those Senators to sit down and be quiet, you cannot
offer any amendments, you cannot get any votes on your amendments, you
are effectively shutting out, in my case, the 26 million people I
represent in the State of Texas.
So the message is this: If you do not want to take tough votes, you
are in the wrong line of work--you are in the wrong line of work. The
way the Senate should operate is that each of us is
[[Page S2939]]
accountable to our constituents, and when they disagree with us about a
vote, then they have a right to tell us. That is called petitioning
your government for the redress of grievances.
Accountability, which is the way this Congress is supposed to work,
can only work when we have an open process, where the minority gets to
participate in the process and the majority gets to participate in the
process. And guess what. If you are in the majority on a given subject,
you are going to win. But that is no justification for shutting down
the minority and saying: Sit down; shut up; forget about the fact that
you have an election certificate from your secretary of State saying
you were duly and regularly chosen by the voters in your State to
represent them in what used to be the world's greatest deliberative
body.
Here is something else I learned when I came to the Senate--something
that does not happen as much now--but what I learned is this place
works best when individual bills are drafted by Senators and move
through the committee process. That is because usually the committees
that have jurisdiction over those pieces of legislation have some
experience and some expertise in the subject matter, and sometimes the
subject matter gets pretty complicated. And it is good for the Senate,
it is good for the United States to have a committee look at the
legislation. People will have a chance to offer amendments and have
them voted up or down before they then come to the Senate floor. Then
every Senator gets to participate whether they know very much about the
topic. Hopefully, all of us get to be smart pretty quickly when a bill
comes to the floor because that is our chance to have a say on behalf
of our constituents, whether we are in the majority or whether we are
in the minority. We do not have a right to win--the minority does not--
but we do have a right to a voice and a vote and to participate in the
legislative process, which is what has been denied under the current
majority leader.
More than a decade after I came to the Senate, I hardly recognize it;
it is so dramatically different. Indeed, in some ways it is
diametrically opposite from what it was when I got here and, frankly,
the way the Senate has operated for a couple hundred years since the
founding of our country. Only in the last few years under the current
majority leader has the Senate become completely dysfunctional, where
the majority leader becomes, in essence, a dictator who says: No,
Senator, your amendment cannot be considered, it cannot be voted on. In
other words, it is not up to the Senator to offer an amendment to try
to shape legislation on behalf of our constituents, to engage in robust
debate; it is the majority leader who basically becomes the traffic cop
who says who stops, who goes. Of course, that is one reason why the
Senate has become so dysfunctional.
Under the current majority leader, an unprecedented number of bills
have come directly to the floor from his conference room, from his
office, and bypassed the committee process. In fact, many of my
colleagues, including many of my Democratic colleagues, have been left
wondering: Why in the world have committees in the Senate if we are not
going to use them, if we are not going to use the committees for the
experience and the expertise those Members serving on those committees
have before it comes to the Senate floor.
In addition to bypassing the committee process in an unprecedented
sort of way, once the Senate legislation comes to the Senate floor out
of the majority leader's conference room--or wherever it is it comes
from--Senators from both parties, representing hundreds of millions of
American citizens, are routinely denied the opportunity to offer
amendments and engage in meaningful debate. We just saw that yesterday
as a direct result of the majority leader's denying anyone--the
Presiding Officer, one of our Democratic colleagues, or anyone--an
opportunity to offer amendments and to get votes on those amendments on
an energy bill, which is the first time we have had an energy bill on
the floor since 2007. The majority leader shuts down the process and
says, in essence: Sit down; shut up; good luck.
During the 109th Congress, when Republicans controlled this Chamber,
Democrats were allowed to offer--that is the minority party was allowed
to offer--1,043 separate amendments--1,043 separate amendments during
the 109th Congress. Do you know how many amendments Republicans have
been able to offer since July of last year in the Senate? Nine--nine
Republican amendments in 10 months.
Majority Leader Reid has filled the amendment tree--that is the
technical jargon; someone has called it basically that it is the gag
rule of the majority leader, but it is technically blocking the
amendment process--more than twice as much as majority leaders Bill
Frist, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, Bob Dole, George Mitchell, and Robert
Byrd combined; that is one, two, three, four, five, six--six previous
majority leaders did not do it as much as the current majority leader,
Senator Reid; that is, block out any amendments from the minority.
I know because we have talked about this so much before most
Americans really are not focused on Senate procedure and they think:
Well, maybe this is just one Senator who is a little sore at being
frozen out of the process and losing on a particular piece of
legislation. But, again, this is not about the prerogatives of an
individual U.S. Senator; this is about the people's prerogative, the
people's right to participate in the process. The very legitimacy of
our form of government depends upon consent of the governed. How can
the people the Presiding Officer represents and I represent consent
when they have been shut out? Is this what the Founding Fathers had in
mind when they created our great system of government--to shut our
fellow citizens out of the process, to trample on minority rights?
Hardly.
Before I conclude, I want to say a quick word about some of the
majority leader's most recent comments when we have had a discussion
about this problem.
When Americans ponder the root causes of Washington dysfunction and
gridlock, I hope they remember the majority leader of the Senate, who
leads this great institution and has referred to the minority party in
the Senate as ``greased pigs.'' He has accused us of wanting to
suppress voting rights. He has claimed we have tried to ``dump on''
women and minorities. He describes Senators representing their
constituents with amendments as ``screwing around,'' and he demonizes
private citizens exercising their rights under the Constitution of the
United States as ``un-American.'' I have to confess, I find these
comments insulting, I find these comments disrespectful, and I find
them embarrassing.
How can we ever expect to reach compromise, which is the only way
things happen here? Neither party can dictate on their own what the
outcomes legislatively will be, so the only way we can do it is to try
to find common ground and work together, without sacrificing our
principles, of course. But how are we ever going to solve some of the
most complex legislative challenges that confront us--such as tax
reform?
We have a bill on the floor where we are being asked to extend 55
expiring temporary tax provisions. For how long? Well, through 2015. Is
that a good way to do business? Well, no. What kind of uncertainty is
there when we do not even know what the Tax Code is going to say for
more than a year and a half?
Then there is entitlement reform. I mentioned this before. We have
these pages here who are serving in the Senate. They are in high
school. Someday the $17 trillion the Federal Government owes to our
creditors is going to have to be paid back--someday. When that happens,
I daresay interest rates are not going to be at zero, which is what
they are now thanks to the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve
is trying to juice the economy, doing the best it can to get the
economy back on track, although we do not have a lot to show for it.
The economy grew at 0.1 percent last quarter.
How are we going to fix our broken immigration system if the majority
leader is going to routinely slander Members of this body and our
constituents? How are we going to fix what is broken if the majority
leader wants to trash talk folks on this side of the aisle and people
he disagrees with. He even called them un-American. For what? For
participating in the political process. Well, of course, he would like
to
[[Page S2940]]
shut them up and make them sit down so he could do what he wants
without any resistance or without anybody questioning his actions.
Recently in Austin President Obama and others gathered for a historic
celebration. It was the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Civil
Rights Act. Do you know how many amendments were voted on by the Senate
when the Civil Rights Act was passed? There were 117 amendments.
Do you think this Congress and this Senate today, under this majority
leader, would have any opportunity to pass historic legislation to heal
the wounds of our country that date back to the very founding of this
Nation, given the fact that the minority is shut out of the process, no
amendments are allowed, and no votes on those amendments? There is no
way. What a tragedy--the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.
Then for more mundane matters, when the Panama Canal treaties were
debated in this body, there were 75 rollcall votes. That was a very
controversial issue at the time. But there are nine rollcall votes in
this body coming from the Republican side since July, with no prospect
of allowing any amendments on the current tax bill that is on the
floor.
Just like the energy bill that we concluded yesterday, there is no
prospect in sight for a better outcome and better behavior by the
people who should know better. How can we expect to achieve comity in
this Chamber when its most powerful Member has done so much to poison
the atmosphere.
The Senate of 2014 is certainly not the Senate that our Founding
Fathers envisioned, nor is it the Senate that my former colleague,
Senator Chris Dodd, described in his 2010 farewell speech. Let me quote
just a small portion. Senator Dodd reminded us that:
The Senate was designed to be different, not simply for the
sake of variety, but because the Framers believed the Senate
could and should be the venue in which statesmen would lift
America up to meet its unique challenges.
Unfortunately, the Senate will never be able to play that unique role
in American government and American history until the majority leader
shows greater respect for the constituents we represent and for this
institution.
As I said, this debate is not about procedural niceties, it is not
about the prerogatives of the Senator because they think they are so
important. When Republicans offer amendments to pending legislation, we
are trying to give our constituents the voice that they are guaranteed
by the Constitution of the United States of America.
When the majority leader refuses to let us vote on amendments and
refuses to let us have a real discussion about America's biggest
challenges, he is effectively gagging millions of Americans who don't
share his particular views. That is why the Senate has become so
dysfunctional, because of the majority leader and his conduct.
I can only hope--indeed, I can only pray--that the majority leader
will change his mind and act as the genuine leader the Senate deserves
and less as an angry dictator.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I would ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. At the outset, let me express my sympathy to the Senator
from West Virginia on the tragedy that took place in his state. Our
hearts and minds are with you and your citizens.
Remembering Clisby Clarke
Mr. President, one of the sad occasions from time to time of a
Senator is to rise to pay tribute to a friend and a citizen in one's
State who passes away. It is now that occasion for me.
This past week a great hero of Georgia--both the University of
Georgia and the State of Georgia--Clisby Clarke passed away in his
sleep in Highlands, NC. He will be laid to rest in Atlanta, GA, on this
coming Thursday at a ceremony beginning at 11 a.m. at Peachtree Road
United Methodist Church.
Clisby was not just a citizen of my State, he was an extraordinary
citizen of my State, a University of Georgia graduate who was the hit
of the University of Georgia as one of the great songwriters on our
campus. He wrote most of the fight songs that are played today for the
University of Georgia football team and could tear up the piano by
playing by ear like no one you have ever seen.
He was a talented pitchman who could make things sound good at the
drop of a hat, which is why he went to work for McCann-Erickson, one of
the great public relations firms in the history of our city. He led
that firm to unparalleled heights, and for a while, when I ran my
company, I hired Clisby Clarke to do all the public relations for our
company.
He married Bunny. From our days at the University of Georgia I
remember Bunny and Clisby at the SAE House many nights, Clisby sitting
around playing the piano, entertaining us, my wife Dianne and I--who
then wasn't my wife, but I was dating her--enjoying it, just enjoying
our friendship and his great talent.
Clisby, when he retired from McCann-Erickson, didn't quit working; he
volunteered his time for others. In fact, when he passed away this week
late at night in his sleep, it was after having a successful planning
session for a dinner that is going to be held June 1 in Atlanta, GA,
where over 750 people are coming to a black-tie event which will raise
over half a million dollars for veterans who have been injured with
traumatic brain injury or PTSD.
Clisby never stopped working for those less fortunate or those who
needed help. His commitment to that project is unparalleled in our
city's history. When we all go to that dinner on this coming June 1, on
that evening, and celebrate the victory from raising money for those
with TBI and PTSD, we will also dedicate that evening to Clisby Clarke,
a great Georgian and a great American who from the day he was born
until the day he passed away was always paying tribute and doing his
loving work for those who were less fortunate and in need.
To his wife Bunny, to his family, and to his many friends, to all of
us who were together fraternity brothers at the SAE House at the
University of Georgia in Athens, we pay our tribute to Clisby Clarke, a
great American. May God bless his soul.
I yield back the time, Mr. President.
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.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Officer Stephen Arkell
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today
to honor the life and legacy of Officer Stephen Arkell, a member of the
Brentwood Police Department who was tragically killed last night in the
line of duty.
Citizens across New Hampshire are mourning the loss of Officer
Arkell, whose bravery and courage represented the very best of our
State's law enforcement community. Our hearts go out to his grieving
family, friends, and fellow officers, as well as the people of the town
of Brentwood, where he served so well. We are holding them close to our
hearts and keeping them all in our thoughts and prayers during this
very difficult time for not only the Brentwood community but for the
entire State of New Hampshire.
Officer Arkell was an unsung hero. He went about his extraordinary
work in a quiet, humble way, going above and beyond the call of duty to
serve and protect the people of Brentwood and New Hampshire. During his
15-year career as a police officer, he touched countless lives through
his selfless service to the people of Brentwood--proudly carrying on a
noble profession.
First and foremost, Officer Arkell was devoted to his family. Our
hearts are broken for his wife Heather and their two teenaged
daughters. They are forced to cope with an unimaginable loss that no
family should ever have to endure. We share in their sadness. We will
be there to comfort them as they mourn--the entire State of New
Hampshire--and we will always stand by their side.
[[Page S2941]]
We are grateful to them for the sacrifice they have made for us to be
safe and for everything they have done and for what they have endured.
There is no way we can repay them for the sacrifice they have made for
the State of New Hampshire to be safe. They lost a great dad.
I especially want to recognize Officer Arkell for the selfless time
he took to be a great coach. He coached lacrosse, teaching a new
generation about teamwork and competition. He was exactly the kind of
role model that any parent would want for their son or daughter.
Officer Arkell was also someone whose friendship could be counted on.
He has been described as a friend who would ``give you the shirt off
his back''--a man who was ``kind'' and ``ethical'' and ``very caring.''
He was well liked and well respected in the community that he served.
Sadly, this is not the first tragedy we have seen in Rockingham
County. Just last year we added Greenland Police Chief Mike Maloney's
name to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in
Washington, DC. Our State continues to grieve for Chief Maloney.
Unfortunately, Chief Maloney's death and the death last night of
Officer Arkell remind us of the dangerous work our police officers do
every single day on our behalf. When they go out at night, on weekends
and holidays--and we are all safe at home with our families--they don't
know whether that next stop or next response they have to make will be
their last.
We are grateful for the service of all of the police officers in New
Hampshire and across this country who go out every day and serve our
Nation and keep us safe. Officer Arkell certainly represented the very
best of our law enforcement community, and we are so sad today as we
mourn his loss.
As we mourn the loss of Officer Arkell, I am reminded of a quote that
can be found at the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington.
The quote really sums it up: ``It is not how these officers died that
made them heroes, it is how they lived.'' That is certainly true of
Officer Stephen Arkell. He was a special man who gave generously to his
family, his friends, and his community. It is a tragedy that he was
taken from us far too soon. This is a tragedy no family should have to
endure.
As we mourn his loss, we will pledge to forever honor his memory, his
sacrifice, and the work he did every single day on behalf of the people
of Brentwood and New Hampshire to keep us safe. We are grateful for his
sacrifice. We can never repay the loss his family has endured nor can
we ever repay the sacrifices that are our police officers make every
single day on our behalf to keep this country safe.
I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Squarely Focused
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, one would think, now more than ever, our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would recognize the American
people really want us focused squarely on jobs and the economy. It is
what every poll says. It is what the vast majority of all of our
constituents say, and it is absolutely what is needed at a time when
families, especially working women, continue to struggle to make ends
meet. But instead of working with us across the aisle to give every
American a fair shot, it seems as though Republicans are focused on
something else entirely: Politics.
Today, the senior Senator from South Carolina came to the floor and
attempted to pass a bill that not only undermines women's access to
their doctors but restricts their rights to access reproductive health
services. I am not sure what our colleagues think has changed since
they last introduced this bill in November, but just as it was back
then, this extreme, unconstitutional abortion ban is an absolute
nonstarter. It is not going anywhere in the Senate and, as they know,
it is a cheap political ploy. I would like to think that over the last
41 years, since the historic decision of Roe v. Wade, we have moved on
from debating this issue. I would like to think that after four
decades, many of those who want to make women's health care decisions
for them have come to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is settled
law. After all, many of the signs of progress are all around us.
In this Congress there is a record 20 women serving in this body. In
2012 women's power and voice at the ballot box was heard pretty loudly
and clearly. In fact, when Republican candidates for office thought
that rape was a political talking point, that idea and their
candidacies were swiftly rejected, thanks in large part to the voices
of women.
So sometimes it is tempting to think that times indeed have changed
and that maybe, just maybe, politicians have finally realized that
getting between a woman and her doctor is not their job, that it is
possible rightwing legislators have a newfound respect for women. But
the truth is that the drumbeat of politically-driven, extreme, and
unconstitutional laws continues to get louder.
In 2013 our Nation saw yet another record-breaking year of State
legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to
abortion services. In fact, in the past 3 years, more of these
restrictions have been enacted across this country than in the previous
10 years combined. And anti-choice lawmakers here in our Nation's
capital have filed 50 legislative attacks on reproductive rights in
this Congress alone.
By the way, these haven't just been attacks on a woman's right to
choose, they have been an all-out assault on everything from shaming
pregnant women to drafting politically-driven legislation intended to
create geographical roadblocks for low-income and racial minorities
wishing to access safe reproductive services.
Not surprisingly, these States that have enacted some of the most
extreme and archaic restrictions are also the same States that fail to
achieve even mediocre standards when it comes to critical issues such
as education and the economy. But despite these shortcomings, some
Members of this body refuse to work with us to address those critical
issues and instead want to distract the American public with these
purely political bills until the small pocket of their extreme audience
is satisfied.
In fact, according to the Senator from South Carolina, debating a
woman's access to her own doctor is a ``debate worthy of a great
democracy.'' The fact is it is a debate we have already had. This is a
directed attack on Roe v. Wade, and it is attack on what is already
settled law.
I wish to remind my colleagues today that real women's lives and the
most difficult health care decisions they could ever possibly make are
at stake.
Let me share with my colleagues the story of Judy Nicastro. She is
from my home State of Washington. She bravely shared her story publicly
in the New York Times. I have told her story before, but it bears
repeating now because we are under attack again. In an op-ed she wrote,
just days before the House passed a bill that was virtually identical
to the one that was introduced today, Judy talked about being faced
with every pregnant woman's worst nightmare.
In describing the news that one of the twins she was carrying was
facing a condition where only one lung chamber had formed and that it
was only 20 percent complete, Judy captured the anguish countless other
women in similar positions have faced. ``My world stopped,'' she wrote.
I loved being pregnant with twins and trying to figure out
which one was where in my uterus. Sometimes it felt like a
party in there, with eight limbs moving. The thought of
losing one child was unbearable.
She went on to say:
The MRI at Seattle Children's Hospital confirmed our worst
fears: The organs were pushed up into our boy's chest and not
developing properly. We were in the 22nd week.
Under the bill proposed today, the decision Judy ultimately made,
through very painful conversations with her family and with
consultation with her
[[Page S2942]]
doctors, would be illegal. The decision to make sure, as she put it,
that ``our son was not born only to suffer'' would be taken from her
and given to politicians.
I am here today to provide a simple reality check. We are not going
back. We are not going back on settled law such as Roe v. Wade or the
Affordable Care Act. We are not going to take away a woman's ability to
make her own decisions about her own health care and her own body.
Just as with the many attempts before this bill, there are those who
would like the American public to believe that all of these efforts are
anything but an attack on women's health care. They try to say it is a
debate about freedom, except, of course, the freedom for women to
access care.
It is no different than when we were told attacks on abortion rights
are not an infringement on a woman's right to choose; they are about
religion or States rights. Or when we are told that restricting
emergency contraception isn't about limiting women's ability to make
their own family planning decisions, but it is somehow about protecting
pharmacists. Or as demonstrated last month when a Republican State
lawmaker in Missouri introduced legislation to triple the State's
mandatory waiting period for abortion services, claiming it would give
women more time to do their ``research.''
Not that we should be surprised, he went on then to compare this
deeply personal and difficult choice to that of purchasing an
automobile saying: ``In making a decision to buy a car, I put research
in there to find out what to do.''
The truth is this is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access
care. This is about women. Instead of playing a game of political
football with women and their health, Republicans should instead
consider joining with us in working on what women truly want.
Women today want to have a fair shot at success. First and foremost,
that means not rolling back the clock or eroding the gains we have
made. We took a very good step forward with the Affordable Care Act,
which now prevents insurance companies from charging women more than
men for coverage, ensuring preventive services such as mammograms and
contraception coverage is covered and increasing access to
comprehensive health coverage, thanks to the Medicaid expansion and the
exchanges. There is no doubt we need to make sure women have access in
this country to opportunities such as getting equal pay for equal work
or giving the millions of women earning the minimum wage a raise, which
would go a long way towards that effort. We need to update our Tax Code
so that mothers who are returning to the workforce do not face a
marriage penalty.
There is much more we could be doing to address the issues of
concerned women. Those are the issues we ought to be focused on--how to
move our country forward, not backward.
So if it wasn't clear the last time the senior Senator from South
Carolina made this attempt, it ought to be clear now. Senators such as
myself are not going anywhere. Advocates and doctors who treat those
women every day and know their health must be protected are not going
anywhere. And women who continue to believe their health care decisions
are theirs and theirs alone are not going to go anywhere. By the way,
the Constitution is not going to go anywhere. Therefore, this extreme
bill that was offered today is not going anywhere.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANCHIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Boone County Mine Tragedy
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, on Monday night a tragic mining incident
occurred in my home State of West Virginia where the lives of two
dedicated and courageous miners were lost at the Brody No. 1 mine in
Boone County.
My greatest and deepest thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones
of the miners impacted by this tragedy. Gayle and I join them and all
West Virginians in mourning the loss of these heroic men. We grieve for
the entire community as they bear this most heartbreaking and sorrowful
hardship.
Our hearts especially go out to the families of the following miners:
Eric Legg of Twilight and Gary Hensley of Chapmanville.
These men will be remembered forever as heroes to their community,
their State, and their Nation for their unparalleled courage and
unsurpassable sacrifice. They will live on forever in our hearts.
As families and friends struggle to deal with the tragedy that took
place, we are reminded as a country that we must consistently search
for ways to improve safety conditions because our miners' safety is of
the utmost importance and remains our No. 1 priority. We say in West
Virginia: If it can't be mined safely, don't mine it.
Our coal miners are some of the hardest working people in America,
and the loss of even one miner's life is one life too many. We need to
continue to improve mine safety efforts so that our miners' lives are
never in jeopardy. We owe this to the families of the victims and to
all of our loyal mining families across our country. It is our
responsibility to be absolutely and totally committed to the safety of
every worker, which means that every worker should be able to get up in
the morning and expect to come home safely to their loved ones at
night. This is their right, not a privilege.
My staff and I will do everything humanly possible to assist the
families through this difficult time. Again, we extend our deepest
sympathy and most profound condolences to the families and loved ones,
and we pray for their peace and comfort.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Smarter Sentencing Act
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there are new reports that the majority
leader is considering bringing to the floor the so-called Smarter
Sentencing Act, and to bring it to finality.
I rise again today to express my strong opposition to this bill and
to argue against taking up the Senate's time to consider it. I will
list several reasons.
This country has experienced a tremendous drop in crime over the past
30 years. We have achieved hard-won gains in reducing victimization.
More effective police tactics played a very significant role.
Congress assisted with funds for law enforcement and mandatory
sentencing guidelines to make dangerous offenders serve longer
sentences. But after the Supreme Court applied novel constitutional
theory, those mandatory guidelines were made advisory only. Federal
judges then used their discretion to sentence defendants more leniently
than the guidelines had called for.
Today, the only tool Congress has to make sure Federal judges do not
abuse their discretion in sentencing too leniently is mandatory minimum
sentences. So bringing this bill would cut a wide range of mandatory
minimum sentences by half or more. Those sentences include people
convicted of manufacture, sale, possession with intent to distribute,
and importation of a wide range of drugs, including heroin, cocaine,
PCP, LSD, ecstasy, and methamphetamines.
When supporters of this bill discuss how it increases discretion for
judges and keeps current maximum sentences, what they really mean is
that judges will gain discretion only to be more lenient. The bill does
not increase discretion for judges to be more punitive.
When supporters of this bill say that the bill only applies to
nonviolent offenders, don't be misled into thinking it applies to
people in Federal prison for simple possession of marijuana. It
doesn't. The offenses covered in this bill are violent.
Importing cocaine is violent. The whole operation turns on violence.
[[Page S2943]]
Dealing heroin also involves violence or threats of violence, and the
offense for which the offender is sentenced may have even been violent.
The defendant's codefendant might have used a gun.
While the bill does not apply to a drug crime for which the defendant
used violence, it does apply to criminals where the defendant has a
history of committing violent crimes. Supporters have failed to
recognize that it would apply to drug dealers with a history of violent
crimes.
Supporters of the bill also raise the argument of prison
overcrowding. But prison populations in this country are decreasing and
have been in fact decreasing for several years. States have been able
to reduce prison construction and sentencing as crime has thus fallen.
Charles Lane wrote in the Washington Post that one reason States
could do this is the reduction in the fear of crime that has
accompanied falling crime rates.
The rate of increase in Federal prison populations has fallen a great
deal. In recent years, the number of new Federal prisoners receiving
prison sentences has declined. New policies the Department has adopted
with respect to clemency and its unwillingness to charge defendants for
the crimes they have committed will only further reduce overcrowding
and prison expenses.
It is also important to recognize that drug offenders are an
increasingly small proportion of the new offenders who are being
sentenced to Federal prison as Federal law enforcement shifts more
resources away from drugs and toward immigration and weapons offenses.
The reduction in prison populations is not really so much about the
cost saving as cost shifting from prison budgets to victim suffering.
This is happening as the number of State and Federal prisoners has
dropped.
In 2012, the last year for which statistics are available, the FBI's
Uniform Crime Report recorded an increase in the number of violent
crimes for the first time in many years. Now, it is only 1 year and the
increase was less than 1 percent, but it represents a dramatic change
in the past downward trend of crime, and it bears a vigilant watch, not
support for a reckless, wholesale, and arbitrary reduction in mandatory
minimum sentences.
The bill represents a particularly misguided effort in light of
current conditions concerning drug use. We are in the midst of a heroin
epidemic right now. Deaths from heroin overdoses in Pennsylvania are
way up. The Governor of Vermont devoted the entirety of his State of
the State address this year to the heroin problem.
Marijuana decriminalization is leading to the greater availability of
marijuana at a lower price. This is causing Mexican growers who
formerly produced marijuana to grow opium for heroin importation into
this country instead of marijuana.
The Obama administration says it is concerned about the heroin
epidemic, but it supports a bill that cuts penalties for heroin
importation and dealing.
The administration says it wants to fight sexual assaults on
campuses--and I think that is the right thing to do and I applaud them
for doing that. But they are also supporting this bill, which cuts in
half the mandatory minimum sentence for dealing in ecstasy, the ``date
rape'' drug.
The administration's support for this bill, then, makes no sense, and
at least some administration officials understand that.
We had the privilege of having the Director of the Drug Enforcement
Agency before our committee a little while ago. Michelle Leonhart said:
Having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33 years,
[and] a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can tell
you that for me and for the agents that work for DEA,
mandatory minimums have been very important to our
investigations. . . . We depend on those as a way to ensure
that the right sentences are going to the . . . level of
violator we are going after.
Current mandatory minimum sentences play a vital role in reducing
crime. They do more than keep serious offenders in jail so that they
cannot prey upon innocent citizens. They also induce lower-level drug
offenders to avoid receiving mandatory minimum sentences by implicating
higher-ups in the drug trade.
As FBI Director Comey recently stated:
I know from my experience . . . that the mandatory minimums
are an important tool in developing cooperators.
Recently, a bipartisan group of former Justice Department officials
wrote to Leaders Reid and McConnell. Their letter expressed strong
opposition to cutting mandatory minimums for drug trafficking by half
or more. They warned:
We are deeply concerned about the impact of sentencing
reductions of this magnitude on public safety.
We believe the American people will be ill-served by the
significant reduction of sentences for federal drug
trafficking crimes that involve the sale and distribution of
dangerous drugs like heroin, methamphetamines, and PCP.
We are aware of little public support for lowering the
minimum required sentences for these extremely dangerous and
sometimes lethal drugs.
We are all going to be supporting National Police Week. Officers from
all over the country have traveled to Washington to make their concerns
known. We salute them for the work that they do and the dangers they
face. If we really respect these law enforcement people and want to
support them, then we ought to listen to what they have to say.
The National Narcotics Officers' Association has written:
As the men and women in law enforcement who confront
considerable risks daily to stand between poisoned sellers
and their victims, we cannot find a single good reason to
weaken federal consequences for the worst offenders who are
directly responsible for an egregious amount of political
despair, community decay, family destruction, and the
expenditure of vast amounts of taxpayer dollars to clean up
the messes they create.
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers' Association has also come out
against the bill. They have stated:
It is with great concern that FLEOA views any action or
attempt . . . that would alter or eliminate the current
federal sentencing policy regarding mandatory minimum
sentence sentencing.
The mandatory minimum sentencing standard currently in
place is essential to public safety and that of our
membership.
Many of us will rightfully praise our law enforcement officers as
they are in town for National Police Week. But what we really ought to
do is listen to them. They are telling us that taking up this bill
would be a slap in the face of all our brave police officers who
protect us from harm every day. They deserve better than that.
Citizens who are finally less likely to become crime victims deserve
it. The respect that is due those on the front line against wrongdoers
demands that the Senate neither take up nor pass the mislabeled so-
called Smarter Sentencing Act.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
gallery.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded and I be allowed to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Chambliss pertaining to the introduction of S.
2330 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Senate Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Time to Wake Up
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 67th time to urge my
colleagues to wake up to the growing threat of climate change, and
today I am joined by my friend and colleague Senator Nelson of Florida,
who is a true leader in this fight.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be able to engage in a
colloquy for the next 25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Florida is about 1,000 miles from Rhode Island, and
it is slightly larger than my home State, but Florida and Rhode Island
have a great deal in common, such as a beautiful coastline, an economy
and a way
[[Page S2944]]
of life that is tied to the sea, and as a result risk from the ocean in
a changing climate.
On my recent trip down the southeast coast, I spent 2 days in Florida
and heard firsthand about the unprecedented changes taking place there.
Like the folks I met in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,
Floridians are worried about the coastal communities they love. They
are getting serious about protecting their homes and their livelihoods,
and they want their representatives in Congress to get serious.
Senator Nelson hears them. He recently took the Senate commerce
committee to the Miami Beach townhall to examine the dangers posed by
rising seas. Here is what the Miami Herald said about his effort:
South Florida owes Senator Nelson its thanks for shining a
bright light on this issue. Everyone from local residents to
elected officials should follow his lead, turning awareness
of this major environmental issue into action. It is critical
to saving our region.
Senator Nelson and I also held a press conference at Jacksonville's
Friendship Fountain with Representative Corrine Brown to highlight
these serious implications of climate change. So I am grateful for
Senator Nelson's bringing his passion and expertise to the floor today.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank my dear personal friend the
Senator from Rhode Island for his kind comments, but I especially thank
him for his passion and his leadership on this issue. There are parts
of America where it is time to wake up, and especially one part of that
is the State of Florida.
Because of the nature of our State being a peninsula that sticks down
into water surrounding it on most sides, you would not be surprised
that we have by far the longest coastline of any State, save for
Alaska.
When it comes to beaches, the State of Florida by far has more
beaches than any other State, but because we have so much exposure to
the oceans--the Atlantic on the east and the Gulf of Mexico on the
west--we are particularly subject to climate change and the fact that
the Earth is heating up.
Why is the Earth heating up? Well, there is the effect known as the
greenhouse effect. If you put certain gasses into the atmosphere that
are a result of manmade efforts--when we burn things such as oil and
coal and we don't scrub out a lot of the stuff, it goes into the
atmosphere. Well, one of the things that goes into the atmosphere is
carbon dioxide. What carbon dioxide does is go into the upper
atmosphere and it forms this greenhouse effect by creating an invisible
shield, and when the Sun's rays come and strike the Earth at daylight,
those rays then reflect off the Earth's surface. Under normal
circumstances, those rays bounce back out and radiate back into space
but not if you have a lot of gasses up at the very beginning of space,
at the top of the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide.
When the Earth's surface radiates the Sun's heat, it goes back up as
if it wants to go out into space, and it is trapped. What happens is
the entire atmosphere of the Earth then contains that heat, and slowly
over time it builds up the temperature.
When you look at a globe, what do you mostly see? You don't see land;
you see water. So what happens is that most of that heating of the
Earth's atmosphere is absorbed into the temperature of the ocean.
Because of the rise of the ocean temperature and the temperature of the
air, what starts to happen? What is happening up toward the northern
climes as well as the southern climes? Have you heard the report that
came out a couple of days ago about how big chunks of Antarctica are
now falling off? Have you heard about how all of the glaciers on top of
Greenland, which used to be nothing but one big glacier, are now
falling off into the sea, thus causing the sea rise?
I will flip it back to the Senator from Rhode Island with this
comment: In the hearing we had of the commerce subcommittee in Miami
Beach--why did I choose Miami Beach? Because it is ground zero. At high
tide they are already having flooding in the streets of Miami Beach. At
a seasonally high tide that they expect coming up in October of this
year, they expect constant flooding. As a result, we had the mayor of
Miami Beach tell us about the effort of them trying to redo the
infrastructure to get rid of the water when the high tides come in.
We also had a scientist at NASA testify. He is a fellow who is a
four-time space flier. He left the astronaut office, and now he is back
at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. He is a scientist. What
he testified to us was not a forecast, not a projection; he testified
as to the measurements of sea level rise over the last 50 years. And
for Florida, the sea level rise, as measured by NASA--these are
indisputable measurements--is 5 to 8 inches. In another 20 to 30 years,
he projects that the sea level rise will be a foot, 12 inches more, and
by the end of the decade, it will rise 2 to 3 feet.
I hasten to add that 75 percent of Florida's population of 20 million
people lives on the coast. Can you imagine what a 2- to 3-foot sea
level rise on Florida would be? It would inundate unbelievable amounts
of the urban community of our State of Florida. So the question is, Are
we going to do something about it?
I will flip it back to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. On my trip through Senator Nelson's State, the Army
Corps of Engineers officials in Jacksonville gave me some pretty dire
warnings about what the sea level rise portends for Florida, both the
punch from storms that will bring the higher seas ashore and the steady
encroachment of saltwater.
This is a scene from western Boynton Beach after Tropical Storm Isaac
in 2012. I don't know if you can see it on the screen, but this sign
says ``no wake zone.'' The family put up a ``no wake zone'' sign in
their front yard because the cars going by would cause wakes and more
damage.
The Corps also showed me what 2 feet of sea level rise would do to
the Everglades National Park. I went down to the Everglades later on
during my visit. This is what it would look like. You can see the green
in the Everglades here and all the development up here. Basically, if
you add 60 centimeters of sea level rise, or 2 feet, and that is all
ocean again, that is a pretty serious change.
The Southeast Florida Regional Compact, which is a bipartisan
coalition of four South Florida counties, predicts that the water
around southeast Florida could surge up to 2 feet in less than 50
years.
So that is a preview of the coming attractions ``Everglades Under
Water.''
What was interesting was that the local officials, both Republicans
and Democrats, were working together. The division that exists in this
body doesn't exist down there. Mayor Silva Murphy of Monroe County is a
Republican and former Mayor Kristin Jacobs of Broward County is a
Democrat. They both know that flooding and access to drinking water are
not partisan issues in the way that it divides us here.
Here are a couple more examples from my visit. This is Castillo San
Marcos, which Senator Nelson will recognize as being in St. Augustine.
It is a famous and very beautiful ancient fort. It sits along the water
there. If you add 3 feet of sea level rise, it turns from being part of
the coast to being its own tiny little peninsula surrounded by
flooding. It is the oldest masonry fort in the United States.
This is what Fort Matanzas would look like. This is a little fort
built by Spanish colonists in 1742. It is right here on this inlet. If
you add 3 feet of sea level rise, suddenly it is in the water. It has
nothing to stand on. As it is, they have built a wall to protect it
from the sea level rise that has already happened, and from time to
time the high tides lap over that wall.
The Senator said there is the potential for an enormous amount of
harm here that could happen to people. One of the scientists I met in
Florida said that if we don't do something about this, ``people are
going to get hurt and it's going to cost a lot of money.'' That is
true.
One topic I would like to discuss is how the seawater will affect the
freshwater supply of Florida. Senator Nelson is an expert on the
geology of Florida and why it is different from my rocky New England
coast.
I will yield back to Senator Nelson so he can discuss the limestone
bedrock problem.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, one would naturally ask the question,
[[Page S2945]]
could we solve this problem in the United States the way the Dutch have
solved a lot of the coastal areas of the Netherlands by building dikes?
A lot of their land is actually below sea level.
You can't do that in a place such as Florida because the substrate
underneath the surface soil is a porous limestone, much like Swiss
cheese. So that if you try to put up a dike, it is not going to hold
any water back because the pressure of the water as it rises is merely
going to go underneath the dike into the porous limestone, which is the
source under the surface of a lot of Florida's drinking water because
that water in that honeycomb limestone is fresh.
What happens as a result of the sea level rise? More water and higher
water will create more pressure. The pressure then starts to push
underneath the surface as well as over the surface of the land, and
that causes the intrusion of saltwater into the fresh drinking water.
Because Florida is so low--believe it or not, our highest point is
right near the Alabama-Florida line, which is actually 356 feet high.
But when you get into portions of South Florida, it is very low.
Obviously, sea level rise is going to cover a lot of land, but another
consequence is that a lot of flood control is now regulated by gravity.
You go from a higher position of flood and you flow by gravity through
canals to a lower position of the sea level. When the sea level rises,
the water during floods--hurricane, rainstorm, whatever--can't flow.
The only way to correct that is to install very expensive pumping
equipment.
Finally, in this segment of the exchange with the Senator from Rhode
Island, I ask what is another consequence of the temperature of the
ocean's rising? Remember the greenhouse effect? Most of that heat is
absorbed in the oceans.
What is the fuel for a hurricane in the Northern Hemisphere? What is
the fuel for it? It is the temperature of the water. Hurricanes in the
Northern Hemisphere go counterclockwise. Hurricanes in the Southern
Hemisphere go clockwise. What happens to the intensity of the
hurricane? It goes up as the waters get hotter. That is why usually, as
the hurricanes are forming into these massive storms over the South
Atlantic and the Caribbean, they start going north. They start to
dissipate because the waters are cooler. It doesn't provide the fuel
for the ferocity of the hurricane. Likewise, higher water temperatures,
more frequency of hurricanes.
In our State, we live on a peninsula that sticks down into the middle
of ``Hurricane Highway.'' It is a way of life. We understand that, and
we have handled it pretty well, especially after the disaster of 1992,
the monster hurricane, Hurricane Andrew. Our building codes are up and
so forth, but we can't withstand a lot of Hurricane Andrews. Part of
that hurricane was considered to be a category 5--something in excess
of 160 mile-per-hour winds. We know what 160 mile-an-hour tornadoes do
within a small, confined, tight-knit cyclone-type activity. Imagine
what those wind speeds do in a massive hurricane covering hundreds of
miles.
We start to see then the effects. The insurance industry cannot
withstand insuring structures that are going to sustain that kind of
damage. What is going to happen to the cost of insurance? It is going
to go through the roof. What is going to happen to the cost of flood
insurance? In the Senate, we agonized over the Federal Flood Insurance
Program--what is going to happen to the actual structures and the
people who not only are subject to being flooded because of the rise of
sea level but of having their whole dwellings and city torn up, as
Hurricane Andrew did to downtown Homestead, a relatively small
population of Florida and it absolutely tore it up. That is what we are
facing unless we do something about climate change.
The first thing we have to do is we have to stop this denial that
this is not real. The scientists are telling us it is real. The NASA
astronaut scientists say it is measurements. They have flooding in
Miami Beach. The local governments have banded together in southeastern
Florida to try to get ahead of it.
Why can't we get some of the Senators here, who because it is not
politically correct in their politics, to recognize what the truth is
so we can start planning for this--not as a protection but to plan for
the protection of planet Earth, and see if we can stop some of the
causes of the climate change. Then, once we do it in the Nation that
stands as the role model to the rest of the countries, we are going to
have to get them to do it too; otherwise, we are going to see what has
just happened over the last couple of days: Large chunks of Antarctica
are beyond saving, and the consequences are grave.
I appreciate the leadership of my friend from Rhode Island and
Senator Boxer of California. They have been the ones who have been at
the point of the spear. I thank them very much.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be here with the
Senator from Florida, and his leadership is truly remarkable.
Here is another example on this picture from my tour. This is Broward
County. People say it is not real. Ask the owner of this house with the
for sale sign. Good luck selling that house with the ocean running
through it. That was in 2010.
Another Broward County photograph. Commissioner Kristin Jacobs, who
was the mayor at that time, gave me these pictures. Again, this is
tide. Look at the sky. It is a beautiful day. This isn't rain. This is
the tide flooding in, showing what it does to the cars. It is a mess.
As Senator Nelson described, because Florida is this limestone, kind
of hard sponge, what keeps the saltwater out is the pressure of the
freshwater holding it at bay. There is no wall. There is no structure
that keeps the water, salt, and fresh balance. It is a hydraulic
system. They have built a very complex system of canals, where they
have raised the water so they have pressure, so they can push it back.
As the sea level comes up, they are losing that fight. So here is a
line through Broward County of how far the saltwater has already
intruded into the water supply. If we drilled wells on this side of the
red line, the water is no good, and all of these wells, the little
green spots, all of these water areas are in the way because this line
is moving.
As one Army Corps engineer in Jacksonville said, Florida is in a box,
because as the sea level rises, the way we keep the freshwater
available to people is by raising the fresh water, and that keeps what
the engineers call the hydraulic head that pushes the sea water back
and allows us to maintain freshwater for drinking water purposes, for
agriculture, for Florida oranges and grapefruits and all the things we
count on. If what we are worried about is flooding, we could only raise
the freshwater so far, because if we raise it enough, we have
freshwater flooding. There is no way out of that conundrum. There is no
way out of that conundrum in Florida. He said, whether it happens in
100 years or whether it happens after the next bad hurricane, that is
what is going to happen. That is a terrible predicament. It is not
going to get better by pretending it is not real. It is not going to
get better by denying it.
If we go offshore, we get to the problem of acidification, which
happens from the carbon. This is not a theory. People say climate
change is a theory. No. The acidification of the ocean from the type of
carbon dioxide is something we can do in a lab. It is a scientific
fact. It is a law of chemistry. So it happens, and it is starting to
hit the reefs and the fisheries as the ocean warms and turns more acid.
Mayor Murphy is the mayor of Monroe County. I met her in Key Largo,
which is one of the famous world destinations. I said: What is the
acidification of the warm air? What does that do to your reefs?
She said: Well, the reefs are still beautiful unless you had been out
to see them 10, 15 years ago. The reefs are still beautiful unless you
had been out to see them 10 or 15 years ago. People see the change.
I met with the Snook and Gamefish Foundation in Florida and the
marine industry folks, and they are concerned about what is happening
there. In fact, the problem goes all the way up the coast. When I came
down from North Carolina and South Carolina, the fishermen there told
me they are starting to catch snook off the Carolinas. It is one thing
when we are catching grouper and tarpon up in Rhode Island, but what
they are seeing on the South Atlantic coast is the same thing that a
[[Page S2946]]
Rhode Islander fisherman said to me about the fishing off our coast. He
said: It is getting weird out there. We are catching fish our fathers
never saw in their nets in their lives. So when a snook comes up on the
line off the Carolinas, that is a sign that something is dramatically
changing, and these reefs are changing as well.
Last story: Mike Shirley works at the Guana Tolomato Matanzas
National Estuarine Research Reserve on the south side of St. Augustine.
He moved up there from South Florida. He moved there 7 years ago. When
he got there, he said there was one thing noticeable: There were no
mangroves. South Florida is covered in mangroves, but there weren't any
here. Now, 7 years later, the place is covered in mangroves. All that
habitat migrating northward as the oceans and the water warms and it is
changing things.
He said one other thing. He said: Do you know what we ought to look
out for? There is going to be another migration north. It is going to
be the people leaving flooded South Florida who can't get freshwater,
whose homes are flooded, who can't deal with their car going hubcap
deep in saltwater every high tide. They are going to be moving up. It
is not just the people from the cold North coming to Florida now, it is
people coming from the flooding South who are going to be coming North
again.
I will say one last thing. The mayors were terrific. Sylvia Murphy,
the mayor of Monroe County, is putting climate and energy policy at the
very forefront of her 20-year growth plan for the county. Mayor Philip
Levine of Miami Beach is hard at work. He says:
Sea-level rise is our reality in Miami Beach. We are past
the point of debating the existence of climate change. We are
now focusing on adapting to current and future threats.
Mayor Levine is pushing a $400 million plan to try to make the city's
drainage system more resilient in the face of rising tides.
From Mayor Joe Riley in Charleston to Mayor Edna Jackson in Savannah,
to Mayor Alvin Brown in Jacksonville, to the mayors in South Florida I
mentioned, council members, mayors from Pinecrest, South Miami,
Surfside, Miami Shores, Cutler Bay, Palmetto Bay, the Seminole Tribe,
the local officials, they are all serious about tackling climate
change. It is real. They see it in their neighborhoods. They see it in
their districts. They see it in their towns. They are away from this
poisonous place where the polluters control what people are allowed to
think and see and do something about.
We have to start listening to the American people. We have to start
listening to the mayors who inhabit real life and not the political
fantasy in this Senate. We have to start dealing with this.
Lee Thomas worked for President Ronald Reagan. He was a member of the
Reagan Cabinet. He ran the Environmental Protection Agency for Ronald
Reagan. Last week he wrote an op-ed--and I know the Senator from
Florida saw it--in the Tampa Bay Times urging Florida's leaders to wake
up to the changes taking place in the Sunshine State. Here is what he
said: ``Whether Democrat or Republican, Florida residents cannot afford
to ignore the evidence of climate change.'' That is a Reagan official
saying those words.
Come on, Republican mayors, Reagan officials. At some point we have
to wake up. This is real.
Just last year, Thomas joined all the other former Republican EPA
heads--four of them--and they wrote this:
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of
scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous, and
the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay
could mean that warming becomes locked in. A market-based
approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Bob Samuelson just said the same thing in his editorial over the
weekend.
I will say that the citizens of Florida and the people of the United
States are very fortunate to have a Senator such as Bill Nelson, who is
aware of this problem, who is fighting hard to solve it, who is
listening to his mayors, Republican and Democratic alike, who are
telling him what is happening in their home State, and who was willing
to bring the Commerce Committee of the U.S. Senate down to a Miami
Beach townhall to make sure everybody understands what is going on. He
helped bring that message back to Washington and it was a terrific
thing.
So we will continue working together to get this body to wake up out
of its polluter-induced slumber and face the realities that people all
across this country are seeing in their daily lives. It is indeed time
to wake up.
I yield the floor for any final comments the Senator from Florida may
wish to make.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island has stated
in one of the more eloquent fashions details about my State of Florida
because he was so passionate about the subject and so unselfish that he
wanted to start in other States--North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia--and several places on the east coast of Florida. It is
extraordinary.
I will leave you with this thought: Every time I hear a Senator such
as Senator Whitehouse speak about this subject, and every time I look
at a picture of the planet as he has on the poster that says ``Time To
Wake Up,'' my mind's eye goes back 28 years ago to the window of our
spacecraft on the 24th flight of the space shuttle 203 nautical miles
above the Earth, circumnavigating the Earth at 17,500 miles an hour,
with a complete revolution of the Earth in 90 minutes.
You look back at our planet--which is so beautiful, so colorful, so
alive, so creative--and yet when you look at the rim of the Earth, as
it falls off into the deep blackness of space, there is a thin, little
blue band, and upon closer examination out the window, you can actually
see the thin film of what sustains all of our life, the atmosphere.
Then, with the naked eye, you can see points on the Earth where we
are messing it up. You can see the color contrast of the destruction of
the trees in the Amazon, upriver in the Amazon. You can see the result
of cutting down all the trees on an island nation such as Madagascar,
which fortunately has started planting trees in the last quarter
century. Therefore, the result of that tree cutting, in this hemisphere
as well, in the island nation of Haiti, is that when the rains come,
there are no trees to hold the topsoil and it all flows down the rivers
and out the mouths of the rivers and you can see it from space in the
discoloration of the water. That is for miles and miles out into the
brilliant blues of the ocean.
If we do not do what people like Senators Boxer and Whitehouse are
saying and wake up to the reality of climate change and try to get
ahead of it by changing policies that will stop the greenhouse effect
or at least slow it down, then what we are going to have for future
space fliers is that they are going to look back at the planet and the
coastline of those States Senator Whitehouse visited--all being in the
Southeastern United States--that coastline is not going to look the
same. It is not going to be as distinct a coastline, with a white beach
along it that outlines it from the blue waters of the Atlantic. It is
going to be much different and to the great detriment of the people who
live there and call that home.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.
Order Of Procedure
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
rule XXII, tomorrow, Wednesday, May 14, 2014, at 11:15 a.m., the Senate
proceed to vote on cloture on Calendar No. 664, Logan; Calendar No.
665, Tuchi; Calendar No. 666, Humetewa; then proceed to consideration
and vote on confirmation of Calendar No. 650, Williams, and Calendar
No. 539, Moreno; further, that if cloture is invoked on Calendar Nos.
664, 665 or 666, the time until 5:15 p.m. be equally divided between
the two leaders or their designees and at 5:15 p.m. the Senate proceed
to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed;
further, that there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote, equally
divided in the usual form; that any rollcall votes
[[Page S2947]]
following the first in each series be 10 minutes in length; further,
that if confirmed, the motions 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 nominations; that any statements
related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President
be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then
resume legislative session and proceed to vote on the motion to proceed
to H.R. 3474.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________