[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 111 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4534-S4545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECT WOMEN'S HEALTH FROM CORPORATE INTERFERENCE ACT
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to allow us to begin
debate on the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of
2014, of which I am a cosponsor.
One of this Nation's founding principles is respect for religious
faith. Most all of us agree that one American should not be able to
impose his or her religious convictions upon another. Yet the outcome
of the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case is that
thousands of Americans may lose the ability to make the most personal
choices about what health care meets their religious or ethical
standards and hand those decisions over to an employer.
The Court's reasoning in the Hobby Lobby decision was deeply flawed.
As I and several colleagues argued in a brief to the Court, applying
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the Court did seriously
misconstrues the language of the statute and ignores the intent of
Congress in passing it. Giving for-profit corporations the power to
impose the religious beliefs of managers or owners upon employees is
what violates basic religious freedom.
It is a central feature of our health care system that millions of
Americans receive health insurance through employer-sponsored plans and
those employers are most often, as was the case with Hobby Lobby,
corporations. Business owners choose to incorporate because forming a
corporation means access to limited liability and other government-
conferred privileges.
But corporations don't have faiths. People do. That includes the
women who have now lost their ability to make the most important and
personal decisions about their health care.
If we are to say we truly value the freedom to practice any religion
or no religion, as we see fit, surely that includes the freedom for
American women to make choices about their own health care without the
imposition of their employer's religious convictions. The Supreme
Court's decision has elevated the religious faith of a business's
owners above the values of that business's employees. That is not what
the law envisions, and it is not what Americans believe.
I strongly support this legislation to repair the damage the Supreme
Court has done. We should proceed to this bill, debate it, vote on it,
and hopefully pass it. America's women and their families deserve
nothing less.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
Protect Women From Corporate Interference Act, and I praise Senator
Murray and Senator Udall (of Colorado) for their work on this bill.
Let me first discuss the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Hobby Lobby
v. Burwell--a decision that in my view is deeply disappointing. In the
Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court found that large, closely-held,
for-profit corporations have religious-freedom rights under the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Major corporations
can now assert a religious objection to generally applicable federal
law.
It is possible such corporations will not get most exemptions they
seek. This will be examined on a case-by-case basis. But the point is
the Court has opened the door to granting these sorts of exemptions to
large, for-profit corporations.
This is a far-reaching result that Congress never intended when it
enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
As 18 other senators and I made clear to the Court in an amicus brief
in the Hobby Lobby case, Congress's purpose in passing the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 was simple. Congress wanted to
strengthen individuals' free-exercise protections, after a Supreme
Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) limited those
rights. But Congress never intended to grant new free-exercise
protections to artificial, for-profit business corporations.
The Court's decision in Hobby Lobby went far beyond what Congress
intended in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Federal
law limited by Hobby Lobby was the Affordable Care Act's requirement
that preventive health services including contraceptives are covered
without cost-sharing in both individual and employer-provided health
plans. Preventive health services include contraception because it is
basic health care for women. This is an important benefit secured by
federal law for all American women, 99 percent of whom have used
contraception at some point in their lives. The medical community has
almost unanimously recognized contraception as basic and essential
health care. As the Guttmacher Institute explained in 2011:
Contraceptive use ``help[s] women avoid short intervals between births,
thereby reducing the risk of poor birth outcomes.'' ``[S]hort birth
intervals have been linked with numerous negative perinatal outcomes,''
including ``low birth weight, pre-term birth and small size for
gestational age.'' Contraceptives can also be used to treat common
medical conditions including ``menstrual-related migraines, the
treatment of pelvic pain that accompanies endometriosis, and of
bleeding due to uterine fibroids.''
The Institute of Medicine also recognized the importance of these
benefits when it recommended that all FDA-approved contraceptives
should be covered without cost-sharing, pursuant to the Women's Health
Amendment to the health care law, which I strongly supported.
Yet the Court's decision in Hobby Lobby means a woman's employer can
for religious reasons ignore the federal requirement to include this
important health benefit in its health plan.
To me, that is wrong. A woman's employer-provided health plan should
include basic preventive services required by law, without the owners
of the corporation she works for imposing their own personal religious
views upon her health care decisions.
I understand some have argued that this decision doesn't impact
women's access to contraception because it doesn't allow a corporation
to bar a woman from buying contraception. That's ridiculous. Of course
health insurance coverage impacts access to care. That is the whole
point of insurance. No one would argue that if an employer decided not
to cover antibiotics that patients would still have the same access to
needed medication on their own. When insurance coverage is limited,
access is limited as well, particularly for those of lower financial
means.
According to a 2009 study from the Guttmacher Institute, 23 percent
of women surveyed reported having a harder time paying for birth
control during the economic downturn, and this number rose to one out
of three among those who were financially worse off compared to the
year before. In fact, my Republican colleagues felt that prescription
drug coverage was so important to ensuring patient access to medication
that they led the creation of Medicare Part D, which was signed into
law by President Bush. I supported that legislation and still believe
that health insurance coverage is critical to ensuring patient access.
It is also important to note that contraception is not the only issue
here. The Hobby Lobby decision means that other Federal health laws--
including other benefits required by law, or even coverage itself--
could be the subject of a religious objection by a corporate employer.
In the United States more than half of all individuals get insurance
through their employer, and estimates suggest that more than half of
Americans work for a closely-held corporation.
In the Affordable Care Act Congress recognized the importance of
preventive care. We included coverage without a copay for effective
prevention services as determined by independent medical experts. I
will just name some: Blood pressure and cholesterol screening,
colonoscopies, immunizations, HIV tests, mammograms and cervical cancer
screening, diabetes screening, autism screening for children, hearing
tests for newborns and screening for sickle-cell anemia.
The point is certain essential, preventive services for adults and
children
[[Page S4535]]
must be part of employer-provided health care under the law. But the
Hobby Lobby decision grants for-profit corporations the ability to seek
a religious exemption from providing them. Those exemptions may or may
not be granted, but the Supreme Court has now opened the door to those
claims.
In my view this is at odds with the fundamental principle that health
care decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their
doctors.
This bill is simple: it would protect elements of employer-provided
health care plans that are already required by law against challenge on
the basis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It would not infringe any individual's constitutional right to the
free exercise of religion, nor would it alter existing exemptions and
accommodations for religious organizations and non-profits.
I urge my colleagues to defend the critical health protections that
we have created and join me in supporting this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:10
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to reserve the
last 3 minutes of debate for my time, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam 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. Madam President, in a few minutes we are going to vote
to proceed to debate on the Protect Women's Health from Corporate
Interference Act--or, as we call it, the Not My Boss's Business Act--
straightforward, simple legislation that would ensure that no CEO or
corporation can come between you and your guaranteed access to health
care, period.
Women across the country are watching. Affordability of care equals
access to care, and we know that millions of Americans lacked health
insurance prior to the Affordable Care Act because they couldn't afford
it, not because it wasn't available to them to purchase. Contraceptives
should be a part of the options in women's health care because it is an
essential part. We don't single out other benefits for employees. Why
should we single out benefits that are so important to women in this
country?
Now is the time for our colleagues to answer a few basic questions.
Who should be in charge of a woman's health care decision? Should it be
the woman making those decisions with her partner and her doctor and
her faith or should it be her boss making those decisions for her based
on his own religious beliefs? To me and to the vast majority of people
across the country, the answer to that question is obvious: Women
should call the shots when it comes to their health care decisions, not
their boss, not the government, not anyone else, period.
But we are here today because five men on the Supreme Court
disagreed. Five men on the Supreme Court rolled back the clock on women
across America. We are here today because we simply cannot allow that
to stand.
In the aftermath of that decision, women across America turned up
here in Congress and demanded we fix it. That is why I worked with my
partner, the senior Senator from Colorado, to introduce this bill, and
we have 46 cosponsors in the Senate and over 120 organizations that
have voiced their support now. So I sincerely hope our Republican
colleagues will join us in allowing us to proceed to debate on this
important bill.
I wish to remind them that women across the country are watching. In
fact, we have a number of them here in the Nation's Capitol today, and
I believe they will be very interested in seeing who is on their side.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous
consent to yield back all remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 2578, a bill to ensure that
employers cannot interfere in their employees' birth control
and other health care decisions.
Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Mark Udall, Richard J. Durbin,
Jeff Merkley, Debbie Stabenow, Jack Reed, Carl Levin,
Christopher A. Coons, Elizabeth Warren, Jeanne Shaheen,
Michael F. Bennet, Jon Tester, Patrick J. Leahy, Martin
Heinrich, Maria Cantwell, Christopher Murphy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 2578, a bill to ensure that
employers cannot interfere in their employees' birth control and other
health care decisions, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--43
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Schatz
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 56 and the nays are
43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 2578.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Immigration Crisis
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, over the years I have frequently spoken
on the Senate floor about refugees. I have asked my fellow Senators to
support our humanitarian refugee efforts in farflung corners of the
world. In doing so, I cite America's role as a human rights leader and
our long history of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution and
violence. I also remind people of a time in the past, around World War
II, when this country unwisely closed its borders to people who were
fleeing the Holocaust in Germany. They came here, they were turned
back, sent back, many of them to certain death in the death camps. That
was a sorry part of our history. Usually our history reflects what we
see in the Statue of Liberty: a beckoning torch to refuge. But now the
refugee crisis has come back again and to our own border.
[[Page S4536]]
It is a complicated problem. I hope we will stop trying to react to
whatever was in the latest news cycle 12\1/2\ seconds ago so we can get
to the next sound bite 12\1/2\ seconds from now and resist the urge to
let politics shape our response. Critics are arguing that the increase
in unaccompanied children arriving at the southwest border is driven by
recent changes in our immigration policy. This is a sound bite. The
facts, of course, are a lot different. They tell a different and more
complicated story.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has found over 50
percent of the children ages 12 to 17 arriving from Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras have been forcibly displaced and have claims to
international protection because of the violence they have encountered.
If changes in immigration policy were the primary factor, we would
expect to see an across-the-board increase in children arriving from
Mexico and Central America.
What Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have in common is
widespread corruption and weak governments that have failed to
implement effective social and economic programs or to protect their
most vulnerable citizens from record levels of violence. This reality,
more than any change in U.S. policy, is responsible for the massive
increase in unaccompanied minors arriving on our southwest border.
It is true that many of these children do not have claims to
immigration relief and they are going to be returned. For them, the
dangers of this trip are not worth it, and we must discourage them from
making the arduous journey alone. But others are fleeing murder or
being forced into gangs or girls in their early teens are being raped
and impregnated. This is what they are escaping.
There is no doubt that simply maintaining the status quo is not an
option. We should take up and pass the administration's emergency
supplemental request without delay. But instead of supporting the
supplemental, Republicans are trying to use the crisis to promote fear
and their enforcement-only agenda. It has not worked in the past. It
will not work now. These children coming across the border are not
trying to flee from enforcement. If they see somebody in uniform, they
run to them, thinking that finally they are escaping the gangs and the
murderers and the rapists, and now they suddenly feel safe because they
see an American in uniform. As we know from the experience of other
countries facing far greater refugee crises, increased detention and
other messages of deterrence do not persuade desperate people from
taking dangerous journeys.
Some Members of Congress are proposing that the way to solve this
problem is by amending the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to make
it easier to deport these children by rushing them through a
superficial hearing--and it would be superficial--without access to
counsel or child welfare specialists, in a country strange to them and
in a language different than theirs. That is unacceptable. We are
talking about young children--6 and 7 and 8 years old--who have
experienced horrific violence and now are in a country where they don't
even speak the language. It is unconscionable to push them through our
complicated legal system terrified and alone, without a lawyer, and
with the ultimate idea that they will be summarily deported back to the
very danger they fled. I will vote against anything that would allow
such a travesty.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act is not a windfall for these
children. It hasn't been from the time President George W. Bush signed
it into law until today. It simply provides commonsense protections
such as requiring the children who arrive alone to be interviewed by a
child welfare specialist and have a meaningful opportunity to tell
their story to a judge. That is how we identify victims of trafficking
or sexual violence or persecution. If improving the efficiency of the
process is the goal, the administration already has the discretion to
do that. The funding for immigration judges and legal assistance in the
supplemental will further help. We can address this humanitarian crisis
without watering down our law. We don't have to turn our backs on our
own basic values as Americans--the basic values that brought my
grandparents to Italy from Vermont and my great-great grandparents from
Ireland to Vermont. It is our humanitarian values. Let's not turn our
backs on them.
The problem, in fact, we are facing now could be alleviated in part
if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would allow a
vote on the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill, S. 744. We
had hundreds of hours of hearings, of markups, of debate, sometimes
going late into the evening, and then days of debate on the floor, and
we passed it by a strong bipartisan majority. We passed this bill 1
year ago, and the Republican leadership in the House will not even
allow it to come to a vote, even though it would probably pass in the
same form as we did. They will not let it come to a vote because
whether people vote for or against it, there are some people who will
disagree with the vote, so it is easier to vote maybe. No matter what
the humanitarian crisis we have, vote maybe. Don't vote yes, don't vote
no; vote maybe by not voting, but then blame it on the President, blame
it on everybody else.
The Senate stepped up and we passed a bill the President said he
would sign. The Senate-passed bill calls for nearly 20,000 new Border
Patrol agents, 3,500 additional Customs and Border Protection officers,
and 700 miles of fencing. We have heard people stand and say--as though
they suddenly found this out--we need tougher laws to fight back
against coyotes and cartels that want an opportunity to exploit these
vulnerable children. I have heard some of the same people refuse to
vote on a bill and say we need this protection. Read the bill. S. 744
does that too. It has tougher provisions to fight against human
smuggling and enhanced penalties in situations that result in serious
bodily injury, death, bribery or corruption.
We have done it. We have done it in the Senate. Why isn't there a hue
and cry? I understand it is very easy, if you are going to do a sound
bite for the evening news or something, to stand up and say: Why
haven't Obama and the Democrats acted? It takes a little bit more time
to say: Why haven't you voted for a bill that does everything you say
is needed? Why won't the Republican leadership even allow the House
Members--Republicans and Democrats--to vote on a bill that does
everything they say they need?
I want to thank Senators Harkin and Feinstein and Durbin for their
comments at the last week's Appropriations Committee hearing. It is
clear to me that they, too, understand our Nation is at a crossroads
with this crisis. The world is watching how we are going to respond.
How is the greatest Nation on Earth going to respond?
I know one person who spoke out: Pope Francis. He has urged us to
protect these children. Well, I think the Pope is right.
We have a choice. We can either make good on the promises we have
already written into our law and Republicans and Democrats have voted
for, or we can decide: Gosh, we didn't mean it. We voted for it, we
gave great press conferences, but we did not mean it. Now, gee whiz, it
is complicated--as though life is always easy--so let's just rewrite
the law. If we do that, just send these children back. Send these
children back to the murderers, the rapists, the gangs. Doesn't that
turn our back on the very principles on which this Nation was founded--
the principles that brought my grandparents here from Italy, my great-
grandparents here from Ireland?
Where are those principles? We forgot them at the beginning of the
Holocaust. We look at the people who died, the number of Jews who went
to the ovens because we had forgotten our principles.
Well, President George W. Bush was right in signing the bill. The
Republicans and Democrats who voted for it were right. Let's not turn
our backs. If we want to do something beyond the sound bites, something
realistic, pass the supplemental for the people we need to do it for
and allow the House of Representatives to vote up or down on the bill
that Republicans and Democrats voted for here in the Senate a whole
year ago. But do not let the supplemental request be a political
football. It should be passed clean, without delay. Do not try to
remove all the protections for victims of human trafficking.
[[Page S4537]]
Pass the supplemental, and then have the courage to stand up and vote
yes or no on S. 744. We did here in the Senate. Republicans and
Democrats came together. A large majority of us passed it in the
Senate. Why can't the House of Representatives do the same thing? I
will tell you why. They are afraid whichever way they vote, it might be
unpopular. Well, that is what you expect. I have cast more votes than
all but a half dozen Senators in the history of this country. Can
anybody go back through all those thousands upon thousands of votes and
find some they could attack me on? Of course. I could give them a list
myself. Can I find some that I probably on second thought wish I had
cast differently? Of course I can. But I had the courage to vote yes or
no. I was criticized when I became the first Vermonter--in fact, the
only Vermonter--to ever vote against the war in Vietnam. The
authorization was cut off by one vote. Today it would be hard to find
anybody who supported that war.
My point is not whether as a Senator from Vermont I vote right or
wrong or any one of us as a Senator from our State votes right or
wrong--but at least vote. That is what we said we would do when we were
elected: vote. So I am talking about what is wrong with immigration law
when you are afraid to even vote one way or the other. But let's not
turn our back on the principles this country stands for. Let's not say
to 7- or 8- or 9-year-old children--trying to escape a fate that my
children or my grandchildren would never face--sorry, we are too great
and big and busy a country to worry about you. Go back and face your
fate, whatever it might be, because we don't care. That is not the
America I serve. That is not the America I love. That is not the place
where the Senate should be if we are going to be the conscience of the
Nation.
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. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I want to spend a few minutes discussing
the effect and the premise of the legislation on which we just decided
not to move forward.
I have spent 25 years of my life caring for women. There is not a
complication of pregnancy I have not handled. I have seen every aspect
of it. I have delivered babies the size of my little finger and watched
them move their little arms, not yet far enough along to survive. I
have cared for women in the midst of lost pregnancies and the tragedy
and trauma and the heartbreak. I have cared for women who have had
abortions and the complications that has completed and exacerbated in
their own lives from psychological to real physical problems. I have
actually performed abortions to save women's lives who had severe
congenital heart defects and would have died had their pregnancy
continued.
But the premise under which this bill was brought forward is an
absolute false premise. You see, I come from Oklahoma. David Green and
his family come from Oklahoma. They are the owners of Hobby Lobby. They
are one of the finest groups of people I have ever met in my life. They
are responsible corporate citizens. But everything they have done in
their life is guided by their faith and their ethics. Therefore, they
are not open on Sunday because they feel their employees have a right
to a restful weekend. They pay a very livable wage. They have always
had health insurance.
The Supreme Court decision was about religious freedom and whether I,
as a private businessperson, am still entitled to that as I carry on
commerce in this country.
What has been described--maybe not specifically but negatively--is
that Hobby Lobby and the Green family do not appreciate women or their
contributions or their rights or their freedoms. Nothing could be
further from the truth. They had a very personal objection to four
abortifacients--not birth control pills--four medicines, devices that
actually kill a living human being. See, what we do not think about
very often--and I think about all the time--is that when an egg and a
sperm unite, there is created something that has never been created
before: a unique human being. The genetic material will be no different
at conception than it is when you are 85 years old. It is unique. It
has never before been here; it will never again be here.
So based on these deeply held beliefs and ethics--and what I would
say is morals--they chose to supply their entire employee network with
16 different methods of birth control. But the four that actually kill
a baby that has been formed--they thought it was their religious right
to be able to say they should not have to take money out of their
pocket to pay for something that goes against their strongly held
moral, ethical, and faith beliefs.
So we have had a reaction. It is political in nature. It does not
have much to do with the facts. It has a lot to do with darkness, of
saying something is so that is not true, and saying it often enough so
we can tell people that here are those terrible Republicans and they
want to hurt women.
I dedicated 25 years of my life to helping women in every type of
tragedy, every type of disease, whether it is cancer or diabetes or
hypertension or pregnancy or miscarriages or just the common cold.
Before the Senate forced me to stop delivering babies, I was delivering
babies that I delivered; in other words, it was the third generation.
That is how crazy the Senate ethics rules are.
So the very undercurrent of what we heard could not be further from
the truth. What we heard--the implications were that the Green family
is somehow this negative corporate monster who wants to take women's
rights away--is absolutely untrue.
The other falsehood we hear is that if you do not have health care,
you do not have available birth control. We spend $400 million a year
on title 19, most of which is in birth control pills that are given out
to women who do not have access. It costs $7 a month to buy birth
control pills, and most physicians, like myself, who had women who
could not either access title 19 or who did not have $7 a month, gave
the pills themselves out of their stocks, their samples.
So there is a reality other than what has been painted in the Senate,
and I could not sit by and let this hang out, this terrible untruth. I
do not know of a family business, I do not know of a business in
America that cares more about its employees than Hobby Lobby, and it is
manifested through the employee loyalty and also the success of their
brand because they really have a team. And you do not have a team if
you do not feel as if you are being cared for--that you are not one of
the group.
There are a lot of problems in front of this country. But the one
described in this last piece of legislation is not one of them. The
Green family does not keep anybody from buying abortifacients if they
want them. They are not all that expensive. The morning-after pill is
over the counter. But to force a person of faith to pay for an action
against what they believe is morally wrong. It is far away from the
religious liberties our Constitution guarantees.
I know we can get hyped up on emotion, but the emotion we ought to
get hyped on is preserving the rights our Founders guaranteed when they
started this country. They were based on the same set of beliefs the
Green family inculcates into everything they do with Hobby Lobby. It is
pretty ironic to me that we have become so post-modern, so smart, so
``for'' what the government can do and mandate that we are willing to
destroy the very freedoms that created this country in the first place.
This bill was a cynical attack on truth. I am glad it is not
proceeding. It is time to quit wasting the Senate's time on political
games and start addressing the very real problems this country has,
such as the fact that Social Security disability will run out of money
next month; the fact that one-third of those on disability who are not
truly disabled are threatening the livelihood of those who truly are;
the fact that Medicare, 17 years from now or 16 years from now, will be
out of money; the fact that Social Security will be out of money in 18
years; the fact that we are having corporations leave this country in a
mass flood because we
[[Page S4538]]
have a Tax Code that is not competitive with the rest of the world; the
fact that we are wasting $250 billion a year on duplicative programs
that do not accomplish the goals which the Congress set out for them.
Yet we have no leadership that says we are going to address the very
real problems in front of the country. It is not a great record to be
proud of.
I yield the floor and 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. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. I ask to be recognized to speak as if in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Honoring Our Armed Forces
Second Lieutenant Noah Harris
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I wish to share an experience I had a
couple of weeks ago while riding the mountains of North Georgia to my
home. I was in the pickup truck alone, driving my red Silverado from a
place in the mountains. I spent a lot of time thinking--which I try to
do when I get a few moments to myself--about all the difficult
positions we are now in as a country. I thought about our border with
Mexico and all the Central American children who are coming through,
huddled on the border, and the crisis there. I thought about Syria and
the tragedy of that civil war. I thought about the fact that the
Israelis and Hamas are firing rockets back and forth from Gaza and into
the mainland of Israel. I thought about the fact that we are now
negotiating with Iran, our archenemy. I thought about the fact that
Vladimir Putin decided to take advantage of the vacuum that has been
created in world leadership and moved into Crimea, threatening Kiev and
threatening Ukraine. I thought about all the crises we have along the
way.
Then I came to Ellijay, GA, a little town known for its apples and
its population of 2,000 great Georgia citizens.
I came to Poole's Bar-B-Q, which is a landmark along the highway in
Ellijay, GA. I stopped, and all of a sudden all those thoughts I had of
the wars going on, the conflicts going on, the strife and the trouble
going on all culminated in Gilmer County, because in Gilmer County in
2005 I attended the funeral of Noah Harris. Noah Harris was killed in
Iraq in 2005.
I thought about his story, and I thought about our position now, and
I thought about some message I want to send to my country and to this
body of the Senate.
Let me talk about Noah Harris. Noah Harris was a cheerleader at the
University of Georgia. On the Saturday before 9/11 in 2001, he was in
Sanford Stadium with 92,000 fans of the Georgia Bulldogs cheering on
the team.
Then, like the rest of the world, he saw the terrible attack of 9/11
in 2001--in New York City, in Shanksville, PA, and in Washington, DC.
On the morning of the 12th, he got out of bed in the dormitory and he
went straight to the Army ROTC building in Athens, GA, and told them he
wanted to sign up for an ROTC commission because he wanted to go fight
whoever it was who killed those 3,000 citizens of the world tragically
in New York City.
They said: Noah, you can't get a commission in just a year. You only
have a year left.
He said: I can double up and do it. I want to go for my country. I
want to go for what is right. I want to go fight for America.
He became a second lieutenant in the 3rd Infantry Division, and, sure
enough, 3 years after that, he was in Iraq. He became known as the
Beanie Baby soldier because he had his pockets stuffed with Beanie
Babies. And as he would go through Ghazaliya, where he was stationed
near Baghdad, he would hand out Beanie Babies to the Iraqi children. He
was like a pied piper. Unfortunately, in the 11th month of his tour, a
rocket-propelled grenade his hit humvee and he and two of his buddies
were killed instantly in Iraq.
I didn't know Noah Harris, but I went to the funeral that day
because, as a Senator from Georgia, I wanted to pay my respects to a
soldier who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the war on terror.
So as I was riding through Gilmer County a couple weeks ago, thinking
about the crises we have today around the world and then thinking about
Noah Harris, I thought to myself, there is a message all of us need to
remember: Those soldiers should never have died in vain, and we have to
make sure they did not.
In Iraq 4,486 American soldiers were killed in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. In Afghanistan, to date, 2,319--a total of 6,805--most of them
Americans, some of them immigrants seeking their citizenship in America
and fighting for America in our Armed Forces--fought for the rights and
freedoms that all our Founding Fathers stood for, fought for all the
reasons we serve in this body today, fought for all the reasons that
America is the great and noble country it is around the world.
But right now there is an absence of leadership in the world, and
because of it we are seeing one crisis come up after another. I worry
that Noah Harris, who died in Iraq in 2005, might--and I underscore the
word ``might''--have died in vain if we don't recognize our
responsibilities and see to it that we try and prevent what has been
happening lately from continuing to happen.
There is a decision point coming to the United States of America--it
is coming next year. It is one I want to encourage the President to
think about deeply and for all of us to think about deeply.
We have lost Iraq to ISIS. ISIS is a renegade group of terrorists who
have basically taken over that country and partnered with some of the
terrorists in Syria to control Iraq.
One of the reasons they did that is we left a huge vacuum in Iraq
when we pulled out. We pulled every American soldier out. I know it was
our goal to leave after the surge worked--and that was the right thing
to do. But it wasn't the right thing to pull out every single soldier,
because we abandoned all the infrastructure that we had built. We
abandoned the image of American strength and power. We abandoned the
ability for us to be agile in a dangerous part of the world.
In Afghanistan, we are supposed to pull our troops out at the
beginning of next year. Some of them should come home but not all of
them. We have invested billions of dollars in American hardware and
American money to see to it we had the best support in the world for
our soldiers in Afghanistan. If we abandon Bagram, if we abandon
Kabul--if we abandon Afghanistan, the same thing will happen in
Afghanistan as happened in Iraq. And those soldiers, the 2,319 who died
in Afghanistan, will have in part died in vain because we abandoned
what they built. We abandoned what they protected. We abandoned the
investment they made.
We need also to remember what happened on 9/11 of 2001, when we
decided to go into Iraq and then later into Afghanistan. We didn't have
enough infrastructure in that part of the world to make an invasion. We
had to rent the Kyrgyzstan airport near Russia to be able to fly our
troops in to begin positioning outside of the Tora Bora area in
Afghanistan.
We have built tremendous infrastructure, we have built tremendous
bases, and we have tremendous assets for which the taxpayers of the
United States have paid. We should maintain a presence there so we are
agile; so our SEALs teams, if needed, can be positioned; so that the
rest of the world knows that while the war may be over and America has
come home, it hasn't left. It hasn't abandoned us. An American presence
will remain--just as we have in Germany, just as we have in Japan, just
as we have in South Korea. Our best friends today were our enemies 40,
50, and 60 years ago, because America didn't leave when the fight was
over. We need to make sure that relationship happens in Afghanistan so
we can begin to build our presence in that part of the world and be
that somebody who prohibits and inhibits terrorism and people like ISIS
from taking over countries.
Make no mistake about it. Vladimir Putin has been encouraged by an
absence of leadership, and ISIS took advantage of an absence of
leadership. What is going on between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip
is an absence of leadership, in part on our part. We can't sit around
and be bystanders. We have to recommit ourselves to the effort in that
part of the world because
[[Page S4539]]
in the end the peace and security of America from terrorism and from
those who would bring us down is not our looking the other way and not
living up to our responsibility to the Noah Harrises of the world who
gave the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq in 2005--all because he watched
what we all watched that morning of 9/11 in 2001, and said: This shall
not stand. I want to volunteer to fight for my country. And he joined
our Army and did so.
God bless Noah Harris. God bless his parents, Rick and Lucy. God
bless the United States of America. May we remember our responsibility
not to leave what we have built and remain a beacon of peace, liberty,
and democracy around the world.
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.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Veterans Health Care
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wanted to inform the Members about an
important hearing that was held this morning in the Senate Veterans'
Committee. I also wish to thank the Members of the Senate who, in the
midst of a very partisan environment last month, voted with 93 votes--
overwhelming support--to pass a very significant piece of legislation
to help the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our
country--legislation that was written by Senator McCain and myself, and
I thank him very much for his help in this effort.
One of the important provisions in that legislation was an
understanding that the needs of our veterans are a cost of war. They
are a cost of war just as much as guns and tanks and planes and
missiles are a cost of war. It seems to me to be fairly obvious that if
we spend trillions of dollars fighting the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it is absolutely appropriate to make sure we have money
available on an emergency basis to take care of the men and women who
use those guns and tanks and missiles and who put their lives on the
line and, in some cases, never come home.
So the first point I wish to make is that if we send people to war,
we should always understand that a cost of that war is taking care of
our veterans.
I recall--and I see the chairperson of the Appropriations Committee
and she will recall this as well--that when this country went to war in
Iraq and after in Afghanistan--and let me be clear, I voted against the
war in Iraq--but when we went to war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the
understanding was that this is emergency funding; that our troops, no
matter how one voted on the war, needed the equipment to take care of
themselves, to protect themselves, and to win the mission. That is
exactly where we are today. We want to win this mission. The mission we
are involved in now is making sure the men and women who served this
country in the military get quality care in a timely manner. That is
the mission we have to win now, and that, in my view, is a cost of war.
I think there is not widespread awareness of what the cost of war is,
and I hope, A, we never get into more wars in the future, but that if
we ever do, people understand that any budget for war must include the
needs of veterans--not 2 years after the war but 70 years after the
war. When some veteran is sitting in some room in an apartment without
legs, without arms, without eyesight, that is a cost of war and we
don't desert those people--not tomorrow, not 50 years from now, not 70
years from now. Our moral commitment is to make certain we provide for
those who defend us.
I think there is not sufficient understanding about what the cost of
war truly is. I wish to mention just a few facts people should
understand. Over 2 million men and women served this country in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. Studies are very clear that 20 to 30 percent
of those men and women have come home with post-traumatic stress
disorder or traumatic brain injury. That is between 400,000 to 500,000
men and women who are coming home with PTSD or TBI. What that
translates into is men and women who are struggling every single day.
It translates into outrageously high rates of suicide for younger
veterans, substance abuse, inability to hold on to a job and earn a
living; many of these folks have a difficult time being around people.
It translates into divorce. It translates into emotional problems for
kids and for other family members.
Since fiscal year 2006, the number of veterans receiving specialized
mental health treatment has risen from over 927,000 to more than 1.4
million in fiscal year 2013. Today, and every day, approximately 49,000
veterans are receiving outpatient mental health appointments. Let me
repeat that. Today, some 49,000 veterans in 50 States in this country
are receiving mental health appointments. That is a staggering number.
During the last 4 years, VA outpatient mental health visits have
increased from $14 million a year to more than $18 million a year. This
is just one of the problems facing the veterans community. How do we
provide the psychiatrists, the social workers, the psychologists, the
counselors we need? It is a huge issue because PTSD and TBI are very
tough illnesses.
In addition, what we are looking at now--and every Member of the
Senate is familiar with this--is outrageously high waiting periods for
veterans to get into the VA. Time and time again I hear from veterans
in Vermont and I hear from veterans all over the country; I hear from
veterans organizations and I read independent surveys which tell me
that when veterans get into the VA, the quality of the care they get is
good. I just met 2 hours ago with a veterans organization--same thing:
Once people get into the system, the quality of care is generally good;
the problem is accessing the care. The problem is appointments.
I will not read to my colleagues all of the statistics, but trust me
the waiting lines all over this country are much too high in many parts
of America. There are other people who never even made it to the
waiting lines. This has to do with a whole lot of issues that we have
discussed.
The bottom line is we must address the waiting time issue and make
sure that in the very near future, every veteran who is in need of
health care gets that health care in a timely manner.
Sloan Gibson, who is the Acting Secretary of the VA----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is informed that the
time is under Republican control, if the Senator would suspend.
Mr. SANDERS. Could I ask my colleague just for 3 more minutes?
Mr. RISCH. The Senator may do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator
Sanders is speaking. Senator Risch, I believe, is going to speak. The
time now is on unaccompanied children; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement was that the
Republicans control the time until 4:30.
Ms. MIKULSKI. OK.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. I ask unanimous consent that----
Ms. MIKULSKI. I haven't yielded the floor. I reserved my right to
object. I am just clarifying. So Senator Sanders wishes to speak, and
as I understand it, I have time--this is not in any way to interfere
with the Senator from Idaho, but at 4:30 I am supposed to have the time
under the time controlled by the Democrats; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We already agreed to the unanimous consent
request that the Republicans control the time until 4:30.
Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time is--all I am trying to do is know when I
am going to be able to speak.
If I could turn to the Senator from Idaho, how long does he intend to
speak?
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I intend to speak for about 4\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I withdraw my objection. I think we deserve to hear
Senator Sanders, and I will wait patiently for my turn.
Mr. RISCH. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
[[Page S4540]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank very much the Senator from Idaho.
Let me wrap it up by making the point that Acting Secretary Gibson
made this morning which was a very simple but important one. What he
said is we must address the immediate crisis of ending these
outrageously long waiting periods that veterans are now experiencing in
order to get into the VA. Right now--and I am proud of what he is
doing--they are moving very aggressively to get veterans all over this
country into private health care when necessary and any other form of
health care, to make sure those waiting periods go down. I think they
are doing a pretty good job. They have to continue to do that, but we
should be mindful that this is going to be a very expensive process.
The other point he made, which is equally important, is that long
term, if the goal is to end these unacceptable waiting periods, we have
to give the VA the staffing and the space and the facilities and the
infrastructure they need.
He came forward with what I recognize is a very big pricetag. His
pricetag was $17.6 billion, so we can get the 10,000 more staff we
need, the doctors, the psychiatrists, the primary health care
physicians, the mental health counselors we need, get the space we
need, because in many facilities around the country the staff can't
operate because they don't have adequate space.
So what I would say to my colleagues, if we are serious about
addressing this very important problem, we will go forward in two ways.
No. 1, immediate crisis, let's end those waiting lists. Let's contract
out when necessary to private physicians.
Long term, it is absolutely imperative that the VA have the
infrastructure it needs so we don't have this crisis again 2 years from
today.
The last point, I reiterate. If we send people off to war--if we make
that enormously difficult, painful decision--I hope every Member in
this body understands that taking care of veterans is a cost of that
war and that we have a moral responsibility to do everything we can
with them and for them and their families.
Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a memorandum submitted by Acting Secretary Sloan Gibson at
our committee hearing earlier today.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Washington, DC, July 16, 2014.
Memorandum for Chairman Sanders
From: Sloan D. Gibson, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Regarding: Testimony at July 16, 2014 Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Hearing.
Per your request, attached for your information is a
summary of additional resource needs through FY2017 that I
outlined in my testimony today before the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
In developing the resource requirements, the overarching
goals were to:
Support the work of the Senate-House conference committee
to improve Veterans' access to medical care and services.
Ensure that VA has the resources necessary to deliver
timely, high quality care and benefits to Veterans enrolled
in the VA system.
Schedule all Veteran appointments within standards of
acceptable care.
Enhance and reform infrastructure that enables VA medical
care (i.e. facilities construction/IT improvements) to
modernize VA's operations and provide access to care when and
where Veterans want it.
Further, the resource requirements were shaped by
principles that the Administration believes should be key to
any discussion of VA resource needs. These principles
include:
Leverage contract care where necessary, but focus efforts
on incentivizing improvements in the VA system itself--
Consider referrals to non-VA care to address burgeoning
workload as a temporary stop-gap to immediately address the
current problem, but concurrently look to strengthen the VA
system by including incentives and resources for VA to
deliver care in-house.
Require cost-effective, coordinated care--Make efficient
use of taxpayer dollars by ensuring quality care is delivered
in a cost-effective way. Require VA to actively coordinate a
Veteran's care across all care environments.
Modernize VA infrastructure and processes--Ensure that VA
facilities and IT infrastructure are modernized and equipped
to meet increasing demand for services; reform VA IT delivery
and procurement to make it more effective in delivering
services to Veterans.
Support VA system without undercutting other national
priorities--Given that VA is required to provide quality care
to Veterans--and faces serious resources needs not
contemplated when budget caps were negotiated--funding to
support the ramp-up of VA medical care contemplated below
must be provided outside of current base discretionary
resources.
If you need any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
VA RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FACT SHEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investments to Address VA Access to Care and Modernize Infrastructure and Processes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Cost ($Billions) Summary of Use of Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing Veterans' System-wide Access to $10.0 Access: $8.2B for approximately 10,000
Care. primary care and specialty care physicians,
and other clinical/medical staff including
physicians, nurses, social workers, mental
health professionals, and others--and funds
other associated expenses such as equipment,
supplies, and other overhead costs
Hepatitis-C Drugs: $1.3B for critical
new therapies over the next 2 years for higher
than expected costs for two new Hepatitis C
drug therapies that are significantly more
effective and carry fewer side effects
Caregivers Program: $186M is estimated
to support higher-than-expected demand for the
Caregivers program (over approximately 22,000
Caregivers in total)
IT Enhancements............................. $1.2 IT Infrastructure: Additional funding
is needed to provide IT support in new space
generated by major and minor construction and
Non-Recurring Maintenance (NRM).
Project Development: Additional
funding is needed for the development of OIT
programs. These include Interoperable
Purchased Care, Mobile App Scheduling, and
additional Veterans Benefits Management System
& VBA IT development.
Other IT Support: Additional funding
for IT staff to support operational
requirements and for hardware, bandwidth,
security, etc.
Improve and Invest in VA Physical $6.0 Funding for approximately:
Infrastructure. 700 Minor and NRM projects to
include safer inpatient care to eradicate
legionella and other threats
8 major construction projects that
address safety or access issues
Veterans Benefits Administration............ $0.4 Funding for approximately 1700 staff
to speed appeals, non-rating benefits
workload, and other benefits programs
--------------------
Total................................. $17.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These resources are needed to ensure that VA is able to deliver high quality, timely health care to
Veterans enrolled in the VA.
With that, I yield the floor, and again I wish to thank my friend
Senator Risch for the courtesy of giving me some extra time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
(The remarks of Mr. Risch pertaining to the introduction of S. 2616
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. RISCH. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time between now
and 5:30 p.m. will be controlled by the majority party.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Refugee Crisis
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, for the next hour a number of us from
the Democratic Caucus will be talking about the Central American
refugee crisis. We are lucky to be joined by Senator Mikulski, the
chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to get us started
today. So I look forward very much to hearing what she has to say and
you will be hearing from me in a little bit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an urgent
crisis at our border in which over 250 children a week are coming from
Central America, fleeing horrific gang violence--horrific gang
violence--to seek refuge and asylum in the United States of America.
This is being called a crisis at the border. Well, it is a border
crisis, but the crisis actually begins in Central America, where
brutal, violent gangs, based on organized crime, are either trying to
recruit the boys into organized crime, drug smuggling, human
trafficking, or to recruit the girls into human trafficking in other
just dangerous and repugnant circumstances.
[[Page S4541]]
But when you go to the border the way I have, you will see that the
situation is dire. It is dire because, as these children come to the
border, crossing the Rio Grande--probably within really almost a 50-
mile stretch of the Grande; it is not over the 1,900 miles of the
Grande--they come and, actually, they do not try to sneak in, they come
right up to where the border control is and they have pieces of paper
with their name on it. They are then taken into custody by border
control. They are placed into holding cells that are designed for adult
males. They were designed to hold drug smugglers, narcotraffickers, and
now they hold as many as 20 or 30 or 40 children, while under the law
they are to be placed in the hands of the Health and Human Services
Agency while their legal and asylum status is being verified.
Well, I am telling you, the entire infrastructure for dealing with
these children--from the way the border control is trying to take care
of them, the overrunning of the capacity of these holding cells, to the
backlog on processing their legal and asylum determination, to really
trying to place them in facilities under the care of Health and Human
Services--the situation is dire.
The President of the United States has asked for emergency funding to
deal with it. I hope we consider this emergency funding. The amount of
money the President is seeking is $3.7 billion. This is to care for the
humanitarian needs of the children, the enforcement at the border, the
identifying of their legal status under a law passed under the
administration of President Bush to deal with the trafficking of
children, both boys and girls, and also for robust deterrence in the
home countries where these children are coming from. But the deterrence
comes from breaking down and prosecuting organized crime syndicates of
the smugglers and the traffickers.
We are also asking for money to conduct a massive educational
campaign advising Central American families against the dangers and
false hopes of this journey. The journey is, indeed, dangerous. They
come on foot. They come by car. They ride the tops of a train that is
referred to as The Beast. There was one little girl who I spoke to with
Secretary Johnson. She had stayed awake for 2 days on the rooftop of a
train, terrified that she would fall off and be mutilated, just to be
able to make it into the United States of America. And why did she make
such a perilous, dangerous journey? It was because they were trying to
recruit her into these violent and vile ways.
We need to make sure Central America, with our help, goes after the
seven organized crime units that we know are sparking this, that are
trying to recruit these kids; giving them false promises too, that if
they come to this country, they will be able to get a free pass somehow
for getting into this country. We need to be able to stop this and be
able to deal with it in the most effective way.
The President's program actually does outline the money to be able to
do that. When the children do come, as I said, while they are awaiting
their legal status to be determined, they are placed in the hands of
HHS. Now, HHS does not run group homes. HHS does not run foster care.
HHS funds it, and they need to be able to turn to local communities to
be able to have these children be able to stay.
I saw fantastic work being done while the children were being placed
at Lackland Air Force Base and the social services were being run by--
under contract of a faith-based organization--the Baptist church. I
know the distinguished Presiding Officer knows a lot about human
services. I myself am a social worker, and I will tell you that faith-
based organization is really running a good program for these kids.
But we are running out of money. We need money for food and shelter
for the children. We need money for the border agents. We need money
for transportation to shelters and also transportation, when we can,
returning these children home. We need money for immigration judges and
legal services for the children to determine their asylum status, and,
as I said, we need the muscular deterrence in the home country breaking
up the organized gangs that then create the violence that then sets
these children on this journey.
The best way to make sure the surge of children is stopped is not by
harsher immigration laws. It is by making it hard on the drug dealers
and the human traffickers, the smugglers, the coyotes. Because they are
the ones who are the reason they are coming.
Looking at the data--looking at data--we see that these children are
coming not only where there is high poverty, but that children are
coming where there is a high level of crime, particularly homicide,
murder, and other recruitment of children. These children are almost
being recruited by child soldiers in their own country to engage in
violent criminal activity.
So we need to be able to look at this emergency supplemental and be
able to meet the human needs while the children are here, make sure we
fund the judges, the immigration judges and the legal services, to
determine their asylum status, and be able to take care of them.
Already, 60,000 unaccompanied children have come into our country
during this last year. In the 2 weeks I toured the border, I saw young
children as young as 5 with one instruction: Cross the border, turn
yourself in, and try to get as safe as you can. Border agents find
these children often dehydrated, malnourished, and usually a victim of
some type of trauma. Also, they have heard false promises from the
smugglers about what it will be when they come here.
These smugglers--as part of these dangerous gangs and cartels--see
women and children as a commodity to be bought, sold, transported, as
if they were cargo. Children leave these homes based on lies. They
think they are coming to an area where they will never have to go home
or that they will be safe. I hope we then pass this appropriations. I
hope in passing the appropriations we will be able to protect the
safety of the children, we determine their legal and asylum status, and
we have this muscular deterrent strategy in the home country.
There are those who want to have a new immigration policy or want to
repeal the George Bush law. I would caution that because, remember, our
problem is not the children; our problem is what causes the children to
come. We have to go after what causes the children to come; and that is
the drug dealers, the smugglers, the coyotes, those who are engaging in
such violent crime.
The host countries, along with Mexico, need to help deal with this,
and we need to marshal our law enforcement resources to be able to help
them do this. Now they say: Let's bring in the National Guard at the
border. What is our National Guard going to do? When these little kids
cross the Rio Grande, they are going to go right up to that soldier,
put their arms around his or her leg, and say: I need to be safe. Can
you help me? What is the National Guard going to do? It is not a border
enforcement problem; it is a criminal gang problem in Central America.
So we need to be able to be sure we are targeting the right areas in
order to solve this problem. The children are not the threats. They are
coming here because they are threatened themselves. We need to meet
these urgent humanitarian needs, and we need to focus on our hemisphere
to break up the gangs and crime.
Later on today we are going to have a briefing for every single
Senator so they can ask the questions about this situation. Who are the
children? Why are they coming? What are their legal rights under the
law? But how can we effectively deal with this children's march, where
the children are in danger in their host country and on the long
journey to this one?
We are also asking that this $3.7 billion be designated as an
emergency.
There are those who will want to take from other domestic programs. I
would caution that. In fact, I would object to the very idea. The
President has said this is an emergency because under the Budget
Control Act of 2011 it meets the criteria that it is sudden, urgent,
unforeseen, and temporary, deals with the loss of life, property, or
our national security interests. I think it meets that test. I do not
want to take offsets from existing programs to do this. It is
unexpected. It is significant. We can deal with it, but let's not do it
at the expense of other programs designed to help the American family
and the American middle class.
I know there are others who want to speak on this issue. I will have
more to
[[Page S4542]]
say later, but for now let's examine the urgent supplemental and let's
really solve the problem at the border and what causes it to be a
problem for us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, let me start by thanking my colleague
from Maryland for her leadership on the Appropriations Committee and
her leadership on this difficult issue. She said something in caucus
the other day that really struck me. She said: Every Senator has an
opinion on this, but not every Senator has the facts. Facts matter.
They make for good policy.
Last week I had the opportunity, along with Secretary Johnson, to
visit a temporary facility for refugee mothers and their children that
is in my home State of New Mexico. The holding area at this facility in
Artesia, NM, is one of several ways that DHS is increasing its capacity
to process the increasing number of families with children from Central
America who are crossing our southwest border.
On Monday, 40 individuals were repatriated back to Honduras. It is
reported that more mothers and their children will be sent back to
their countries of origin.
While I was at this facility, I saw firsthand the remarkable
interagency effort that it took to take a Federal law enforcement
training center, a campus, and turn it into a safe and humane place for
families to stay while their cases are being processed.
But that is not all I saw while I was there. I watched a young boy
play soccer with his little brother, both of them clearly happy to be
in the kind of secure environment where they could just be kids. I saw
a lot of mothers. I saw mothers whose faces were worried, who reflected
the clear concern about what the future would be for them and for their
children. What I did not see at that facility--I did not see cartel
mules. I did not see drug runners. I did not see criminals or gang
members. Those were mothers and little kids. Most of those families
come from one of the most violent regions in the world today.
This current crisis is of grave concern to all of us. I know I have
heard from a number of my constituents who wanted to know what they can
do to help. I have to give great credit to our local chamber of
commerce in Artesia, NM, as they worked hard as they received hundreds
of donations from compassionate New Mexicans across the State hoping to
make a difference in these people's lives. They understand that this is
first a humanitarian crisis. They also understand that we are a nation
of laws, that our immigration system has been broken for a long time
and needs to be fixed.
The Senate worked for months to address this, but the Republican-led
House of Representatives refuses to even debate immigration reform,
much less allow a vote on it. Instead, Republicans claim that the
President's immigration policies, including deferred action for
childhood arrivals--or DACA, as it is known--caused a crisis at the
border. That could not be further from the truth. The increase in
unaccompanied children started before President Obama created the DACA
program 2 years ago. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees has
documented an increased number of asylum seekers from El Salvador,
Honduras, and Guatemala since 2009--a full 5 years ago. What is more,
children crossing the border would not be eligible for DACA. In fact,
they would not be eligible for the Senate version of immigration
reform.
These asylum seekers are not only fleeing to the United States but
also to the other neighboring countries in the region. They are fleeing
to Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize. In fact, those countries
saw a 712-percent spike in asylum cases from El Salvador, from
Honduras, and Guatemala from 2008 to 2013, further demonstrating that
children are not coming to the United States to apply for DACA. They
are coming because their lives are at risk back home.
In interviews with over 400 children, the United Nations High
Commission on Refugees found that no less than 58 percent of them were
forcibly displaced because they suffered or faced harm that indicated a
potential or actual need for international protection--an increase of
more than 400 percent from 2006.
Less than 1 percent of these kids spoke of immigration reform or some
new program or policy as the basis for coming to the United States. In
fact, out of the 404 children who were interviewed, there were only 4--
4 children who expressed a reason for coming that related to some part
of the U.S. immigration system.
The reality is, as we heard from Senator Mikulski, what is driving
children to our borders is unimaginable violence, corruption, extreme
poverty, and instability in their home countries.
This picture was taken in Tegucigalpa in Honduras. This is frankly an
all-too-common sight in Honduras today. Not only is the poverty
unimaginable, but the violence we have seen is like nothing in recent
history. Honduras has now the world's highest murder rate, with over 90
murders per 100,000 persons annually. Last year approximately 1,000
young people under the age of 23 in Honduras were murdered--murdered in
a nation of only 8 million, 1,000 young people.
In a report published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
they found that 93 percent of crimes perpetrated against youth in
Honduras go unpunished--completely unpunished.
The National Observatory of Violence reported that violent deaths of
women increased by 246 percent between 2005 and 2012.
This is all the more unsettling to me because I know firsthand that
Honduras did not always look this way. In the 1990s I traveled to
Honduras with my wife Julie. We were on our honeymoon. We flew into San
Pedro Sula. The only time I felt any fear was trying to drive in a city
that moves a lot faster than I do when I try to drive on country roads
in New Mexico. But we never had any fear for violence when we were in
Honduras. We traveled around the country. We went to many places off
the beaten path.
That is very different today. Today San Pedro Sula is a city
synonymous with murder.
To understand just how bad it is, you can look at pictures like this
one of literally body bags getting ready to go to mass graves from
murders happening in these neighborhoods in San Pedro Sula. You can
read a recent article in the New York Times by Frances Robles that
tells the chilling story of Cristian, an 11-year-old sixth grader from
Honduras who lost his father in March after he was robbed and murdered
by gangs while working as a security guard protecting a pastry truck.
It is kind of hard to imagine needing a security guard to protect a
pastry truck. Three people he knows were murdered this year alone, and
four others were gunned down on a nearby corner in the span of 2 weeks
at the beginning of the year. A girl his age resisted being robbed of
the sum of $5. She was clubbed over the head, dragged off by two men
who cut a hole in her throat and stuffed her underwear in it and left
her body in a ravine across the street from Cristian's house.
Then there is Anthony, a 13-year-old from Honduras, who disappeared
from his gang-ridden neighborhood. His younger brother Kenneth hopped
on his green bike to search for him, starting his hunt at a notorious
gang hangout in the neighborhood. They were found within days of each
other, both dead. Anthony, 13, and a friend had been shot in the head.
Kenneth, age 7, had been tortured and beaten with sticks and rocks.
They were among seven children murdered in the La Pradera neighborhood
of San Pedro Sula in April alone--in 1 month.
El Salvador and Guatemala are the world's fourth and fifth highest in
murders. The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies found that in 2011,
El Salvador had the highest rate of gender-motivated killings of women
in the entire world. In Guatemala, the Department of State reports
widespread human rights problems, including institutional corruption,
particularly in the police, in judicial sectors, kidnapping, drug
trafficking, execution, and often lethal violence against women.
We have a human crisis at our southern border that requires an
immediate but compassionate response. Yet instead of supporting the
supplemental which seeks to address the root causes of the crisis and
protect these vulnerable children, Republicans are trying to use the
crisis to promote fear and their border-enforcement-only agenda.
[[Page S4543]]
Recently, a Republican Governor suggested that the President send the
National Guard to ``secure the border once and for all'' and that ``the
border between the U.S. and Mexico is less secure today than at any
time in the recent past.'' As I mentioned at the beginning of my
remarks, facts are stubborn. This is simply not the case. In fact, the
notion that lax border policies are somehow responsible for this latest
crisis is not just a myth; it is a, well, full misrepresentation driven
by politicians who would rather create a political issue than to solve
a very real problem.
The border today is more secure than it has ever been. There are more
Border Patrol agents on the ground. There are more resources. There is
more technology deployed on the border than at any time in our Nation's
history--at any time. In fiscal year 2012, the Federal Government spent
almost $18 billion--$17.9 billion--on immigration enforcement. That is
$3.5 billion more than the budgets of all the other Federal law
enforcement agencies combined--$3.5 billion more than the FBI's budget,
plus the DEA's budget, the ATF budget, plus the Secret Service, plus
the U.S. Marshals Service. These resources have made a difference. From
fiscal year 2009 to 2012, the Department of Homeland Security seized 71
percent more currency, 39 percent more narcotics, 189 percent more
weapons along the southwest border as compared to the last 4 years of
the Bush administration.
It is important to remember that this crisis from refugees in Central
America is not about children and families sneaking across our border
like criminals. As we heard from the Senator from Maryland, many of
these refugees seek out the first Border Patrol agent they can find in
order to turn themselves in. Many of these children have walked across
the border or across the Rio Grande with identification literally
safety-pinned to their shirts. But that image does not serve the
political interests of those who prefer a border crisis to a refugee
crisis.
Let's step back and remember that the Senate passed a comprehensive
immigration bill more than a year ago now--a bill that included
incredibly important provisions to further strengthen our border but
that would also protect refugee children and crack down on the
smugglers and the transnational criminal organizations that are at the
root of the current crisis.
Notably, this bill was widely supported by both Democrats and
Republicans in the Senate Chamber.
Public support and good economics have not been enough to convince
the House leaders to hold a vote on immigration reform, but they cannot
turn a blind eye to the current humanitarian crisis along our Nation's
southern border.
Instead of attacking the President, Senate Republicans should work
with them to address the issue, and they should demand that their
colleagues in the House act to fix our broken immigration system.
Additionally, passing the $3.7 billion supplemental sends a clear
signal that we are aggressively stemming the flow of children and
families from Central America while continuing to treat these refugee
children humanely and as required under the law. This situation is an
emergency and we need emergency funding.
Our immigrant communities have helped to write the economic, social,
and cultural history of America. I know this firsthand. My own father
is an immigrant who came to this country as a boy from Nazi Germany in
the 1930s.
As a nation we value the twin promises of both freedom and
opportunity. Those ideals are important no matter where you are born.
The fact is, our immigration system is broken. Those of us who
represent border communities understand the challenge we face, but
there are solutions--solutions before us that are pragmatic,
bipartisan, and uphold our American values.
I am familiar with the promise America represents for families. I
know how hard immigrants work, how much they believe in this country,
and how much they are willing to give back to this country.
A small group of faith leaders from New Mexico penned an op-ed in the
Albuquerque Journal over the weekend. In sharing their thoughts on this
humanitarian crisis they wrote:
While the current situation raises the issues in powerful
ways, expressing hatred toward, fear of, or anger with women
and children serves nothing to resolve national debate.
Rather, it engenders a destructive spirit of mistrust. Let us
seek to understand the immigrant's reasons for coming and to
work collaboratively for just and reasonable immigration
reform.
I could not agree more with these faith leaders.
It is time to fix our broken immigration system once and for all. Our
short-term solution is to approve the President's emergency
supplemental request now, and as part of our long-term solution we need
House Republicans to put the Senate's immigration reform bill on the
floor for a vote.
Our Nation will be the better for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. I rise today to speak about the ongoing humanitarian
crisis on our southern border. I thank my colleagues, Senator Heinrich
and Senator Mikulski, for their eloquent words in speaking to this
issue.
As a woman and as an immigrant, my heart breaks for these children.
My mother fled Japan, where I was born. She fled out of desperation to
escape a terrible marriage. I came with her to this country as a young
girl, and I remember how uncertain I was about what was in store for
me.
Although we came by boat in steerage, at least we traveled safely and
together. We did not face the kind of danger as did these children who
are risking everything to be here. Their journeys to our border are
lined with smugglers and traffickers. Children are arriving injured and
malnourished. Yet they continue to come, not only to the United States
but to other nearby countries, fleeing their countries out of
desperation.
These children don't care about the DREAM Act or the Senate
immigration reform bill. They are terrified of the violence, abuse, and
death in their home countries. Young girls, who represent about 40
percent of the children who arrived this year, often face sexual
assault and rape.
Let me share some recent stories from young girls who are fleeing.
One girl fled an area of El Salvador controlled by gangs. Her brother
was killed for refusing to join a gang that tried to forcibly recruit
him. She was raped by two men and became pregnant as a result. She fled
El Salvador and was attacked on her journey to the United States.
Another girl was kidnapped by a gang in Honduras that attempted to
traffic her into prostitution. She escaped and reported the kidnapping
to the police. The gang then abducted her again, raped her, and burned
her with cigarettes. She fled to the United States and is seeking
asylum.
Yet another girl fled El Salvador when she was 8 years old. Gang
members had kidnapped her two older sisters. The girl's mother did not
want her 8-year-old daughter to suffer the same fate, so she arranged
for her daughter to be brought to the United States.
These are horrific stories. It is clear that something needs to be
done.
I have worked with my colleague Senator Menendez to introduce a
comprehensive plan to address this issue. The plan aims to curtail
trafficking and smuggling, contain the violence and discord in Central
America, and ensure that these children have access to legal assistance
and are in safe and humane conditions when they arrive.
This Friday I will also take some of my colleagues to McAllen and San
Antonio, TX, to view facilities housing these children during the
processing and removal process. We will see for ourselves the
conditions that these children are in and meet with officials and
leaders on the ground.
This crisis clearly demonstrates that inaction is not an option with
regard to these children.
I urge my colleagues to support the supplemental funding needed for
our country to meet their humanitarian needs. We have a responsibility
to ensure that those in our custody are treated according to our values
as a nation, and the President's request will allow our government to
keep these commitments.
I would also urge my colleagues to reject the idea that the solution
is to speed up the deportation of these children back to the dangerous
conditions
[[Page S4544]]
they fled. Stripping away basic legal protections for children in these
terrible situations will not solve this problem. As Senator Heinrich so
eloquently showed us, the conditions in their home countries are truly
horrific.
To really address this situation, we need to do more work with our
partners in the region to reduce violence and improve opportunities in
their home countries. We must provide resources so that we can safely,
fairly, and timely process these children, including asylum
determination, as provided by law.
We should all look to our conscience in seeking a path forward.
Surely we can do better than sending these children back to the
horrific conditions that they are escaping. Out of sight is not out of
mind. That is not what our country stands for.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the President's supplemental
request, and I urge my colleagues to work together toward resolving the
underlying process of this crisis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very honored to follow my
colleague from Hawaii and her eloquent and powerful remarks, as well as
the Presiding Officer from New Mexico, who knows much firsthand about
this issue and has really been a leader in this body for me and others.
I thank the Presiding Officer for that leadership.
My view of this issue concerning the tens of thousands of young
children making the difficult and dangerous journey to the United
States from lands where they face violence and oppression is shaped by
my meeting with some of them in my home State of Connecticut.
I had the opportunity to do so recently on a number of occasions, and
it has deeply affected my own approach because what I have seen in them
really inspires me. It inspires me because I understand better the
reasons they have come here. The reasons they have come relate to the
violence, the threat of torture, and the oppression they see in the
lands they are leaving. They are coming here, many of them, for family
reunification.
What struck me in speaking with these young children is they are
coming here to reunify with relatives: their moms and dads, their aunts
and uncles. They have come to be with members of their family and, of
course, to seek education. They desperately want to go to school, and
they want the opportunity simply for the freedom they see this country
as epitomizing and embodying, the beacon of opportunity that drew so
many of our forebears to this country, the lamp that is lit above the
harbor of New York symbolically for all Americans, and the ideals this
country embodies for the world. That is the reason people come and why
our relatives, our own families came--one generation ago for me and
perhaps more generations ago for others here.
So what we face is, in fact, a humanitarian crisis. It is a refugee
crisis of children seeking asylum, family reunification, and escape
from oppression, torture, and death in intolerable conditions in their
home countries.
There is gang warfare that is a result of drug trading, pushed from
Colombia to Central America to service better their customers in the
United States. Their markets are here. This country provides the demand
that fuels the trade--not only this country, of course, but all around
the world.
But these children are the innocent victims of the warfare--gang
warfare, market warfare that is fueled by a drug trade they have
nothing to do with inciting or spurring. They are truly innocent
victims.
The values this country embodies that drew them and drew our
ancestors and our forebears to come are the values we must now remain
true to serving. Among them is the ideal of due process and fairness to
justice.
To say simply that we will deport all of them en masse, ask no
questions, and put them on a bus really is a disservice to those values
and ideals that this Nation embodies for the world--a source of our
power in dealing with the world. Our power is not the result only of
our air superiority, our great naval fleet, our brave warriors on the
ground. It is truly the ideal that our military service and our
military might serves to safeguard around the world.
Speaking of security, safety, and safeguarding our Nation, our border
is secure, more secure than ever before--perhaps not perfectly secure--
and more has to be done for border security, which immigration reform
would help to accomplish.
The President has utilized an unprecedented level of resources in
terms of both boots on the ground and advanced technology. There is no
evidence to indicate any breakdown in border security.
What we have on our border is not a situation involving huge numbers
of immigrants slipping into this country surreptitiously; they are
coming here openly, surrendering themselves to authorities or being
immediately apprehended by law enforcement.
This situation is entirely consistent with a fully effective border
security apparatus.
If the current situation were caused by lack of policies in the
United States, we would expect to see a large number of immigrant
children only in this country. After all, the United States' policies
apply only to the United States' borders but, in fact, that is not what
we see. There are children seeking asylum and refugee status in many
other Western Hemisphere countries--including some of the poorest in
the world--a documented 712 percent increase in asylum seekers from El
Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala since 2009.
We have seen no increase in illegal immigration from Mexico, which
also would be happening if it were simply lax border security. Any way
you look at the situation, the facts simply do not support the theory
that America's border is in crisis. It is Central America that is in
crisis--El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras are the sources of this
humanitarian crisis.
Rolling back the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
will not solve a border problem and it will not uphold the values and
ideals of this Nation. The protections of this law in fact are central
to ensuring the United States of America does not send innocent
children into situations where they would be harmed and killed.
So I would oppose a wholesale rollback of this law. We have to make
sure that we do what is right and get this situation right, because the
stakes are so very high. No one in this Chamber wants to be responsible
for sending one child to their death because we failed to consider the
complexity and provide the humanity this situation demands.
Not only would rolling back the Trafficking Victim Protection
Reauthorization Act do harm--and we must first do no harm--but it would
also hurt law enforcement. This act helps enforcement and our law
enforcement authorities to gain crucial actionable intelligence about
trafficking. This law reflects the fact that I learned during my law
enforcement career, one of the keys to putting criminals behind bars is
working closely with victims. In fact, victims are essential, their
cooperation is vital to making the law enforceable and making sure it
is enforced.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act encourages
victims of trafficking to turn themselves in and cooperate with Border
Patrol agents, and provide U.S. law enforcement with the information
they need. They are not interested in arresting children. They want to
arrest the traffickers, the drug lords, the top of the chain. That is
so very important for our colleagues to understand.
The surge in drug trafficking and drug-related violence that has
turned so many communities into war zones is driven by those gangs in
Central America that are in turn driving also the flood of young
children to this country. We have this crisis in common with them. It
is a humanitarian crisis and a law enforcement challenge. Let us move
toward immigration reform which will help to address that crisis by
increasing border security, by enabling millions of people now in the
shadows to have a path to earned citizenship, to make sure our values
and ideals are upheld by the greatest Nation in the history of the
world.
I thank all my colleagues who spoke today, and most especially thank
Senator Leahy and Senator Feinstein for their decades of committed work
on this issue. I look forward to working with them, the Presiding
Officer, and
[[Page S4545]]
the majority leader, who has led this Chamber and this Nation so well
on this issue.
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.
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.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 2244
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
leader remarks tomorrow, Thursday, July 17, 2014, the Senate proceed to
consideration of S. 2244, as provided under the previous order; that
the debate time with respect to the bill and consideration of
amendments in order to the bill be modified as follows: Coburn No.
3549, 30 minutes equally divided; Vitter No. 3550, 20 minutes equally
divided; Flake No. 3551, 10 minutes equally divided; and Tester No.
3552, 30 minutes equally divided; further, that any remaining time
until 12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees; that at noon the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the
amendments as provided under the previous order; that upon disposition
of the Tester amendment, the bill be read a third time and the Senate
proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; further, that there
be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote and all after the first
vote be 10 minutes, with all other provisions of the previous order
remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________