[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 112 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4599-S4611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         BRING JOBS BACK HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to reiterate 
my opposition to legislation that would impose new tax burdens on 
businesses in New Hampshire and I believe would have a serious impact 
on our economy.
  Earlier this week Majority Leader Reid started a fast-track process 
to bring a bill to the floor that includes the so-called Marketplace 
Fairness Act. This is legislation that would for the first time allow 
States to collect sales taxes from businesses in New Hampshire. As a 
result, this bill would impose significant new tax compliance burdens 
on entrepreneurs in New Hampshire--the same entrepreneurs who are 
trying to grow their businesses and create jobs on the Internet.
  In New Hampshire we don't have a sales tax, so our businesses are not 
used to collecting one. That is why New Hampshire businesses are so 
concerned that if this bill passes, they will

[[Page S4600]]

be forced to collect sales taxes from not just 1 State but 46 other 
States and 9,600 taxing jurisdictions across the country. The redtape 
would be a nightmare for small companies with only a few employees.
  I heard from one small business owner in Hudson, NH. His business is 
about to reach $1 million in revenue, but his company has only six 
employees. Under the legislation, the so-called Marketplace Fairness 
Act, his company might be considered a large business. The company has 
plans to grow, but it would be forced to reconsider as it approaches 
this arbitrary threshold and then is covered under the so-called 
Marketplace Fairness Act.
  E-commerce has been a real boon to small businesses in New Hampshire 
and across the country. It has helped companies find new markets for 
their products and new revenues. But for companies looking to grow 
through online sales, this legislation represents an artificial ceiling 
for creating jobs and expanding jobs through e-commerce.
  I will raise a few concerns about what this legislation would mean 
for small business. First, each State has different sales and use 
taxes, so businesses would need new software to figure out how to 
collect and remit those taxes. Small businesses would also need to 
collect personal information from each buyer to make sure they are 
complying with all State and local sales taxes. These small businesses 
might then have to deal with audit and enforcement actions from other 
States, and the same businesses might have to answer to taxing 
authorities in places where they have no representation whatsoever. As 
States and localities consider new taxes, these small businesses would 
have no voice in that process because they have no representation in 
those jurisdictions.
  These are just a few examples of the many unintended consequences 
this legislation would create. These burdens on small businesses will 
stifle e-commerce. That is why it was so disappointing to learn that 
the sponsors of the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act have attached it 
to another measure that is meant to encourage e-commerce, the Internet 
Tax Freedom Act. That legislation bans taxes on Internet access.
  The Internet Tax Freedom Act has broad bipartisan support. I am proud 
to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Since 1998 the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act has kept the Internet free of new taxation, 
which has helped the Internet flourish and become the driver of 
economic activity it is today.
  Unfortunately, this ban on new Internet access taxes expires this 
November, and Congress must take action to keep the Internet tax-free. 
I strongly support keeping the Internet tax-free, and the vast majority 
of Congress supports it. In fact, just this week the House voted to 
make this ban on Internet taxation permanent. The Internet Tax Freedom 
Act could pass the Senate and the House today with strong bipartisan 
support. Yet based on the action earlier this week, the Senate may be 
asked to consider a bill that includes new tax burdens on small 
businesses. That is right. It doesn't make sense, but on a bill that is 
meant to keep the Internet free from taxation, there is now an effort 
to impose new tax collection burdens on Internet retailers, and that 
not only doesn't make sense, I think it is just wrong.
  Just yesterday I sent a letter with a bipartisan group of our 
colleagues urging leadership to bring a clean Internet Tax Freedom Act 
bill to the floor. I was joined by Senators Cruz, Ayotte, Tester, 
Merkley, and Paul. We believe the Internet should be tax-free and that 
we should pass this noncontroversial legislation as soon as possible.

  We also think it is wrong to use a critical, must-pass extension of 
this law to keep the Internet tax-free as a vehicle to pass a 
fundamental shift in how e-commerce operates. Combining these two very 
different issues into one bill does nothing to protect New Hampshire's 
small businesses from the flawed so-called Marketplace Fairness Act.
  We should keep this Internet sales tax legislation from moving 
forward, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. We should do that 
because it is bad for New Hampshire and the other States that have no 
sales taxes that are in the same position as New Hampshire. It is bad 
for small businesses and it is bad for our economy.
  Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor and note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to recognize my colleague from 
New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, who I think has come to the floor to 
also express her concerns about the commingling of the Internet Tax 
Freedom Act with the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. She will be 
speaking from her perspective about the concerns it places on New 
Hampshire's small businesses. I am very pleased to see my colleague 
from New Hampshire here to also express her concern about what is 
happening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I certainly wish to thank my colleague 
from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.
  As she has stated, New Hampshire doesn't have a sales tax. There is 
absolutely nothing fair about the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, 
especially for a State such as New Hampshire. It should be more 
appropriately named the Internet sales tax collection act, because that 
is what it is--the Internet sales tax collection act. I certainly 
appreciate the work I have done with my colleague, both of us fighting 
the Marketplace Fairness Act, because there is nothing fair about it 
for New Hampshire and, frankly, nothing fair about it for online 
businesses across this country.
  This act would ask our online businesses that have been thriving and 
growing--many people have started these businesses from their homes and 
we have seen those businesses flourish in our home State of New 
Hampshire--to become tax collectors for States that are greedy for 
revenue, and it would trample on the decision of a State such as New 
Hampshire not to have a sales tax. What it would mean for online 
businesses is they would have to become the tax collector not just for 
the 50 States, but they would actually have to become a tax collector 
for over 9,000 taxed jurisdictions in this country. Talk about a 
bureaucratic nightmare for an online business. Talk about an act that 
is going to put onerous burdens on an area of commerce that we have 
seen such great growth in. Talk about an act that is totally misnamed 
because there is nothing fair about it; it really is an Internet sales 
tax collection act.
  In my home State of New Hampshire I have had so many online 
businesses write me about how this act--this MFA act--is going to hurt 
their business and is going to place onerous requirements on our 
businesses. Not only would they be forced to collect taxes for these 
other jurisdictions--over 9,000--but can we imagine what will happen 
once one of those jurisdictions--a municipality that is allowed to 
tax--changes their tax amount? Then, suddenly, they have to update 
their collection method. Guess what. If they get it wrong, they are 
subject to being sued in some other State, some other jurisdiction.
  This is going to hurt the development of more online businesses 
because it creates a big bureaucracy. It is totally inappropriate. Why 
are we asking these thriving online businesses to become the tax 
collectors for States? The reason we have over 9,000 jurisdictions they 
have to collect for is because it is not just States; in some States 
even the municipal level has its own sales tax that can be collected. 
What a mess.
  Then we see what is happening in Washington. The majority leader rule 
XIV'd a bill, and what he did is he attached the Marketplace Fairness 
Act, which I prefer to call the Internet sales tax collection act, to 
what was just passed in the House of Representatives: the Internet Tax 
Freedom Act. Talk about ironic. The Internet Tax Freedom Act is 
legislation I strongly support. This legislation is going to prevent 
taxes over the Internet, taxing the Internet that could hit all of us 
in some way, so that we can protect the freedom of the Internet and the 
growth

[[Page S4601]]

we have seen on the Internet. It is widely supported on both sides of 
the aisle, as my colleague from New Hampshire said.

  So the irony is that here we have an act that is so widely 
supported--the Internet Tax Freedom Act--providing a tax-free 
Internet--and the majority leader decides to attach to it the so-called 
Marketplace Fairness Act, which is really the Internet sales tax 
collection act. That legislation creates new onerous burdens on online 
businesses to become the tax collectors for over 9,000 tax 
jurisdictions. We can see the irony of it. Here we have bipartisan 
support for freedom from taxes on the Internet that should be extended 
to allow the Internet to thrive and grow and continue to grow, and the 
majority leader, without a hearing--because when he rule XIV's it, 
there is no committee hearing. It doesn't go through the committee 
process where we can have hearings on the burdens this will place on 
online commerce and on online businesses not only in my home State of 
New Hampshire but in other businesses across the country. There was no 
hearing for this. It is an issue both sides of the aisle agree with: 
Let's keep the Internet tax-free. Then the majority leader attaches 
onto it with no hearing, under rule XIV, this onerous requirement which 
I like to call the Internet sales tax collection act. Of course, in 
Washington, they always name these acts to make us think it sounds 
good, so they call it the Marketplace Fairness Act. That is the irony. 
Only in Washington would we have rammed this through this process, 
without a committee hearing--legislation that protects Internet 
freedom, that has strong bipartisan support, attached with it new 
onerous burdens on Internet businesses to become the sales tax 
collectors for the Nation.
  I join in what my colleague from New Hampshire just said. I think it 
is wrong that this bill is being pushed forward with the Internet Tax 
Freedom Act that has such strong support, that should be brought to 
this body as a stand-alone bill, not with these new burdensome 
requirements that are set forth in the so-called Marketplace Fairness 
Act, otherwise known as the Internet sales tax collection act. The 
people of this country deserve to have a free, tax-free Internet. The 
online businesses of this country that are thriving and growing 
shouldn't become the tax collectors for States and municipalities that 
are greedy for more revenue. It is their job to collect their taxes. It 
shouldn't be an online business's job to collect taxes for over 9,000 
jurisdictions, because we can only imagine how many changes will happen 
and what kind of paperwork nightmare that will create for those 
businesses. I have heard it from our businesses firsthand.
  I hope this body will oppose any effort to vote for a bill that 
connects Internet tax freedom with Internet sales tax collection, 
because the two are antithetical. One works against the other. One 
ensures the freedom of the Internet to be tax-free and the other one 
creates new burdensome requirements on online businesses and actually 
works against, in my view, the thriving commerce we see over the 
Internet and has resulted in more choice for all of us as consumers in 
this country.


                        Malaysian Airlines Crash

  Madam President, we all learned today, very shockingly, that there 
was a Malaysian Airlines flight shot down over Eastern Ukraine and 
that, reportedly, 295 people lost their lives in that incident. 
Reportedly, 23 Americans were listed on the manifest. I wish to offer 
my thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims of that plane 
that went down over Eastern Ukraine, and I want them to know they are 
in our thoughts and in our prayers.
  I wish to raise the issue as following: There is an investigation 
going on. We don't know yet who is responsible or if anyone is 
responsible. The facts will come forward as to why this plane went 
down. But it has been widely reported that the plane was, in fact, shot 
down. Some of the reports have said it was done by a medium-range 
surface-to-air missile system.
  We know that most recently there has been tremendous violence in 
Eastern Ukraine. If the investigation of this plane going down reveals 
that either Russia or Russian agents are responsible or indirectly 
responsible for shooting down this civilian airliner, there should be 
serious consequences.
  What we know is that Vladimir Putin and the Russians have been 
responsible in fomenting the situation that has occurred in Eastern 
Ukraine where there has been violence, there has been recruiting, 
training, and funding of Russians and Russian agents, sending them to 
Eastern Ukraine to fight the Ukrainian Government, interfering with the 
sovereignty of Ukraine. This was following the illegal invasion and 
annexation of Crimea, the territory of Ukraine, by the Russian 
Government, and the Russians have taken over that portion of Ukraine.
  We will wait to see what the investigation reveals for the downing of 
this plane. Our prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones. 
But I believe there should be serious consequences if we find out it 
was either Russian agents, Russian equipment, or Russia directly that 
was responsible for this airliner going down.
  Yesterday the administration announced it would impose and was 
imposing greater sanctions on Russia for their activities of fomenting 
violence in Eastern Ukraine.
  I want to thank the administration for finally coming forward and 
putting forth more serious sanctions against Vladimir Putin, against 
the Russian Government, for what they have done to interfere with the 
sovereignty of Ukraine.
  It is an important step forward, and I hope Vladimir Putin 
understands there are even greater sanctions that can be imposed if the 
sanctions that were announced yesterday by the administration that 
involve some sectoral sanctions against major industries in Russia and 
individuals--if they do not heed the warning that is coming from those 
sanctions, I hope Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government understand 
there are much tougher sanctions that can also be imposed if they do 
not heed the sanctions that were put in place yesterday and stop 
fueling the violence in Eastern Ukraine.
  We need to understand the context of what we have seen happen in 
Eastern Ukraine. The separatists, the so-called separatists, in Eastern 
Ukraine are funded, equipped, and supported by the Kremlin. Vladimir 
Putin could end the violence in Eastern Ukraine tomorrow if he chose 
to. He essentially has operational control of what these violent 
separatists are doing to interfere with the sovereignty in Ukraine. He 
is responsible for the violence, and I would call on him to end that 
violence, to stop funding these separatists, to stop providing them 
with equipment that is being used against the Ukrainian people and the 
Ukrainian military, and to allow the people of Ukraine to determine 
their future. That is what they want.
  I had the privilege of going to Ukraine for their Presidential 
election, and I was inspired by the people who went to the polls. I 
will never forget being there at the first polling station that day in 
the Presidential election and an older gentleman came to the polls and 
cast his ballot and said: For democracy.
  The people of Ukraine want to determine their own future, just as we 
determine our future in this country. Vladimir Putin and Russia should 
allow the people of Ukraine to decide their future. They should stop 
interfering with the sovereignty of Ukraine.
  This is not a Ukrainian uprising of disenfranchised Russian-speaking 
Ukrainians. What is happening in Eastern Ukraine is a Kremlin-
instigated, armed, funded, trained, and fueled aggression against the 
people of Ukraine and their duly elected government.
  This is cynical and blatant aggression by Putin against Ukraine, and 
Putin continues to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty and security by 
arming these separatist rebels, massing Russian troops at the border of 
Eastern Ukraine in a very threatening way, and also threatening to 
increase further coercive measures against Ukraine.
  The people of Ukraine need our help. The Ukrainian people are willing 
to risk their lives and have been risking their lives to defend the 
sovereignty of their country against President Putin's aggression, but 
the Ukrainian Government desperately needs our assistance.
  In particular, the prior administration of Ukraine that left--
President Yanukovych was very aligned with Russia--gutted their 
military and much of the equipment they need to be able to defend 
themselves.

[[Page S4602]]

  Let me say, they have gone there and bravely defended themselves, 
even without having some of the equipment they need that was really 
lost by their military because of the prior administration and neglect 
of the Ukrainian military.
  Ukrainians need assistance--and not only the sanctions the 
administration has issued, which could get tougher but they need 
military assistance from our country.
  We have to keep in mind the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapons 
under the Budapest Memorandum. In return--our country, the Russians, 
were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum--in return for security 
assurances, the least we can do for them is give them the means to 
defend themselves.
  I know the Ukrainian Government has asked us for antitank weapons, 
antiaircraft weapons, small arms, the sharing of intelligence so they 
can defend their own border. It is the least we can do for them, given 
that they gave up their nuclear weapons.
  What country is going to give up their nuclear weapons again if we 
will not even give them some basic military assistance so they can 
defend themselves? They are not asking us to send our troops in. They 
are not asking for things like that. They are willing to defend 
themselves and they need our help to do so.
  Finally, President Obama said in his June 4 speech in Poland: ``Our 
free nations will stand united so that further Russian provocations 
will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia.'' I call on the 
President to continue to take action and to stand by those words. Those 
words meant a lot to the Ukrainian people, and it is important that we 
follow through on those words because it is in the national security 
interests of the United States to stand with the people of Ukraine and 
their legitimately elected government as they seek to protect their 
sovereignty.

  If we are not willing in these circumstances to stand by giving them 
some basic military support they have asked for, after having given up 
their nuclear weapons, then what lessons will other actors in the 
region and around the world take from that?
  I think lesson No. 1 is: Why would you ever give up your nuclear 
weapons? In a world where we are hoping to reduce proliferation, this 
is not a good message for us to send.
  No. 2: What will our allies in the region think if we will not stand 
against Russian aggression under these circumstances?
  You have already seen concerns, of course, by the countries in the 
region that can be impacted by Russian aggression, whether it is 
Georgia, Moldova--concerns we have seen for further support from 
Poland, important allies in the region.
  To put it in perspective of why we need to give this military 
support--in addition, we do not know what happened, but we will find 
out, with the downing of this commercial passenger plane and the tragic 
loss of 295 individuals. Over the last month, we have seen that on June 
14 pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport, 
killing all 49 people on board; on June 16, Gazprom--Russia's giant 
state-controlled gas company--announced they are cutting off gas 
supplies to Ukraine.
  Just this Monday, a Ukrainian cargo plane was shot down and Ukrainian 
officials believe it was shot down by missiles fired from Russia.
  Last night, a Ukrainian fighter jet was shot down. Ukrainians also 
believe the Russians were involved in shooting down that fighter jet.
  We will find out what happened to this passenger plane but it was in 
airspace where there have been instances of Russian agents directly 
involved in shooting down Ukrainian planes.
  So it is important that we give the Ukrainian people the capacity to 
defend themselves under those circumstances. It is the least we can do, 
given that they are willing to stand up for their own sovereignty, that 
they are strong friends of the United States of America. If our allies 
in the region think we will not stand with the sovereignty of Ukraine 
under these situations, it is going to create a situation where our 
allies will not feel they can rely on the United States of America.
  It also creates a situation where allies, friends, rivals, bullies, 
potential adversaries take the wrong message from it. For example, 
thinking about what is happening right now with the negotiations with 
Iran, if we are a country not willing to follow through to assist our 
friends--under circumstances where, for example, Ukraine gave up its 
nuclear weapons--with some basic military support, what kind of message 
will that send to the negotiations going on with Iran right now as to 
why they should give up their nuclear program?
  So this is a very important moment for the United States of America. 
I again want to say that the steps the administration took to impose 
additional sanctions this week are a very important step. I support 
those. I hope Vladimir Putin and Russia heed what those sanctions mean. 
Those sanctions will have an impact on the Russian economy, but we can 
impose even stronger sanctions against Russia if they do not stop 
funding and causing the violence in Eastern Ukraine and interfering 
with the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people.
  The people of Ukraine have our respect. They have stood for 
themselves. They had a free and fair election that I was able to 
observe. They elected their President, and now they want to determine 
their own future, and they want Russia to respect the sovereignty of 
their country--what any country in this world should be able to expect: 
that another country will respect their sovereignty.
  Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin has been a bully in all of this and has 
not respected the sovereignty of Ukraine. He should understand the 
sanctions that were issued this week are a message to him to stop what 
he is doing in Eastern Ukraine, and we can issue even tougher 
sanctions--and should issue tougher sanctions--if he continues to act 
like a bully who thinks he can go into other countries, take their 
territory, and push people around in those countries, as we have seen 
in Ukraine.
  This matters to the world because we cannot have people like Putin 
thinking they can invade another country without consequences.
  Finally, I would hope we would provide more support to the Ukrainian 
military, given that they have been willing to stand for their own 
defense, to secure their own border, to stand for their own 
sovereignty, but it is very difficult for them to do so when they are 
facing Russian-supported separatists, Russian tanks, Russian 
antiaircraft equipment, and more sophisticated technology than they 
have at the moment.
  We can help them by ensuring that they have the equipment to protect 
themselves, to protect their border, and to let Russia know there will 
be consequences if they continue to interfere with the sovereignty of 
Ukraine or any other country.
  I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               STEM Jobs

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, three of our greatest `masters of the 
universe'--as I like to refer to them--have joined in an op-ed in the 
New York Times just last week to share their wisdom from on high and to 
tell us in Congress how to do our business and to conduct immigration 
reform they think should be pleasing to them. I am sure other super 
billionaires would be glad to join with these three super billionaires 
and could agree on legislation that would be acceptable to them.
  Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas casino magnet and Republican supporter; 
Warren Buffett, the master investor; and Bill Gates, the master founder 
of Microsoft computer systems, all super billionaires, apparently 
aren't happy. They don't have much respect for Congress and, by 
indirection, the people who elect people to Congress, it appears from 
the tone of their article--you know, American people, that great 
unwashed group; nativists, narrow-minded patriots, possessors of 
middle-class values. They just don't understand as we know, we great 
executives and entrepreneurs.

[[Page S4603]]

  So they declare we need to import more foreign workers in computer 
science, technology, and engineering, because the country is ``badly in 
need of their services.'' They say we are badly in need of importing 
large numbers of STEM graduates. That is something we have all heard 
and many of us have perhaps assumed is an accurate thing.
  These three individuals, all generous men, have contributed to a lot 
of causes, and I am teasing them a lit bit. They didn't mind sticking 
it to Congress, so I just tease them and push back a little bit.
  They particularly praised the Senate for its elimination of any 
limits on the number of work visas that could be awarded to immigrants 
who have a degree in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
and have a job offer.
  This is the op-ed in the New York Times last Thursday: ``Sheldon 
Adelson, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates on Immigration Reform.''
  What did we see in the newspaper today? News from Microsoft--was it 
that they are having to raise wages to try to get enough good, quality 
engineers to do the work? Are they expanding or are they hiring? No, 
that is not what the news was, unfortunately. Not at all.
  This is the headline in USA Today: ``Microsoft to cut up to 18,000 
jobs over next year.''

       Microsoft confirmed it will cut up to 18,000 jobs over the 
     next year, part of the tech titan's efforts to streamline its 
     business under a new CEO . . .

  That is a significant action. Indeed, Microsoft employs about 125,000 
people, and they are laying off 18,000. The company laid off 5,000 in 
2009. Yet their founder and former leader, Mr. Gates, says we have to 
have more and more people come into our country to take those kinds of 
jobs.
  It is pretty interesting, really. We need to be thinking about what 
it all means and ask ourselves: What is the situation today for 
American graduates of STEM degrees and technology degrees? Do we have 
enough? And do we need to have people come to our country to take those 
jobs? Or, indeed, do we not have a shortage of workers, and do we have 
difficulty of people finding jobs?
  These are some of the facts I think we should look at. President 
Obama, Senate Democrats, and House Democrats have endorsed a proposal, 
a bill that passed the Senate, that would double the H-1B foreign 
workers that come into America for one reason--not to be a citizen, not 
to stay indefinitely, but to take a job, double the number, to come to 
take a job for several years. The great majority of these guest workers 
are not farm workers. They take jobs throughout the economy.
  So how should we think about this? The U.S. Census Bureau reports 
that three-fourths of American with STEM degrees--science, technology, 
engineering, mathematics--don't have jobs in STEM fields. According to 
a recent newspaper from the Economic Policy Institute:
  ``Guestworkers may be filling as many as half of all new information 
technology jobs each year.''
  It goes on. ``IT workers earn the same today as they did, generally, 
14 years ago.'' Wages aren't going up, and in many cases they are going 
down. That is an absolute refutation, I think--if you believe in the 
free market--of any contention that we have a shortage of engineering, 
science, and STEM graduates.
  The paper further says: ``Currently, only one of every two STEM 
college graduates is hired in a STEM job each year.'' So only half of 
them find a job in the profession they trained for.
  Another finding of the paper: ``Policies that expand the supply of 
guest workers will discourage U.S. students from going into STEM 
fields, and into IT in particular.''
  Get that. Is that not common sense? If anybody would dispute that, I 
would like to hear it. The policies that expand the supply of eligible 
workers in any field will tend to discourage people, particularly in 
science and engineering, if they feel like they are going to have a 
difficult time finding a job. That is common sense, and that is what 
the paper found.
  Now, Mr. Hal Salzman--I am familiar with his work. He is a professor 
at Rutgers University and a labor specialist. He has done a good bit of 
work in this area. And what do his findings show? He determined: ``For 
the 180,000 or so openings annually, U.S. colleges and universities 
supply 500,000 graduates.''
  More than twice as many people graduate in STEM fields as jobs are 
available in America for them to take.
  Bob Charette, at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, writes: ``Wages for U.S. workers in computer and math fields 
have largely stagnated since 2000.''
  That is 14 years ago.

       Even as the Great Recession slowly recedes, STEM workers at 
     every stage of the career pipeline, from freshly minted grads 
     to mid- and late-career Ph.D.s, still struggle to find 
     employment.

  In total, Charette reports that there are more than 11 million 
Americans with STEM degrees who don't have STEM jobs.
  Harvard Professor Michael Teitelbaum has recently written a book. He 
explained:

       Far from offering expanding attractive career 
     opportunities, it seems that many, but not all, science and 
     engineering careers are headed in the opposite direction: 
     unstable careers, slow-growing wages, and high risk of jobs 
     moving offshore or being filled by temporary workers from 
     abroad.

  Michael Anft, with the Johns Hopkins Magazine, observed:

       You're a biologist, chemist, electrical engineer, 
     manufacturing worker, mechanical engineer, or physicist, 
     you've most likely seen your paycheck remain flat at best. If 
     you're a recent grad in those fields looking for a job, good 
     luck. A National Academies report suggests a glut of life 
     scientists, lab workers, and physical scientists, owing in 
     part to over-recruitment of science-Ph.D. candidates by 
     universities. And postdocs, many of whom are waiting longer 
     for academic spots, are opting out of science careers at 
     higher rates, according to the National Science Foundation.

  This is serious. There is a policy question, and he questions whether 
Members of Congress who don't pass laws like he wants on immigration 
are honoring their duty to the 300 million Americans whom we 
collectively represent.
  I feel a deep duty to the millions of Alabamians I represent and the 
whole country, and I do my best every day to ask what is in their 
interests. As far as I am concerned, so far as I can see, those three 
billionaires have three votes. An individual who works stocking the 
shelves at the grocery store, the barber, the doctor, the lawyer, the 
cleaners, the operator, and the person who picks up our garbage are 
every bit as valuable as they are. I know who I represent. I represent 
the citizens of the United States of America, and I am trying to do 
what is in their best interests. And just as it is not always true what 
is good for General Motors is good for America, likewise, what may be 
good for Mr. Adelson and Mr. Microsoft and Mr. Buffett is not always in 
accord with what is good for the American people. I know that. They are 
free to express their opinion, but I am going to push back.

  How many people come into our country each year as guest workers? We 
have discussed that. The Senate bill which Senator Reid maneuvered 
through the Senate not too many weeks ago would double the number of 
guest workers. How many is that? The Associated Press wrote:

       Although no one tracks exactly how many H-1B guest workers 
     come to take jobs these are visas for jobs in fields like 
     computers and technology--how many of these are in the United 
     States? The AP says ``experts estimate there are at least 
     600,000 at any one time.''

  That is a lot. These are individuals not on a citizenship path. They 
are in addition to the 1 million who come to America each year lawfully 
to become citizens of America. They simply come in at the behest of 
some business to take a job for a limited period of time. That is 
important. There are other visas these businesses can get too, but H-1B 
is one of the largest. A paper for the Economic Policy Institute 
explained the annual inflow of guest workers for the computer industry 
in particular is massive.

       We estimate that during fiscal 2011, 372,516 high-skill 
     guest workers were issued visas to enter the U.S. labor 
     market, and, of these workers, between 134,000 and 228,000 
     were available for IT employment.

  That is information technology.

       The supply of IT guest workers appears to be growing 
     dramatically despite stagnant or even declining wages.

  But Microsoft and its allies want more.

[[Page S4604]]

  Here is an excerpt from a report issued by the Partnership for a New 
American Economy. This is the front group for the pro-immigration 
crowd. It is co-headed by Steve Ballmer, a recent Microsoft CEO. He 
left Microsoft in February, but he is the co-head of this group and is 
lobbying for more H-1B guest workers to come to take jobs. They say: 
``In many STEM occupations, unemployment is virtually non-existent.''
  This is not so. They declare it to be so. They say:

       There is no evidence that foreign-born STEM workers 
     adversely affect the wages of American workers by providing a 
     less expensive alternative source of labor.

  What planet are they on? Wages are declining. Median income in 
America today--well, according to the Wall Street Journal, it was 
approximately $55,000 for a family in 2007. It is now closer to 
$50,000. It dropped roughly $5,000. Somebody needs to talk about that.
  Is unemployment in these industries ``virtually non-existent''? That 
is what they are telling us. They are spending millions of dollars even 
running TV ads to promote bringing in more workers than the 600,000 we 
have today. They want to double that number. I am not talking about the 
1 million who already come lawfully every year through immigration in 
America. We have one of the most generous immigration policies in the 
world. These guest workers are in addition to the 1 million we let in 
each year on a permanent basis.
  Look at these recent headlines.
  Today: ``Microsoft To Cut Workforce By 18,000 This Year, `Moving Now' 
To Cut First 13,000.''
  How about this headline: ``[Google-owned] Motorola To Cut 10% Of 
Workforce After Laying Off 20% Last Year.''
  ``Panasonic To Cut 10K More Workers In The Next 5 Months.''
  ``[Online media and advertising company] CityGrid Lays Off 15% Of Its 
Employees.''
  ``Hewlett-Packard: 27,000 Job Cuts to Save Up To $3.5B By 2014.''
  I would say things aren't going as well as some would suggest, and 
the demand out there for workers ought to be met from our current 
supply.
  Byron York, an excellent writer at the Washington Examiner, wrote 
about this late last year in the Washington Examiner. The headline is: 
``Companies lay off thousands, then demand immigration reform for new 
labor.''

       On Tuesday, the chief human resource officers of more than 
     100 large corporations sent a letter to House Speaker John 
     Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urging quick passage 
     of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

  Don't read it, don't worry about it, just pass it. It gives us more 
workers, and we need those workers, is essentially, what they have been 
saying. ``The officials who signed the letter represent companies with 
a vast array of business interests: General Electric, Marriott 
International, Hilton Worldwide, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, McDonald's, 
Wendy's, The Cheesecake Factory, Johnson & Johnson, Hewlett-Packard, 
General Mills, and many more.'' All of them ``want to see increases in 
immigration levels for low-skill as well as high-skill workers in 
addition to a path to full citizenship for the millions of immigrants 
in the United States currently illegally.'' That is their agenda.
  The article goes on to say: ``a new immigration law, the corporate 
officers say, `would be a long overdue step toward aligning our 
nation's immigration policies with its workforce needs at all skill 
levels . . . ' ''
  I would say at a time of high unemployment we need to be careful. The 
article goes on to say, ``at the . . . time the corporate officers seek 
higher numbers of immigrants, both low-skill and high-skill, many of 
their companies are laying off thousands of workers.''
  So he did a little research. All these companies in need of workers. 
What about Hewlett-Packard? They signed the letter demanding more 
workers. I will quote from the article.

       For example, Hewlett-Packard, whose Executive Vice 
     President for Human Resources Tracy Keogh signed the letter, 
     laid off 29,000 employees in 2012. In August of this year, 
     Cisco Systems, whose Senior Vice President and Chief Human 
     Resources Officer Kathleen Weslock signed the letter, 
     announced plans to lay off 4,000--in addition to 8,000 cut in 
     the last two years. United Technologies, whose Senior Vice 
     President for Human Resources and Organization Elizabeth 
     B. Amato signed the letter, announced layoffs of 3,000 
     this year.
       American Express, whose Chief Human Resources Officer L. 
     Kevin Cox signed the letter, cut 5,400 jobs this year. 
     Proctor & Gamble, whose Chief Human Resources Officer Mark F. 
     Biegger signed the letter, announced plans to cut 5,700 jobs 
     in 2012.

  Those are a just few of the layoffs at companies, the article said, 
whose officers signed the letter.

       A few more: T-Mobile announced 2,250 layoffs in 2012. 
     Archer-Daniels-Midland laid off 1,200. Texas Instruments, 
     nearly 2,000. Cigna 1,300. Verizon sought to cut 1,700 jobs . 
     . . Marriott announced `hundreds' of layoffs this year. 
     International Paper has closed plants and laid off dozens.

--including an old, big plant with 1,000 workers or so in north 
Alabama--

       And General Mills, in what the Minneapolis Star-Tribune 
     called a `rare mass layoff,' laid off 850 people last year.

  ``There are more still.'' I am quoting here from Mr. Byron York's 
article:

       In all, it's fair to say a large number of corporate 
     signers of the letter demanding more labor from abroad have 
     actually laid off workers at home in recent years. Together 
     their actions have a significant effect on the economy. 
     According to a recent Reuters report, U.S. employers 
     announced 50,462 layoffs in August, up 34 percent from the 
     previous month and up 57 percent from August 2012.

  This is last August. I am quoting from the article:

       ``It is difficult to understand how these companies can 
     feel justified in demanding the importation of cheap labor 
     with a straight face at a time when tens of millions of 
     Americans are unemployed,'' writes the Center for Immigration 
     Studies, which strongly opposes the Senate Gang of Eight 
     bill. . . . The companies claim the bill is an ``opportunity 
     to level the playing field for U.S. employers' but it is more 
     of an effort to level the wages of American citizens.''

  Mr. York goes on to say this in his next article. The next month, he 
writes another article on the subject.

       This week, the pharmaceutical giant Merck announced it 
     would cut 8,500 jobs in an effort to remain competitive in a 
     rapidly changing drug industry. Earlier this year Merck 
     announced plans to cut 7,500 jobs, bringing the total of 
     workers let go to 16,000. In all, Merck intends to lay off 
     one out of every five of its employees.

  Well, what is Merck, this great corporation, doing politically about 
the situation?
  I will quote from the article. This is what they are doing 
politically:

       At the same time, top Merck officials are urging Congress 
     to loosen the nation's immigration laws to allow more foreign 
     workers into the United States. In a Sept. 10 letter--

--this is last September--

     --to House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Nancy 
     Pelosi, Merck Executive Vice President for Human Resources 
     Mirian Graddick-Weir urged that the U.S. admit more high- and 
     low-skilled immigrants to ``address the reality that there is 
     a global war for talent'' and to ``align our nation's 
     immigration policies with its workforce needs at all skill 
     levels to ensure U.S. global competitiveness.''

  Well, we have too many people unemployed. The number of people 
unemployed in our country is not accurately reflected by the simple 
unemployment data we get. When you look at the number of people in the 
actual workforce, you find we have the lowest workplace participation, 
the lowest number of workers as a percentage of the population at any 
time since the 1970s. It has been declining steadily. It is a fact. 
Everybody knows it. It is not disputed. If anybody wants to dispute 
that, come to the floor and tell me where I am wrong. And they won't 
because it is well accepted and Democrats and Republicans are talking 
openly about it, because it is a serious challenge for America. We 
don't have enough people working. We have got too many people living 
off the government and relying on federal aid and assistance. We need 
to create jobs for Americans first before we bring in foreign workers 
to take those jobs. We are going to help our people sustain their life. 
We make sure they have food and housing and aid if they are unable to 
work and don't have enough to live on, and we provide health care for 
them and education for their children. But we need to help them find 
work first before we bring somebody else to the country.
  I would say to my free market business friends, I don't think you can 
win the argument that we have a shortage of labor, because wages are 
down. I know you believe in free markets. I

[[Page S4605]]

know you believe that things will balance out in a competitive world. 
If wages are down, that indicates we have a loose labor market, not a 
tight labor market. Wages go up when there are not enough employees, 
and businesses have to pay more to get good employees. Family income 
has gone down from 2007, as I said, from approximately $55,000 median 
household income to $50,000, adjusted for inflation. This is a very 
unusual decline. I am not sure we have seen anything like quite this 
before, at least since the Great Depression. This is a matter we need 
to talk about. ``Watching firms fire American workers while appealing 
for more immigration is a disheartening spectacle'', Mr. Byron York 
says. And I think that is true.

  This is another Associated Press article: ``Backlash Stirs in US 
Against Foreign Worker Visas.''

       But amid calls for expanding the so-called H-1B visa 
     program, there is a growing pushback from Americans who argue 
     that the program has been hijacked by staffing companies that 
     import cheaper, lower-level workers to replace more expensive 
     U.S. workers--or keep them from being hired in the first 
     place.
       ``It's getting pretty frustrating when you can't compete on 
     salary for a skilled job,'' said Rich Hajinlian, a veteran 
     computer programmer from the Boston area. ``You hear 
     references all the time that these big companies . . . can't 
     find skilled workers. I am a skilled worker.''

  How about this? They say there is a STEM crisis--which is Science, 
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. They say there are not enough 
STEM graduates to fill vacant jobs.
  This article says: ``The STEM Crisis Is a Myth.'' This is a paper by 
Robert Charette, contributing editor for the Industrial Institute of 
Electrical and Electronic Engineers magazine. He says:

       Companies would rather not pay STEM professionals high 
     salaries with lavish benefits, offer them training on the 
     job, or guarantee them decades of stable employment. So 
     having an oversupply of workers, whether domestically 
     educated or imported, is to their benefit.
       That is in part because it helps keep wages in check.
       Viewed another way, about 15 million U.S. residents hold at 
     least a bachelor's degree in a STEM discipline, but three-
     fourths of them--11.4 million--work outside of STEM.
       If there is in fact a STEM worker shortage, wouldn't you 
     expect more workers with STEM degrees to be filling those 
     jobs?''

  I think that is correct.
  What about the people who immigrate to America? They can't get a job 
because somebody else was brought in to take that job from them. What 
are they going to do?
  The economy can absorb a certain number, but in this low job-wage 
low-job creation economy we are in today, and have been in for a number 
of years, you simply cannot justify these huge increases in the number 
of workers we have brought into the country, especially when wages are 
falling.
  Here is another article: ``The Myth of the Science and Engineering 
Shortage.'' It is an op-ed by Michael Teitelbaum, a senior research 
associate at Harvard Law School.

       A compelling body of research is now available, from many 
     leading academic researchers and from respected research 
     organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic 
     Research, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute.
       No one has been able to find any evidence indicating 
     current widespread labor market shortages or hiring 
     difficulties in science and engineering occupations . . .

  He goes on to write, as I read before:

       From offering expanding attractive career opportunities, it 
     seems that many, but not all science and engineering careers 
     are headed in the opposite direction: unstable careers, slow-
     growing wages, and high risk of jobs moving offshore or being 
     filled by temporary workers from abroad.

  I am afraid that is the undisputed reality. I wish it were not so. I 
wish we had a growing economy that would create a lot of jobs and a lot 
more high-tech workers and that wages were going up. But it is just not 
so.
  Here is an article from July 11, in CNNMoney. The headline is: 
``Businesses Want Immigration Reform. Why? Because they can't find 
enough workers.'' That is what they say the answer is.

  This article notes the complaints of various business lobbyists. For 
instance:

       The tech industry faces a backlog of working visas for high 
     skilled workers. The long wait for green cards at top 
     universities means the U.S. is losing [talent]. . . . 
     Microsoft founder Bill Gates and others CEOs like Yahoo's 
     Marissa Mayer and Facebook's Mark Zuckerburg, have all 
     pressed Washington leaders for an immigration [reform].

  CNN also includes this statement from another group demanding 
Congress provide more workers:

       Two-thirds of construction companies have reported labor 
     shortages according to the Associated General Contractors of 
     America, who is pushing for immigration reform.

  So two-thirds of construction companies reported labor shortages. 
Well, what do we know about that?
  Here is a May 5 article from Economic Policy Institute by Ross 
Eisenbrey. They cite an in-depth study about the labor market.
  The headline says: ``There are Seven Unemployed Construction Workers 
for Every Job Opening.''
  There is a chart showing the drop in wages. This isn't some promoter, 
some lobbyist or some media consultant putting out a self-serving 
statement claiming we have a shortage of workers. This is an academic 
study. Again, what does it say? ``No Sign of Labor Shortages in 
Construction: There are Seven Unemployed Construction Workers for Every 
Job Opening.''
  That is where we are. What we need, as a Nation, is to construct an 
immigration policy that serves the interests of the American people.
  Professor Borjas at Harvard is perhaps the most astute and renowned 
expert on labor and immigration of anybody in the entire world and has 
written a number of books on this. He did an comprehensive study using 
census data and Department of Labor data and concluded that from 1980 
to 2000, as a result of America's high immigration levels, the wages of 
lower-skilled US workers declined by 7.4 percent.
  The impact of this large flow of immigration from 1980 to 2000 
reduced wages. We already bring in a million people a year, plus 
hundreds thousands more guest workers. I am not against immigration. 
What I am opposed to, however, is an immigration policy that fails to 
serve the needs of the people living here today. The myth is we have 
this great shortage of labor. It is just not so. If he allowed the 
labor market to tighten, wages would increase, more Americans would 
take some of these jobs and be able to raise a family, buy an 
automobile, and maybe even buy a house and educate their children.
  Today I am going to issue a challenge to Majority Leader Reid, and 
every single one of our 55 Senate Democrats, who voted unanimously for 
this Gang of 8 bill.
  With Microsoft laying off 18,000 workers, come down to the Senate 
floor and tell me there is a shortage of qualified Americans to fill 
STEM jobs. Come down and tell us. Do you stand with Mr. Bill Gates or 
do you stand with our American constituents?
  It is long past time we had an immigration policy that truly served 
the needs of the American people. That is the group to whom we owe our 
loyalty and duty and first responsibility. That is who elected us, and 
that is in our constitutional system, which ultimately judges us on our 
performance.
  The United States let in 40 million new immigrants legal and 
illegal--since 1970. There are many wonderful people in that group. But 
Washington actually hurts both our immigrant workers and US-born 
workers alike when we continue to bring in record numbers of new 
workers to compete for jobs. The share of the population today that is 
foreign-born has quadrupled. It has gone up four-fold in forty years. 
After four decades of large-scale immigration, is it not time, 
colleagues, that we slow down a bit, allowed wages to rise, 
assimilation to occur, and the middle class to be restored?
  I thank the chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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.


             Celebrating Governor Phil Hoff's 90th Birthday

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we come to the floor oftentimes to discuss 
issues of portent to the Nation, but the

[[Page S4606]]

distinguished Senator from Vermont and I wish to speak about one of the 
most significant people Vermont has ever known.
  I wish to yield to my distinguished colleague from Vermont and we 
will go back and forth.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Leahy for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, every now and then there are figures who 
come along who play a profound and transformative role in the period in 
which they are living. Phil Hoff is one of those people. We are here to 
celebrate his 90th birthday and the work he has done in Vermont and 
around the country and the life he and his wife Joan have lived, both 
of whom have done so much for the people of the State of Vermont.
  Phil Hoff was the 73rd Governor of the State of Vermont. He was in 
many ways the founder of progressive politics in our State. It is now 
recognized--and we say this proudly, although not everybody necessarily 
is as proud of it as we are--but Vermont is now one of the more 
progressive States in the United States of America. We have been a 
leader for the rights of working people, for the environment, for 
women's rights, for gay rights, for kids, and we are proud of that, but 
none of that would have happened--we would not be where we are today--
if it had not been for the work of Phil Hoff, who has Governor of our 
State and was elected in 1962.
  I am going to yield to my colleague Senator Leahy now. I have a lot 
more I wish to say, but let me begin the discussion by saying that we 
in Vermont are extraordinarily fortunate that one of the great 
Governors of his time is a real visionary, a man who led the beginning 
of making profound changes in the State of Vermont.
  I yield back to the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Vermont is 
absolutely right. Vermont changed remarkably when Governor Phil Hoff 
was elected. Prior to that time, the governorship of Vermont was 
basically a part-time office--seen now and then when the legislature 
was there but not so much otherwise--and things went along almost on 
autopilot. Governor Hoff changed that and brought Vermont into the 20th 
century. I think because the two are somewhat intertwined.
  I was a volunteer for the Presidential campaign of then-Senator John 
F. Kennedy in 1960. I volunteered on his campaign, but I wasn't old 
enough to vote for him. But I remember the first election I was able to 
vote in was the Vermont Governor's race in 1962, and I cast my first 
vote for Philip Henderson Hoff. My family was thrilled when he won that 
election. He became the first Democratic Governor elected in Vermont in 
over a century.
  My parents and Marcelle's parents were so fond of Phil Hoff and his 
wife Joan. They thought the world of them. I was happy the other day in 
seeing both Phil and Joan at his birthday celebration. They talked 
about my parents and Marcelle's parents, but I told them I wouldn't be 
where I am today without Governor Hoff.
  I was a young lawyer in his office. There had been a real problem in 
the State's attorney's office in Chittenden County, VT, which is about 
one-quarter of our State's population. The State's attorney announced 
he was leaving and Governor Hoff called me to his home on Friday 
afternoon and said: I want you to be State's attorney on Monday 
morning.
  I gulped, and I said: Yes, sir.
  He said: Clean up the backlog of cases that have accumulated in the 
office.
  I said: Yes, sir.
  He said: Do that for 1 year and then come on back to our firm.
  And I said: Yes, sir.
  The one thing I didn't do is I didn't come back to the firm; I 
enjoyed being there so much, I stayed there. I stayed there, though, 
with admiration for Phil Hoff because he had changed the State of 
Vermont. He made it exciting to be in government in Vermont. He made it 
exciting to be part of the fabric of Vermont. I have always appreciated 
that. I have always appreciated my time with him but especially the 
mentoring he offered me. If it had not been for him, I can tell my 
colleagues, I would not be standing here today as the President pro 
tempore of the U.S. Senate.
  I yield back to my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, way back in 1968 as a young man, I got a 
job at the Department of Taxation in a small building on State Street 
across the street from the statehouse, working for the administration, 
then-Governor Hoff, and that was a very important experience for me and 
helped me shape some of my views which I carry today.
  Phil Hoff's career of public service began during World War II when 
he put his studies on hold and joined the Navy, eventually joining the 
submarine service. He served on the USS Sea Dog in the Pacific theater, 
going on a number of combat tours in the dangerous waters near the main 
islands of Japan.
  While in naval training in New London, CT, a friend of his set up a 
blind date with a Connecticut college student. Her name was Joan 
Brower, and she and Phil would be married after the war--a marriage 
that was to last for six rich decades.

  I know Senator Leahy and his wife, as well as myself and my wife 
Jane, know the Hoffs very well. We know Joan and know of her years of 
dedication to the people of the State of Vermont, especially in the 
area of education. So she in her own right has been a very important 
figure in our State.
  After Phil Hoff's graduation from Cornell Law School, he and Joan 
moved to Burlington, VT, in 1951. Deeply committed to social justice, 
he became involved in Democratic Party politics and did that despite 
the fact that he grew up in a Republican family.
  Senator Leahy will remember that way back then, there was a group of 
what they called the Young Turks--younger Democrats who came into a 
very conservative Republican legislature. Most of them were under 40. 
Many of them were veterans of World War II. They moved forward to try 
to bring about some long needed change in the State.
  Their experience in the legislature motivated Phil Hoff to run for 
Governor in 1962. As Senator Leahy indicated, if my memory is correct, 
he was the first Democrat elected Governor since the Civil War; is that 
right?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my colleague is absolutely correct. It was 
a cataclysmic change in the political landscape of Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. For more than 100 years--I think many people don't know 
this--the Republican Party dominated Vermont politics, controlling both 
Houses of the legislature and the Governor's office.
  This is a funny story. Even in the landslide Presidential election of 
1936, when FDR--Franklin Delano Roosevelt--won a huge landslide 
victory, Vermont joined Maine as the only State in the country to vote 
against Roosevelt and vote for Alfred Landon, and thus came the well-
known expression: ``As goes Maine, so goes Vermont.'' What Phil Hoff 
helped do is lead Vermont out of a one-party State, badly in need of 
reforms, and brought that State in many significant ways into the 
second half of the 20th century.
  I yield back to the senior Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. He and I 
share so much affection for Phil and Joan Hoff, and I can tell hundreds 
of stories. He made a difference by enthusiastically bringing people 
together in our State, with the realization that we needed to catch up 
with the rest of the country in so many ways--such as bringing high-
tech industry into Vermont and working so hard to make sure everybody 
had a good education no matter what part of the State they lived in.
  Then there are the personal anecdotes. I was excited as a young 
State's attorney one day getting a call from the Governor's office that 
one of the old-line politicians in Burlington had died--a wonderful man 
of French Canadian descent. They were going to have a mass for him at 
the Cathedral, and the Governor wanted me to ride with him to the mass.

[[Page S4607]]

  I got into the car, and I said, Governor, you know I have only been 
State's attorney for a very short while and I can't tell you what an 
honor it is to be with you. He said, An honor? Honor has nothing to do 
with it. He said, I am an Episcopalian, you are a Catholic. They put me 
in the front row. I never know when I am supposed to stand or where I 
am supposed to sit, so you are going to make sure I do it right. I had 
been an altar boy for years, and I was in sheer panic when I walked in 
the church that I might have the Governor do something wrong, but we 
made it through.
  More importantly, Vermont had issues, and they became very serious, 
affecting the reputation of our State. Phil Hoff and great people 
together across the political spectrum would sit in his office and he 
would say, how do we make things better for Vermont--never for him, it 
was for Vermont.
  I think of the changes in our State, and I remember my parents and 
Marcelle's parents talking about the amount of changes--changes for the 
better--and every time they would go back to one name: Phil Hoff.
  I was so glad to hear Senator Sanders speak of Joan Brower Hoff and 
their wonderful daughters. She truly was Vermont's First Lady. She was 
almost as recognizable--in fact, in many places, more recognizable than 
her husband--highly respected. People--men and women--wanted to be able 
to model their careers and their nature after her. I am glad the two 
are still together. They are still healthy, they are still the best of 
Vermont, and I feel honored to be able to speak of them here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Senator Leahy talked about the influence 
Governor Hoff had on the State. Let me give some examples of what he 
did.
  Senator Leahy will remember in the early 1960s we had the situation 
in Vermont where the Vermont State House of Representatives, people 
were represented by every town. I lived for a while in the town of 
Stannard, VT, which has maybe 100, 150 people, and they had the same 
vote in the legislature as Burlington, VT, the largest city in the 
State, which has 40,000 people. Under Phil Hoff, what we moved to in 
the State--and with the Supreme Court ruling dealing with proper 
apportionment--was person, one vote, so the house began to reflect the 
population locations of the State and not just every town.
  In addition to that, when Phil Hoff was Governor of the State, he 
successfully insisted on repealing Vermont's poll tax. Now we think 
that is ancient history. What the poll tax said is that in order to 
vote, you have to pay a certain amount of money, which, obviously, is 
discriminatory to lower income people. That was repealed under Hoff's 
era as Governor.
  He understood and his wife understood the importance of education. 
What Governor Hoff did was he quadrupled State aid to public schools 
and organized the three State teachers colleges into a new, revitalized 
State college system that better met the needs of Vermont's students. 
That system endures to this day. We have a very strong system of State 
colleges in Vermont, and that began under the Hoff era.
  Under Governor Hoff's leadership, Vermont's judicial system was 
modernized. Always a path breaker and an advocate for justice, Phil 
Hoff led the way to Vermont becoming one of the first States in the 
country to abolish the death penalty.
  No aspect of State government was beneath his notice, and he took 
Vermont forward in many ways, including terminating the outdated 
``overseer of the poor'' system. That was something he changed as well. 
He established the Vermont district court State court system, the 
Judicial Nominating Board, the Vermont State Housing Authority, and the 
Vermont Student Assistance Corporation--a program which today plays a 
very vital role in making sure young people in Vermont can get a 
college education.
  What was also--and Senator Leahy knows this better than I--rather 
extraordinary about Phil Hoff is he understood that positive change 
could not take place in Vermont unless change was taking place 
throughout the country. In that area, being the Governor of one of the 
smallest States in the country, this man showed extraordinary courage, 
and he said: Do you know what. That war in Vietnam is not good for 
Vermont, it is not good for America.
  He was one of the first public officials, as I recall, I say to 
Senator Leahy, to speak out. That took a whole lot of courage, to speak 
out against the war in Vietnam. He took it a step further. Here you had 
Lyndon Johnson at that time--who I think will go down in history, 
except for that war in Vietnam, as one of our great Presidents--and 
Phil Hoff said: Do you know what. Maybe we need a change in the White 
House, and maybe we should be looking at somebody like Bobby Kennedy 
rather than Lyndon Johnson.
  But, I say to Senator Leahy, I know he was involved in some of that 
as a young man.
  Mr. LEAHY. I was. And I recall, when Phil Hoff came out against the 
war in Vietnam--and he was in the minority on that--no member of the 
Vermont congressional delegation had voted against the war in Vietnam. 
They voted for all the increases in it. He was in some ways a lonely 
voice, but he did come out against it. It angered Lyndon Johnson, who 
was then President. But then he supported Robert Kennedy, as did I.
  I remember the two of us meeting Senator Edward Kennedy--one of the 
Presiding Officer's predecessors--on the runway at the airport in 
Burlington, VT. He and Governor Hoff and myself and others were going 
to speak to a group on behalf of Robert Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy. I 
remember the look of sorrow on Governor Hoff's face as he stood as one 
of the honorary pallbearers at Robert Kennedy's funeral. But even after 
that, he continued to push to make Vermont a better State.
  I think--and I realize we have others waiting for the floor--but I 
just want to say again that Vermont is a wonderful State. It is a 
beautiful State. It is a progressive State. As Senator Sanders and I 
have both said, it would not be what it is today were it not for Phil 
Hoff. We have all tried to follow in those footsteps, but he lit the 
way. That sometimes is an overused expression, but in this case I think 
every historian would agree with us.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me concur with Senator Leahy. We take this 
opportunity to wish Governor Hoff a very happy 90th birthday. Jane and 
I see him quite often, and we just bumped into Phil and Joan recently. 
We look forward to continuing that relationship.
  The bottom line is, as Senator Leahy said, we are very proud that 
Vermont is a leader in so many areas in terms of social justice, in 
terms of environmental sanity, in terms of protecting the needs of 
ordinary people. That transformation and those efforts did not come 
about by accident, and certainly one of the great leaders in moving us 
in that direction was the man we honor today; that is, Philip H. Hoff. 
We wish him the very, very best in the years to come.

  Mr. LEAHY. We wish a happy birthday to a true giant of our State.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                        Protecting Our Children

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a bill I have 
introduced. It is S. 1596. It is the Protecting Students from Sexual 
and Violent Predators Act.
  I wish to thank my cosponsors on this legislation. It is a bipartisan 
bill. Senator Joe Manchin and I have introduced this together, and I am 
grateful to Senators McConnell and Inhofe for their cosponsorship.
  This bill was inspired by a terrible story. It is the story of Jeremy 
Bell, and it begins at a school in Delaware County, PA. One of the 
schoolteachers molested several boys and raped one of them. Prosecutors 
decided they did not have enough evidence to bring a case, but the 
school was aware of what happened, so they dismissed the teacher for 
this outrageous behavior. But then, amazingly, the school also decided 
that they would help this teacher get another job at another school so 
they could be rid of him. And they did exactly that, in fact, passing 
along a letter of recommendation, helping this predator get a job at a 
school in West Virginia.

[[Page S4608]]

  The story ends in 1997 when that teacher--by then a school 
principal--raped and murdered 12-year-old Jeremy Bell in West Virginia. 
Justice finally caught up with that teacher, and he is now in jail 
serving a life sentence for the murder, but for Jeremy Bell that 
justice came too late.
  The very sad truth is that Jeremy Bell is not alone. Every day seems 
to bring a new report of a child robbed of his or her innocence by 
someone they should have been able to trust, someone their parents told 
them they should obey. The numbers are absolutely terrifying, and, 
worse still, the numbers are growing.
  On April 10 of this year, I came to this floor and spoke about the 
need to pass this legislation to protect our kids from predators in the 
classroom. I explained then that since January 1 of this year, at that 
point, 130 teachers had been arrested across America for sexual 
misconduct with children. Well, here we are just over 3 months later 
and that number has more than doubled. Since January 1 of this year, 
275 teachers have been arrested in America for sexual misconduct with 
children--275. These are teachers. That is more than one per day so far 
this year.
  Let's be honest. These are the ones whom we have caught. These are 
the ones who have actually been arrested. These are the ones against 
whom there is enough evidence that they have actually been arrested. 
How many more are out there who have not been caught or for whom the 
evidence is not yet sufficiently clear?
  The damage these predators are doing is enormous. It is far beyond 
what any numbers or my words can express. So I want to let some of the 
victims speak for themselves.
  I will tell you a brief story from Shannon. Shannon is from Nevada. 
She was raped by a teacher. The teacher was later convicted of sexual 
assault and sentenced to life in prison. Nine years later, this is what 
Shannon wrote:

       When I was a senior in high school, Mr. Peterson approached 
     me and said I would need to go to night school if I wanted 
     enough credits to graduate on time. And, of course, he taught 
     one of those courses--a computer class. I was 17, and he 
     raped me 4 times over the course of a year. He said he would 
     fail me if I ever told. He also hit me and made threats 
     against me and my family. So I didn't. I held it in for a 
     year and a half.
       In the end, 66 people offered to testify against Peterson. 
     His first victim dated back to the year I was born. Some of 
     those who spoke up were parents. Their daughters had 
     complained at the time, but nothing was done. That made me 
     very angry. It still does. I learned that a handful of 
     teachers, and two principals, knew about him. And his 
     teaching license had been revoked in Michigan years 
     before, and no one knew why.
       I'm different [now] because of what happened. I have to 
     watch people all the time, analyze them. I can't be carefree. 
     Now I have a seven-year-old son and two daughters, ages three 
     and one. I will home-school my girls.

  So when you see the number 275, remember Shannon, and remember that 
so far this year there are 275 others like her.
  Gary of South Carolina is one of at least 29 boys abused by a teacher 
named Mr. Fisher over that teacher's 37-year career. Now the teacher is 
serving 20 years in prison. Two school principals were sued for 
allegedly covering up the abuse. Here is what Gary wrote about his 
experience:

       I was nine when it started. The abuse was frequent and 
     long-term--till I went to college. I knew there were others, 
     too, but until it all came out, I never knew how many.
       You feel so guilty, so ashamed. It's frightening now to 
     look back and see how calculating Fisher was. I did 
     everything I could to get kicked out of school. I was in the 
     guidance counselor's office all the time. Finally, in tenth 
     grade, I got myself kicked out for cheating. By the time I 
     want to college, I was drinking all the time. I was terrified 
     to quit because then I'd have to feel. But I couldn't drink 
     and do school, so I entered rehab. I was 18. It took me a 
     year and a half, and I've been sober since.
       My life is good now, for the first time. You can survive 
     it, but you have to deal with it. I always felt that what the 
     school did was far worse than what Fisher did. Fisher was 
     sick, an evil monster. But [the school] just calculated the 
     damage to its public relations. We kids were disposable, 
     which is a whole other category of evil.

  So when you see the number 275, remember Gary, and remember that 
there are 275 others like him that we know of already this year alone.
  So what can we do? Well, my bill is a first step at addressing this 
problem. It is called the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent 
Predators Act. It is pretty simple, really. It requires a mandatory 
background check for existing and prospective employees, and it 
requires that those checks be periodically repeated. There are five 
States that do no background checks.
  The second thing my bill would do is it would apply to all employees 
of a school--employees or contractors who have unsupervised access to 
children, not just teachers. So it would include bus drivers and 
coaches. There are 12 States that currently do no checks at all on 
contractors.
  The legislation would also require more thorough background checks. 
It would require that school districts check four major databases, both 
State and Federal. In my own State of Pennsylvania, for instance, if an 
employee has been a resident of my State for 2 years or more, then only 
the State database is checked. We just do not find out what this person 
might have done in another State at a different time.
  The legislation also would prohibit what has--tragically, it has 
developed its own name; the name is ``passing the trash.'' This is the 
phenomenon of when a school knowingly recommends one of these predators 
to another school. As outrageous as that sounds, it actually happens. 
Some of these school and school districts so want to be rid of this 
problem, this embarrassment, that they actually facilitate the person 
moving on to some other place, where, of course, this predator just 
strikes again against some other children. That would be banned under 
this legislation.
  In addition, there would be a prohibition against hiring these kinds 
of predators. Schools would not be able to hire a person who has ever 
been convicted of any violent or sexual crime against a child--if they 
were convicted of a violent or sexual crime against a child. There are 
a number of other felonies that would also preclude someone from being 
hired by a school if they are going to have access to children. Those 
would include homicide, child abuse or neglect, crimes against 
children, including pornography, rape, or sexual assault, kidnapping.
  In addition, a person who has been convicted within the past 5 years 
of a felony physical assault or battery or a felony drug-related 
offense--for 5 years from the time at which those crimes were 
committed, the person would be precluded from being hired in a 
position, in a capacity where they would have supervisory 
responsibility over children.
  The enforcement for all of this is the only way the Federal 
Government can or should enforce policies such as this on school 
districts and schools; that is, if a State refuses to adopt these 
provisions, then they would lose the funding they get from the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is one of many--but an 
important one--of the Federal Government funding streams for K-12 
education. No State wants to lose that source of funding, so I think 
States would respond by adopting this very commonsense series of 
measures to protect their children.
  I should say this is a bill with very broad support--so broad, in 
fact, that in the House the companion legislation passed unanimously. 
There was not a single dissenting vote. They voted last year, and it 
passed unanimously.
  We have bipartisan support here in the Senate, as I mentioned. I am 
joined by Senators Manchin, McConnell, and Inhofe.
  It is supported by child advocacy groups. The National Children's 
Alliance, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children all strongly support this legislation. I 
appreciate their support.
  It is also supported by prosecutors--the Association of Prosecuting 
Attorneys, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. As a matter 
of fact, there were five district attorneys from southeastern 
Pennsylvania alone, from different political parties, who wrote an op-
ed--a very persuasive op-ed--arguing why this bill is necessary based 
on what they see every day in their jobs as prosecutors. I wish to 
thank those district attorneys. Risa Ferman from Montgomery County, 
Seth Williams from Philadelphia County, Tom Hogan from Chester County, 
David Heckler from Bucks County, and Jack Whelan from Delaware County 
all weighed in in favor of this legislation.

[[Page S4609]]

  Finally, there are teacher groups that support this as well. The 
American Federation of Teachers supports this legislation. The 
Pennsylvania School Boards Association does as well.
  I do not think I would be going far out on a limb to suggest that 
probably a huge majority of Americans support this legislation because 
one thing I know for sure as a parent of three young kids--my kids are 
14, 12, and 4. There is one thing that is most important to most 
parents I know; that is, that our children be safe and secure. When you 
put your kid on a schoolbus, you expect that child will be in a safe 
environment all day long--on the ride to school, while they are in 
school, and on the way back home. Frankly, we owe it to parents as well 
as to their children to do all we can to ensure that they do, in fact, 
have a safe environment--as safe as we can make it--for their kids.
  Two hundred seventy-five is the number. That is the number that 
should give us all pause. It marks 275 tragedies that we know of 
already this year--275 childhoods that are shattered, 275 families torn 
by grief, betrayal, self-blame. It marks a failure on our part. This 
kind of child abuse can be prevented. We have the tools to prevent it 
and to prevent so many children from harm.
  Again, last year the House acted unanimously to protect children from 
these sexual predators. This is something we could have done a long 
time ago. We certainly should not be letting a new school year begin--
really in a matter of weeks--without doing something about this 
shameful number and without making sure this number does not continue 
to grow.
  I hope we will be able to bring this bill to the Senate floor. I hope 
we will have very broad bipartisan support for it here in the Senate, 
as we already have in the House.
  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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Israeli Conflict

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the fact that I 
believe the body has come to agreement on my resolution, along with 
Senator Menendez, standing behind Israel in its conflict with Hamas.
  As I speak, apparently there is a ground action going on by the 
Israelis in Gaza. From my point of view, do what you have to do to 
defend yourself.
  I can't believe they have actually waited this long. I can't imagine 
what the American response would have been. If one rocket had come from 
our neighboring nations toward our country, we would not be so 
restrained.
  A two-state solution seems to be a very reasonable approach. The 
problem is, as the Presiding Officer knows, Hamas doesn't recognize 
Israel as an entity. It is pretty hard to negotiate with somebody who 
doesn't recognize you exist and tells their schoolchildren you don't 
exist. The hatred that comes from Hamas in their schools toward Israel 
is not conducive to peace.
  The resolution passed unanimously by the Senate the very night Israel 
decided to use ground force I think is appropriate and very symbolic. 
The Senate does not see a moral equivalency.
  As Prime Minister Netanyahu said: Israel uses missiles, in 
collaboration with the United States, to produce the technology called 
Iron Dome to defend civilians. Hamas uses civilians to cover their 
missile program, making human shields of their own people.
  That says all we need to know.
  So I am pleased that in a bipartisan fashion, unanimous in nature, 
the U.S. Senate is on record supporting the State of Israel in this 
conflict, understanding their justification for defending themselves 
and that there is no moral equivalency here.
  To my Israeli friends and allies, we wish you well. I expect that you 
will continue to defend yourselves against a terrorist organization.
  To the Palestinians who have formed a unity government, you need to 
break away from Hamas. There will never be peace until you marginalize 
the terrorist organization called Hamas, until you reject what they 
stand for and the way they have behaved.
  Finally, to those who wish for Israel to give up land and withdraw 
from territories, please remember, that is exactly what Israel did in 
Gaza. They withdrew all their forces, and what have they gotten in 
return? Tens of thousands of rockets.
  So to those who are pushing a peace plan in the Middle East between 
the Palestinians and the Israelis, I hope you remember security for 
Israel has to be the centerpiece of any peace deal. How can you obtain 
peace when one of the members of the Palestinian Government--Hamas--has 
fired thousands of rockets, caring less where they fall? They couldn't 
care less if it falls on a kindergarten or a military base. They just 
care to kill Israelis. Israelis have killed civilians, but they go the 
extra mile in time of war and conflict to minimize casualties. They 
tell them: We are going to bomb you. They pass out leaflets. They tell 
people to leave. That says a lot about the Israelis.
  So the Senate is in Israel's camp in a bipartisan fashion.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to continue on this topic.
  In the last few hours, we have now had word of the potential for 
ground operations occurring in Gaza.
  This is addressed to those who are watching Florida or will watch 
this message in Florida about what has happened.
  I know the world has become a messy place over the last few hours. We 
have an incident that occurred over the skies of Ukraine with the 
Malaysian aircraft, and we don't know all the details of what had 
occurred there. We should reserve judgment until we do. Suffice it to 
say, that may further complicate our view of the world in this Chamber 
over the next few weeks, but let me address for a moment what is 
happening in the Middle East.
  When I was elected to the Senate, a few days later, the first trip I 
took was to Israel. It was a country I had long admired, with strong 
links to the United States and to Florida in particular. In fact, the 
current Israeli Ambassador to the United States is from Florida. His 
brother was the mayor of Miami Beach. So there are strong links between 
Florida and Israel. I was amazed on that trip by how far that country 
has come--a nation that doesn't have oil or the kind of massive 
resources from an energy perspective that other countries in the region 
do, yet a country that is flourishing because of their investment in 
technology and innovation.
  There is a book called ``Start-Up Nation,'' which chronicles the 
amazing miracle of Israel and what they have achieved. The one thing 
that strikes you about Israel as you fly over is how narrow it is. At 
its narrowest point, it is only 9 miles wide.
  This is a country that was forged, by the way, in the aftermath of 
the Holocaust, with the notion that never again will the Jewish people 
not have a place to go in the world to call their own. That still 
remains the guiding principle behind the country and behind its defense 
forces, and we should view it within that context as we view what is 
occurring now in that region and part of the world.
  Literally, Israel is surrounded by enemies. Certainly they have had 
the stability in the last two decades of peace agreements with Jordan 
and Egypt. But look everywhere around Israel and you see them 
surrounded by people who are intent on their destruction. We know that 
is the case in Gaza. We know that is the case in Samaria and Judea or 
what is commonly called the West Bank by some. We know that is the case 
with Assad and Syria, and many of the elements fighting within Syria. 
We know that is the case with Hezbollah and Lebanon. We know that is 
the case with Iran and its weapons programs and its long-term 
ambitions. This is a country surrounded by elements that want to 
destroy it.
  It is in that context, by the way, that this government in Israel was 
involved

[[Page S4610]]

in an intensive process of negotiation brokered and led by the United 
States with the Palestinian President Abbas regarding a potential peace 
deal, some way of forging a solution, an answer to the conundrum of 
what to do with Palestinian populations that would allow them to live 
peacefully, coexist side by side with a Jewish State. They entered into 
this conversation despite the fact that it was never clear that Abbas 
was able or had the power or the influence to make the sort of tough 
decisions that were going to be required for peace.

  In fact, they entered into the negotiation knowing they would not 
even speak for all Palestinians, given the fact that Hamas controlled 
the Gaza Strip. They entered into this negotiation nonetheless. They 
entered into this negotiation despite the chaos surrounding them in 
Lebanon and Syria. Despite the fact that Iran continues to pursue 
nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, potentially, they entered into these 
negotiations. Because I say this to you unequivocally: I know of no 
nation on Earth that wants peace more than Israel. So they entered into 
these negotiations.
  And what happened? What happens is what always happens with these 
negotiations. What happened is Abbas eventually withdrew. He once again 
took himself out of the talks and he tried once again to seek 
membership--Palestinian membership--into all these sorts of national 
organisms of the state, as a country of its own, knowing that was a 
deal breaker and knowing if that occurred, there could be no peace 
negotiation. That is the route he chose, nonetheless.
  But then he did what I believe has triggered this latest round of 
violence against Israel, and that is deciding to form a power-sharing 
government with a terrorist group by the name of Hamas that to this day 
continues to deny Israel's right to even exist.
  I want you to think about that for a moment. How could you possibly 
ever enter into a peace agreement with an organization with its very 
purpose being your destruction? And yet that is what Israel was being 
asked to do.
  Tragically, within several weeks of that new government being formed, 
three teenagers, including an American citizen, were kidnapped and they 
were murdered. Then on July 7 Hamas once again started raining down 
rockets on Israel. Today more than 1,300 of them have been fired. The 
good news is that Israel has invested heavily in an air defense system 
which I was able to see during my second visit to Israel in the early 
part of 2013. But 1,300 rockets is an extraordinary number, and that is 
what Israel has faced.
  As American policymakers, you ask what is our interest there? And I 
think it begins with the unique relationship that exists between the 
United States and Israel. It is the only vibrant democracy in that part 
of the world. Its alliance with the United States is unquestionable, 
not just in international forums but all over this planet. Israel is 
consistently on America's side time and again, in every one of our 
challenges. The cooperation between our countries is extraordinary, not 
to mention that Israel as a nation stands for everything that we as a 
nation believe in: freedom, the ability to speak out. They have a 
vibrant democratic process. Anyone who is familiar with Israeli 
politics knows how vibrant their democracy is and how much they engage 
in open and public debate in bringing their government together to 
govern the country. So we have this extraordinary alliance with Israel 
of incredible importance, and that is why we care. That is the 
political reason.
  There is a moral reason behind it, and that is the right of the 
Jewish people to have a country they can live in peacefully; that truly 
never again will we face a time when Jews have nowhere to go. This is 
the commitment we have made to Israel and that we must keep.
  I must say that I am and have been deeply troubled at the attitude 
this administration has adopted toward Israel. Let me be clear. I don't 
come here today to create this into a partisan issue. I don't want it 
to be a partisan issue. In fact, one of the great successes of American 
foreign policy with Israel has been the strong bipartisan support that 
Israel enjoys in the House and the Senate from almost every American 
President since Israel's founding at the conclusion of World War II.
  But I am concerned about the position this administration is taking. 
I was concerned about the amount of pressure the Secretary of State was 
placing on the Israelis to enter into a negotiation with the 
Palestinian Authority which didn't have the authority or power to reach 
a peace agreement they could possibly enforce much less deliver on. I 
was concerned that pressure was being put on them at a time when Israel 
faced so many other challenges, No. 1 being the ambitions that Iran has 
to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range rockets that could strike 
Israel and eventually the mainland of the United States.
  I think it is safe to say the relationship of the Israeli Government 
has never been worse toward an American President for more than 2 
decades. And that has an impact on this region, and unfortunately it 
has had an impact here.
  I have also been concerned about some of this moral equivalence that 
is going on in the press and some of the email I have been getting and 
some of the public statements I am hearing some make in some 
corridors--not in the Senate but some other places. The idea that both 
sides are to blame is an interesting concept, but it isn't true.
  It is tragic, unfortunately, that civilians are dying in Gaza, but 
the reasons why civilians are dying is 100 percent Hamas's fault. This 
is an organization that puts rockets and military installations right 
next to nurseries and hospitals and civilian population centers. Why 
would they do that? Do you know why they do that? They do that because 
they know when they launch a rocket Israel will respond by hitting that 
rocket launcher, and when that rocket launcher is destroyed, so are the 
areas around it. Then they can get the cameras to go in there and say: 
``Look what Israel did. They wiped out a nursery or apartment 
building.''
  They do that on purpose. They know exactly what they are doing. They 
are doing it so they can get the kind of coverage that unfortunately 
even some American press outlets are buying into now.
  Here is the bottom line--and Senator Graham was alluding to this a 
moment ago. Israel does extraordinary things with regard to this. They 
drop leaflets into population centers warning: We are going to have to 
conduct a military operation in your region. Please evacuate. Please go 
elsewhere where you will be safe.
  Hamas doesn't do that. In fact, Hamas deliberately targets population 
centers to terrorize the people of Israel, and we should condemn it for 
what it is. There is no moral equivalency.
  So now the situation has continued to spiral out of control and it 
has reached a point where the news today now is that Israel has begun 
to conduct ground operations and these ground operations they are 
conducting as early as this morning have to do with a tunnel network in 
Gaza which was used by Hamas to try to infiltrate terrorists through 
those tunnels into Israel to conduct terrorist activity and kill 
Israelis.

  Put yourself in the position of this country, small and 
geographically isolated, surrounded by terrorist groups and some 
unfriendly countries, threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear 
weapon and being hit by 1,300 rockets in just the last week. They have 
no choice but to defend themselves using all the power at their 
disposal. They have no choice. Not only should no one here be 
criticizing that, but we should be supporting it and aligning ourselves 
100 percent on their side, because what they are fighting for here is 
not some dispute over borders. This is not some geopolitical dispute 
about who owns what territory. Israel is fighting for its very 
survival.
  On the other side of this conflict is a terrorist organization bent 
on their destruction. On the other side of this conflict is a terrorist 
organization in Hamas and, truth be told, the Palestinian Authority, 
whose schools teach children not just to hate Israel but to hate Jews.
  How could you possibly say you are for peace when your schools are 
actively teaching your children to hate another people? That is what is 
on the other side of this conflict.
  And so Israel has no choice. They are fighting for their very 
survival, and I

[[Page S4611]]

think that now more than ever what they need from this country is a 
President and a U.S. Government that aligns itself squarely on their 
side--no doubletalk, no fancy diplomatic language that you could read 
between the lines on--a very clear statement: In this conflict we are 
on Israel's side and we will support them with anything they need to 
ensure their stability and their survival--very clear language that 
makes it unequivocal.
  Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a legitimate representative of 
the aspirations of the Palestinian people, but a terrorist organization 
designed for the very purpose of destroying the Jewish state. We need 
to make these things abundantly clear, because otherwise we are going 
to see more of this in the years to come.
  If there is any daylight between the United States and Israel, it 
emboldens Israel's enemies. I would say as bad as this situation is--
and it is terrible--the biggest danger facing Israel today is not just 
1,300 rockets that have come over from Hamas, it is the threat of a 
nuclear Iran. It is interesting that while we are having this 
conversation here today about the attack Israel is under, this 
administration is trying to get an extension of these talks with the 
Iranian regime.
  I hope you clearly understand. I said this before and I want to come 
here and reiterate: If Iran is allowed to retain the ability of 
enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium, they will build a nuclear 
weapon with that capacity. Let me put it in plain English. If you let 
them keep the machines they use to reprocess and enrich, they may not 
reprocess and enrich to weapons grade right away, but the fact they 
have the ability to do it I guarantee you eventually means they will.
  Do you know how I know that? One reason is all you have to do is hear 
the speeches they give. The second reason why we know that is the other 
issue no one is talking about: Iran isn't just spinning centrifuges, 
they are not just enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium. Iran is 
building rockets--long-range rockets, intercontinental missiles. And 
there is only one purpose for those missiles. The only purpose they 
have is to put a warhead on them with a nuclear payload. That is the 
only reason why you build missiles such as that. These types of 
missiles are not built to deliver a conventional weapon; they are built 
for purposes of a nuclear capability.
  Additionally, these rockets they want to build aren't just rockets 
that can reach Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. These are rockets that can reach 
Washington, DC, and my hometown of Miami, and New York City, and the 
mainland of the United States. So if they build these missiles with 
that range and they develop the ability to enrich and reprocess, they 
are one step away, a half step away from becoming a nuclear power, able 
to hold our country hostage and to carry out their ambitions of 
destroying Israel. That is the single greatest threat. As great as this 
threat is with Hamas, and needs to be dealt with decisively, that is 
the single greatest security threat facing Israel.
  It is ironic to me that even as we are focused on this issue and what 
is happening, this administration is off in Geneva trying to cut a deal 
with Iran that allows them to retain an acknowledged right to enrich 
and reprocess, and that is going to prove to be disastrous.
  It is my opinion those negotiations will lead to nothing, because 
Iran has entered into these negotiations believing they entered from a 
position of strength. They believe this President so badly wants a deal 
that they don't have to give on anything. By the way, I don't know how 
you do a meaningful deal with Iran on nuclear weapons that doesn't 
involve a conversation about these long-range rockets. Yet that is 
exactly what they are doing with little to no consultation with the 
Senate or any other policymakers.

  I came to the floor to reiterate my personal support for Israel but 
to also reiterate how strongly I believe virtually every Member of this 
body supports the State of Israel, supports Israel's right to defend 
itself, supports the United States alliance with Israel, supports 
everything we must and can do to help Israel defend herself. I think 
that is an important message to send out.
  Finally, I would say this: I would ask those who have watched this 
speech or who will hear these words later to take the time over the 
next few days to pray for Israel. They need our support there as well, 
that God will provide her the safety and security of her people, now 
and in the years to come.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). 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.

                          ____________________